You can legally change your name, your gender, so why not your age?

[Deux Corbeaux]

Dutch man, 69, starts legal fight to identify as 20 years younger

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-years-younger

A 69-year-old Dutch “positivity guru” who says he does not feel his age has started a battle to make himself legally 20 years younger on the grounds that he is being discriminated against on a dating app.

Emile Ratelband told a court in Arnhem in the Netherlands that he did not feel “comfortable” with his date of birth, and compared his wish to alter it to people who identified as transgender.

Ratelband said that due to having an official age that did not reflect his emotional state he was struggling to find both work and love. He has asked for his date of birth to be changed from 11 March 1949 to 11 March 1969.

“When I’m 69, I am limited. If I’m 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car,” he said. “I can take up more work. When I’m on Tinder and it says I’m 69, I don’t get an answer. When I’m 49, with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position.”

Doctors had told him his body was that of a 45-year-old man, Ratelband argued. He described himself as a “young god”.

The judge conceded that the ability to change gender was a development in the law. “I agree with you: a lot of years ago we thought that was impossible,” he said. But he asked the applicant how his parents would feel about 20 years of Ratelband’s life being wiped off the records.

“For whom did your parents care? Who was that little boy then?” the judge asked.

Ratelband, a motivational speaker and trainer in neurolinguistic programming, said his parents were dead.

He also said he was willing to renounce his right to a pension to ensure there were no unforeseen consequences of his age change.

At the end of a 45-minute court session, Ratelband said: “It is really a question of free will.”

Ratelband’s lawyer, Jan-Hein Kuijpers, said it was high time for the reversal of age.

The public prosecutor in the court asked whether the ability to change a date of birth in the law would require health inspections in the future, to allow the state to correctly judge someone’s “emotional age”.

Kuijpers told the court: “There is also something like common sense, of course.”

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rAEmMWZkR0E

[petra]

I actually find this offensive. I noticed this a couple of days ago on ass-book (I mean Face book)

A "young god"?! HAH. I think not.

I get his point about being discriminated against, but isn't this the same thing as telling people you're rich when you don't have any money?

Sounds a case of narcissism to me. Maybe he should just marry himself.

[Deux Corbeaux]

Posted by petra (here)
I actually find this offensive. I noticed this a couple of days ago on ass-book (I mean Face book)

A "young god"?! HAH. I think not.

I get his point about being discriminated against, but isn't this the same thing as telling people you're rich when you don't have any money?

Sounds a case of narcissism to me. Maybe he should just marry himself.

LOL. I hear you.

How about this one!:
`Why not identify as a 70 year old and demand to retire with pension when you really 22 ?

[petra]

Posted by Deux Corbeaux (here)

How about this one!:
`Why not identify as a 70 year old and demand to retire with pension when you really 22 ?

Oh my god, that's ME! LOL

[Deux Corbeaux]

Ben Shapiro saw it all coming..... “How old are you? Why aren’t you 60?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=5UXqaRrw9lQ

[5th]

"Emile Ratelband told a court in Arnhem in the Netherlands that he did not feel “comfortable” with his date of birth, and compared his wish to alter it to people who identified as transgender."

It's not the same at all. Age is an absolute and scientifically measured in a way accepted by the whole world. He can't change the fact that he IS 69. You might as well say you want to change your height. I could do with being 6" taller and then when I'm on Tinder I'll get the girls...

Next we'll have black people wanting to be white and then it will be people wanting to have three legs.

Maybe he should change his IQ.

[Deux Corbeaux]

Update on Emile Ratelband’s age discrimination.

Sixty-Nine-Year-Old Man Loses Lawsuit To Lower His Age By 20 Years

“We can make our own decisions if we want to change our name, or if we want to change our gender."

A 69-year-old man from the Netherlands was told by a court that he could not legally lower his age by 20 years.

Emile Ratelband told The Washington Post that he feels his "feeling" about his body and mind is that he’s about 40 or 45 despite being born on March 11, 1949. He also claims he received a check-up from a doctor who told him his “biological age is 45 years.”

“We can make our own decisions if we want to change our name, or if we want to change our gender,” Ratelband said. “So I want to change my age.”

