Tuesday, October 11, 2011

AB 433 and California Birth Certificate Law

There are some inconsistencies in the way the new law in California is being represented. I pulled the following from an activist site and I cannot say I disagree with much of it because discrimination is not something I am in favor of and the financial burdens can be rough for some transsexuals but there are issues with how California has implemented the birth certificate change based primarily on the erroneous claim it matches US Passport Law.

 They are talking about AB 877 which prevents discrimination and AB 433 which in theory simplifies altering your birth certificate to match your new gender. Read the following and my discussion will follow below.


  1. We found that California’s nondiscrimination laws were often not accessible to those who needed them the most. Employers, health care providers, housing authorities – even transgender and gender non-conforming people – were unaware that it is illegal to discriminate against transgender Californians. Our legal rights were hidden within the definition of “gender”, leaving many people in the dark about their rights, and many institutions out of compliance responsibilities. This had an especially severe impact on low income and trans communities of color who tend to face employment discrimination at higher frequencies within transgender communities.

  2. We heard from many transgender people who were unable to change their birth certificates and other identity documents due to financial and medical barriers. Onerous and outdated standards for court-ordered gender changes created unfair and damaging barriers that disproportionately impacted trans people of color, immigrant trans people, low-income trans people and others who could not overcome the many hurdles to securing basic identity documents. These are identity documents we all need to work, travel, and be our authentic selves.
With the help of your input and our partners at Equality California and GSA Network, we came up with two legislative solutions to these problems.
  • The Gender Nondiscrimination Act (AB 887) takes existing protections based on gender and spells out “gender identity and expression” as their own protected categories in our nondiscrimination laws. By making these protections explicit, people will more clearly understand California’s nondiscrimination laws, which should increase the likelihood that employers, schools, housing authorities, and other institutions will work to prevent discrimination and/or respond more quickly at the first indications of discrimination.

  • The Vital Statistics Modernization Act (AB 433) will alleviate the confusion, anxiety and even danger that transgender people face when we have identity documents that do not reflect who we are. The bill will streamline current law and clarify that eligible petitioners living or born in California can submit gender change petitions in the State of California. The Vital Statistics Modernization Act conforms California’s standards to the standards set by the United States Department of State for gender changes on passports, and it makes common-sense changes to the law that ensure the process is simple for qualified petitioners to navigate.

The actual meaning of the new AB 433 Law is found here.

I pulled the following to clarify things.

EXISTING LAW 
Transgender people born in or currently residing in California can submit a petition for a court order recognizing a change of gender and the issuance of a new birth certificate. The current statute states that a gender change petition must be submitted in the jurisdiction of a person’s place of residence, despite the fact that case law has clarified that gender change petitions can also be submitted in the jurisdiction where a person was born. Additionally, current law conflicts with the medical standard applied by the US Passport Agency and current medical understanding of what is required for obtaining identity documents that reflect the appropriate gender.
PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED LAW 
The Vital Statistics Modernization Act would alleviate the confusion, anxiety and even danger that transgender people face when they have identity documents that do not reflect who they are. AB 433 would streamline current law and clarify that eligible petitioners living or born in California can submit a gender change petition in any jurisdiction in the State of California. Neither of these are changes in the law; it is simply a matter of making the process accessible to those who need it. AB 433 would also allow people who were born or live in California to use a simplified process that requires medical certification from an attending physician that the individual has undergone treatment as determined by their physician to correct identification documents to reflect their gender. This change conforms California’s standards to the standards set by the federal Government.



The problem is the US Passport service issues a temporary  two year passport to ease travel for those that are transgender,  they really mean transsexual, which is not how the transgender crowd want to view this. Does this mean the birth certificate in California is a two year temporary document? Well actually if you read the above section it kind of says they must have medical certification and that the existing law, requiring some form of surgery, has NOT been altered or modified.

The real question is if they have not redefined what constitutes a sex change or the documentation required to change the sex/gender on a birth certificate then how does this law allow Sandeen and those like her to obtain a female birth certificate with a penis? It appears those in the transgender movement are trying to blur the real meaning of AB 433 but maybe that is me. In my world stating "it does not change the existing law" means exactly that but somehow they believe it does not.

Based on a post on another blog, Enough Nonsense, where I am barred from commenting, that is weird by itself, one would get the impression California had redefined what a female is and initially I thought that was true until I did my own investigation and research. Not even Jerry Brown would be stupid enough to redefine what female is but it seems many think California and its legislature have done just that.

