Post by billy bookcasePost by Jon RibbensPost by billy bookcasePost by Jon RibbensWhile what you're saying is sort of true, as far as I can tell
the way Gender Recognition Certificates work is that they are
indistinguishable from birth certificates, i.e. when you show one
to someone they have no way of knowing that it is a Gender
Recognition Certificate rather than a Birth Certificate. So for
almost all purposes, a person can indeed effectively have two
"birth certificates".
But wouldn't someone have to sign at tbe bottom, saying these
details are corresct * as of a certain date *. ?
Yes, at the bottom it says "Certified to be a true copy of an entry
in a register in my custody <signature of registrar> <date of copy>".
But how can it be a "true copy", if the gender on the original
Certificate has been changed ?
Because nothing has been changed. It is a "true copy" of an entry
in the *gender recognition* register. As I said, it doesn't specify
anywhere on it which register it's from, and you can't infer it from
any of the information on it, including the dates.
Post by billy bookcaseAnd that fact isn't at least acknowleged. And the date of the
change noted ?
Indeed. That's deliberate, of course. The *whole point* is that
it's nobody else's business that the same individual used to be
considered legally a different gender to the one they have now.
Post by billy bookcasePost by Jon RibbensYou'll note it's *the date of the copy* not the date of the birth.
So it's not at all surprising if the "birth" certificate you show
someone is dated many years after your actual birth - you may have
never had a copy of your birth certificate dated near your birth,
or you or your parents may have lost it in the years since. Also
it says "an entry in my register" not "an entry in my register of
births", so it's non-specific as to whether it's from the birth or
gender recognition registers.
(I am looking at a copy of my own birth certificate for reference
here, which is dated a few days after my birth and was clearly
created by hand on a typewriter, and even has a price shown in
pounds, shillings, and pence - overtyped by a series of 'x's -
even though it was some years after Decimal Day. My point being
that none of this is new or as a result of changes caused by the
Gender Recognition Act.)
But none of the details on your Birth cerificate had been
changed, had they ?
No. Well, except the price, as mentioned. Your point is...?
Post by billy bookcasePost by Jon RibbensPost by billy bookcaseOtherwise wouldn't that render any relevant documents signed by
the person prior to the change, open to to a possible claim for
misreprentation ?
I don't know what you're getting at there.
In the case of sex change, rather than a mistaken entry. Supposing
somebody changes their sex on OCT 20th 2003. Say from Male to Female
Unless their "Birth Certificate" records the date of the change
then if they were obtaining higher wages by virtue of being males
at any time prior to that date then it wouild be open to their employers
to claim they were defrauding their employers by virtue of actually
being famale as confirmed by their "original Birth Cerificate".
So the employer would be admitting in writing to breaking the law by
comitting direct discrimination? And the gains of this "fraud", were
that not an obviously nonsensical idea, would be what the person was
legally entitled to anyway?
Post by billy bookcasePost by Jon RibbensPost by billy bookcaseOne thing that does emerge is that *subsequent* corrections
(not that there should ever be any need, but that another
question ) don't seem to get sufficient emphasis, Just a small
note. Whereas possibly all such corrected Cerificates should
have maybe a coloured border and the incorrect entry ringed
and the amendement in larger type.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here either.
As per the original article
But Bingham said this is not enough. People reading a birth certificate
might easily miss a tiny note in the margin
Legal advice has confirmed that issuing a certificate without
including the marginal note following a correction to the entry
in the birth register is not compliant with the law, they stated.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/19/baby-girl-registered-wrong-sex-mansfield-registration-office
There's nothing to indicate that they've even seen such a marginal
amendment, and are just assuming. The law (the Births and Deaths
Registration Act 1953 s29) just says "an entry in the margin",
with nothing about its size or colour. Presumably a big circle
around the erroneous part of the register is not allowed, but the
parents can of course easily point the amendment out to anyone who
needs to see it - which basically means only the Passport Office,
because after that very few people are likely to ever need to see
the birth certificate ever again.