The court did not agree, citing that there was no legal basis for the change, according to a statement released by the court.

“The court did not find any reason in Mr Ratelband’s arguments to create new case law in line with the statutory provisions on changes to a person’s officially registered name or gender,” the statement says. “Its main reason was that, unlike the situation with respect to a change in registered name or gender, there are a variety of rights and duties related to age, such as the right to vote and the duty to attend school. If Mr Ratelband’s request was allowed, those age requirements would become meaningless.”

The court acknowledged that some people may feel younger than their age but did not “regard this as a valid argument for amending a person’s date of birth.”

Ratelband also claimed his age has limited him.

“When I’m 69, I am limited,” he said. “If I’m 49, then I can buy a new house, drive a different car. I can take up more work. When I’m on Tinder and it says I’m 69, I don’t get an answer. When I’m 49, with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position.”

However, the court disagreed again, claiming Ratelband could not “sufficiently substantiate his claim that he suffers from age discrimination.”

“Mr Ratelband is at liberty to feel 20 years younger than his real age and to act accordingly,” the court said in a statement, adding, “amending his date of birth would cause 20 years of records to vanish from the register of births, deaths, marriages and registered partnerships. This would have a variety of undesirable legal and societal implications. The priority must be to ensure that the public registers contain accurate factual information.”

Ratelband is unfazed by the court’s decision and plans to appeal.

“This is great!” Ratelband said according to the New York Post. “The rejection of [the] court is great ... because they give all kinds of angles where we can connect when we go in appeal.”

“I say it’s comparable because it has to do with my feeling, with respect about who I think … I am, my identity,” he added.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/38978...s-kassy-dillon

[Clarity]

Posted by 5th (here)
" Age is an absolute and scientifically measured in a way accepted by the whole world. He can't change the fact that he IS 69.

The same argument can be said for gender, you are XX or you are XY.

A person applying for a job in their 60's is most defiantly discriminated against compared to the same person in their 30's or 40's.

[Pam]

The aspect I find interesting is that the guy makes a perfect point. The adoration and bending over for gender issues opens many more doors. No one seems to look at the bigger picture anymore. We have people in prison getting sex changes paid for by tax payers because of the way they identify. Why can't he "identify" any way he wants? Why should people that are older be discriminated against in the job market or the dating market? The arguments are just the same for gender as they are for agism and probably another thousand of isms that I can't even conceive of. If we want to legalize whatever a individual identifies as, we can't "discriminate" can we? Will we soon have folks in prison that identify as being younger getting face lifts and botox at the tax payer expense. Maybe someone will identify as an infant and need state funded child care . It really is a logical conclusion.

[petra]

I for one cannot help discriminating - it's happening automatically in my head - whether I am aware of it or not. For example, I'm not attracted to blondes. Don't know why. Had someone psychoanalyze me, and he told me that maybe it's because blondes are regarded with higher status, and I'm not attracted to them because I secretly feel like I am not good enough to have a blonde boyfriend.

As far as I am concerned, that's probably a load of crap. But my point is, I'm never ever going to date a blond person (no offense, blondies!)

What if we were just to accept it as fact that everybody discriminates.

[Deux Corbeaux]

Posted by peterpam (here)
The aspect I find interesting is that the guy makes a perfect point. The adoration and bending over for gender issues opens many more doors. No one seems to look at the bigger picture anymore. We have people in prison getting sex changes paid for by tax payers because of the way they identify. Why can't he "identify" any way he wants? Why should people that are older be discriminated against in the job market or the dating market? The arguments are just the same for gender as they are for agism and probably another thousand of isms that I can't even conceive of. If we want to legalize whatever a individual identifies as, we can't "discriminate" can we? Will we soon have folks in prison that identify as being younger getting face lifts and botox at the tax payer expense. Maybe someone will identify as an infant and need state funded child care . It really is a logical conclusion.

That's exactly the point Emile wanted to make.

He consequently wanted to postpone his pension for 20 years as well. So it wasn't for financial gain.

