Federal Judge Tosses Lawsuit Filed By Transgender Females Who Wanted To Have Their Sex Changed On Birth Certificates So They Would Be “Correct”

Image Credit: Public Domain

The Tennessee Conservative [By Kelly M. Jackson] –

Language is everything. Definitions and the documentation of events matter.

In this case, it is a central point and part of the reason a federal judge in Tennessee threw out a lawsuit filed by several transgender females who wanted to have their birth certificates altered to reflect their current gender identity. 

Judge Eli Richardson who was nominated by President Trump to preside over The United States District Court for the Middle Tennessee, and confirmed in 2018, wrote in his decision:

“It seems that there are various reasonable ways to describe what it means to be transgender, and the Court herein uses Plaintiffs’ description (definition), both because it makes sense and because it is, after all, Plaintiffs’ own conception of being transgender that underlies their Amended Complaint. As indicated above, that conception entails a “diverg[ence]” between a person’s gender identity and “the sex they were assigned at birth [on their birth certificate, Plaintiffs apparently mean]. Plaintiffs suggest also a slightly different verbal formulation of what being transgender entails: an “[in]congruen[ce]” between a person’s gender identity and the sex the person was assigned on the person’s birth certificate.”

In other words, using the plaintiff’s own definition of what it means to be transgender, in that there is now a difference between what was determined for that person at birth and the gender which they now identify as an adult. The Plaintiffs in the case predicate their claims on the notion that gender identity determines sex, and not the other way around. Something that at the time a person is born can only be observed since you cannot ask a newborn infant what gender they believe they are. 

 Judge Richardson continued: 

“The Amended Complaint uses the word “correct” rather than “change,” but as discussed below, the Court cannot accept as true the allegation that such a change would be a “correction]. “Correction” suggests that the original action (meaning, here, the designation of sex) was incorrect at the time it was made (meaning, here, at the time the birth certificate is completed). As set forth herein, however, given the limited nature of what the sex designation on a Tennessee birth certificate actually designates, Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged that their sex designation was incorrect at the time the birth certificate was completed. Therefore, in describing herein what it is that Plaintiffs are alleging or requesting, the Court at times paraphrases using the term “change” where Plaintiffs have used the word “correct.””

Again, in layman’s terms, the plaintiffs are saying they want their sex “corrected” implying that at the time of their birth there was some kind of mistake made. This, according to Judge Richardson’s ruling is not true. 

These persons were observed to be biological males at birth, and that fact was correctly documented on their birth certificates. Since there were no mistakes made at the time of their birth and the issuance of their birth certificates, then what the plaintiffs are actually seeking is a “change” to that information, something that cannot be done in the state of Tennessee. 

A person can have certain pieces of information changed on a birth certificate because those items are not predicated on immutable characteristics that can be easily observed at the time of birth like biological sex.

The Tennessee Vital Records Act of 1977 states that “[t]he sex of an individual shall not be changed on the original certificate of birth as a result of sex change surgery.”

The plaintiffs alleged that the Vital Records Act was unconstitutional, and again, Judge Richardson disagreed. 

You can read the entire ruling here.

Ultimately, and also noted in the ruling, is that even when items of information are changed on a birth certificate, they use what is called a “strike-out rule” in that they do not remove the information entirely. They strike out with a visible line the original information and add the new information. Why? Posterity.

About the Author: Kelly Jackson is a recent escapee from corporate America, and a California refugee to Tennessee. Christ follower, Wife and Mom of three amazing teenagers. She has a BA in Comm from Point Loma Nazarene University, and has a background in law enforcement and human resources. Since the summer of 2020, she has spent any and all free time in the trenches with local grassroots orgs, including Mom’s for Liberty Williamson County and Tennessee Stands as a core member.  Outspoken advocate for parents rights, medical freedom, and individual liberty. Kelly can be reached at kelly@tennesseeconservativenews.com.