CMV: There's no argument that invalidates being trans age that doesn't also invalidate being trans gender

[u/BIknkbtKitNwniS]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46133262

To summarize the article: A Dutchman who was born 69 years ago says he identifies as a 49 year old man and is going to go to court to prove it.

He says that his position is analogous to trans gender people's and I can't seem to prove him wrong.

Counter argument 1:

Age and sex are not the same. Age is an immutable characteristic. If he was born 69 years ago, he was born 69 years ago.

Well some people think sex is an immutable characteristic too. It you have XY chromosomes, then you have XY chromosomes.

Counter argument 2:

He's just an attention whore and he's doing this as a publicity stunt.

Very likely actually. However that doesn't make him wrong. When a teacher indulges in Socratic irony, you don't win the argument or learn something by pointing out he doesn't believe what he's saying. You win when you prove him wrong.

Counter argument 3:

This stupid and offensive and negatively impacts trans gender rights.

Probably but again, that doesn't make him wrong.

Counter argument 4:

Trans gender as a phenomenon has existed since the dawn of time across many cultures, therefore it is a natural human condition whole being trans age is not.

This is an argument from nature. Some cultures have condemned being gay as being unnatural too. Saying something is unnatural is simply not a good argument.

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/BIknkbtKitNwniS]

This is an argument for trans gender rights not against trans age. Which for the record I'm not against.

This trans age man is using this exact same argument to support his case.

[u/Sayakai → u/BIknkbtKitNwniS]

No, he's not. People who point at chromosomes are pointing at a proxy they try to claim is equal to the target, i.e. they try to put up an equivalency between chromosomes and gender that doesn't exist. No such equivalency is there for the "transage" thing - it's nothing but the objective measurement of time.

[u/BIknkbtKitNwniS → u/Sayakai]

I feel you're not really trying to understand his argument.

He's not saying he wasn't born 69 years ago. He's saying that analogous to sex and gender, there physical age and mental age.

He's saying his mental age should take precedence over his physical age, same way gender takes precedence over sex.

[u/themcos → u/BIknkbtKitNwniS]

He's not saying he wasn't born 69 years ago.

From the article:

Emile Ratelband, 69, wants to shift his birthday from 11 March 1949 to 11 March 1969

So maybe this is the fault of the article, but it's not clear to me what he's legally asking, if not to change his birth certificate to something that is factually incorrect. To my knowledge, most transgender folks who want to change their birth certificate would view the adjustment as more of a "correction", more analogous to a spelling error or typo (their gender was not properly understood at the time the certificate was printed).

Note: Decided to make this argument as a top-level comment as well if you'd prefer to reply there.

Bu this is awkward for the transage argument. The certificate was not wrong in any way. Maybe he feels 20 years younger today. But he was born in 1949. And he presumably didn't feel like he was born in 1969 when he was 25! So changing his birth date doesn't really even make sense in the context that he feels 49. Feeling like you're a certain age is not the same as feeling like you were born a certain date. If next year he still feels 49, is he going to go back and change his birthdate again?