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 Onerous and outdated standards for court-ordered gender changes created unfair and damaging barriers that disproportionately impacted trans people of color, immigrant trans people,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.