I have sent out emails asking for clarification from multiple parties involved. I kind of doubt I will receive a response but let us hope I am incorrect.

I will add I did run this by my younger brother who is an Attorney and he believes the initial law that requires valid documentation stands but he is a Massachusetts lawyer and not California.

I figure before I have a rant it might be a good idea to find out what is and is not true. There seems to be a lot of gray here.

12 comments:

Not your friend said...

As I read the actual legislation that was signed it does in fact allow for someone "under treatment" to get their birth certificate changed while they are in transition and before they have the proper and accepted reconstructive surgery.

Funny you should mention Enough Nonsense I'm barred from posting there also.

Elizabeth said...

@NYF

We probably are not approved by Sandeen so EN cannot publish our comments if they are in any way negative toward Sandeen and her pals.

By the way I have received a response, two actually, from the California Assembly Woman that sponsored the bill. I will have a new post when I can find the time.

Not your friend said...

I'm looking forward to the new post.


As for EN, there was enough that went on that I suspected Sandeen did some heavy duty arm twisting. (your boat registration is public and I know who you are Susan... and will post it because I can) I don't believe for 1 minute Susan had a change of heart on her own.

It's awfully chicken to ban us outright, it's her blog and her rep.

Anonymous said...

Well all you have to do NYF is risk your stealth and take resposibility for you posts. I suspect disclosure of your idenity will be compulsory via your IP address in the future.

Brenda Borgue

Elizabeth said...

It is not possible to find anyone from their IP address because the ip address available to everyone if they use a provider is the Internet Service Provider. I realize you are a mental midget based on you little play on words with your anonymous post.

Anonymous said...

@Elizabeth,

I believe the term IP is called Internet Protocol not ISP, and ID's the computer that logs in.

BlackSwan

Not your friend said...

IP addresses?
That is laughable.
Sorry Brenda or whatever your name is, I guess computers are not your field of expertise.
How many unsecured wireless routers are there in your neighborhood?
How many Starbucks or Mc Donald's are there in your neighborhood?
What about proxy servers?

When I post it doesn't say Anonymous at the heading of my posts.
You should practice what you preach missie.

Elizabeth said...

@Black Swan

Actually you are incorrect in your understanding. It is not your IP address that you see on Feedjit or other IP trackers. It is the IP of your ISP or Internet Service Provider.

ISPs provide users with dynamic IP addresses that change constantly and it actually violates the law to provide the Ip and location of the user. There is specialized software that can backtrack to the user IP but you need ISP permission and a court order or be involved as either police or federal officials in an ongoing investigation.

Just for your edification i actually use Remote Desktop to access a server at a server farm that connects to the ISP.

Anonymous said...

Not so..

IP addresses can be static and never change. I have one.

Leigh

Elizabeth said...

@Leigh

Yes they can but most are not. Yours could simply be your business IP address but if you use an ISP such as Time-Warmer or Comcast or any other cable or DSL service you cannot get past the ISP firewall and access who is who. Some allow you to request and receive a static IP address but on the ip scanners one sees on blogs like mine it will go back to the ISP.

It requires very sophisticated software and is a violation of state and federal laws. One can also use an Anonymous proxy server if worried about that. One can only be backtracked if someone uses illegal software and breaks the law or you are your own service provider which several friends of mine are.

One would have to be quite stupid to out oneself that way. Of course one could out oneself like a friend of yours did by posting picks and the name of their boat and talking about being aided by the coast guard which is all a matter of public record.

Despite what you think of me I would never out anyone.

Anonymous said...

"Despite what you think of me I would never out anyone."

Yet you still have the "who's visited" app which in the case of those with static IP's that live in small town america, can out them!

And I dont hold any animosity toward you, and I did appreciate your speaking up when my now ex- friend accused me of outing her over the boat pic.

Elizabeth said...

@Leigh

he who's visited does not show IP addresses and your IP address shows the town where your ISP provider is located.

Unless you run your own ISP basically everyone pays for internet service whether it is a company or an individual. Unless you pay for a direct line such as a T1, T2 or T3 into your home that provides direct access to you and your business you are safe.

I know a little about this since I was involved in several internet start-ups that provided direct access to our trade servers etc..

You are safe.