[Pam]

Posted by petra (here)
I for one cannot help discriminating - it's happening automatically in my head - whether I am aware of it or not. For example, I'm not attracted to blondes. Don't know why. Had someone psychoanalyze me, and he told me that maybe it's because blondes are regarded with higher status, and I'm not attracted to them because I secretly feel like I am not good enough to have a blonde boyfriend.

As far as I am concerned, that's probably a load of crap. But my point is, I'm never ever going to date a blond person (no offense, blondies!)

What if we were just to accept it as fact that everybody discriminates.

We all discriminate every day. It's funny the way that this word has gotten a really bad reputation. We wouldn't live very long if we didn't discriminate about certain things. The nature of reality is that all of us have things we like and dislike. There are things that are appealing and things that are revolting. Essentially, I believe there is an attempt to program us to believe that any act of discrimination is wrong unless sanctioned by the PC culture (programmed cultur). It seems to be an attempt to have us frown on our own inclinations to make us second guess that small voice that leads us....

Petra, go for the non-blondes and enjoy every minute of it.

[Deux Corbeaux]

Posted by peterpam (here)

Posted by petra (here)
I for one cannot help discriminating - it's happening automatically in my head - whether I am aware of it or not. For example, I'm not attracted to blondes. Don't know why. Had someone psychoanalyze me, and he told me that maybe it's because blondes are regarded with higher status, and I'm not attracted to them because I secretly feel like I am not good enough to have a blonde boyfriend.

As far as I am concerned, that's probably a load of crap. But my point is, I'm never ever going to date a blond person (no offense, blondies!)

What if we were just to accept it as fact that everybody discriminates.

We all discriminate every day. It's funny the way that this word has gotten a really bad reputation. We wouldn't live very long if we didn't discriminate about certain things. The nature of reality is that all of us have things we like and dislike. There are things that are appealing and things that are revolting. Essentially, I believe there is an attempt to program us to believe that any act of discrimination is wrong unless sanctioned by the PC culture (programmed cultur). It seems to be an attempt to have us frown on our own inclinations to make us second guess that small voice that leads us....

Petra, go for the non-blondes and enjoy every minute of it.

We live in the time when people get offended by anything and everything, screaming ´´Discrimination´´, whether it actually is or not.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=E5xDuBBW1bY

[Deux Corbeaux]

What Is Discrimination?
In plain English, to "discriminate" means to distinguish, single out, or make a distinction.
In everyday life, when faced with more than one option, we discriminate in arriving at almost every decision we make. But in the context of civil rights law, unlawful discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain characteristics.

What is Discrimination?

https://www.eoc.org.uk/what-is-discrimination/

Discrimination means treating a person unfairly because of who they are or because they possess certain characteristics. If you have been treated differently from other people only because of who you are or because you possess certain characteristics, you may have been discriminated against.

The Equality Act 2010 highlights 9 protected characteristics:

Age
Gender
Race
Disability
Religion
Pregnancy and maternity
Sexual orientation
Gender reassignment
Marriage and civil partnership

Discrimination that occurs because of one or more of the above characteristics is unlawful under the Equality Act. Considering every person has at least some of these characteristics such as age, race or gender, the Act protects every person from being discriminated against.

If you are treated unfavourably because someone thinks you belong to a particular group of people with protected characteristics, this is also unlawful discrimination.

Types of Discrimination

Discrimination can occur in the following forms:

Direct Discrimination
Under similar circumstances, when a person with a protected characteristic is treated less favourably than others, it is direct discrimination. For example – you have the qualifications and experience necessary for the job but your application is turned down because you are ‘too young’ or ‘too old’.

Indirect Discrimination
If there is a rule or policy in the workplace that puts you at a disadvantage as compared to others, it may be considered indirect discrimination. For example – an organisation includes a clause that forces all employees to work on Sunday. This puts Christians at a particular disadvantage as it is common knowledge that Sunday is a day of worship for Christians.

You have a right to challenge the clause if it affects you directly.

Discrimination by Association
If you are treated unfairly because someone you know or are associated with has a protected characteristic, this may be construed as discrimination by association. For example – you are refused service in a restaurant because you are with someone who belongs to a particular race.

Discrimination by Perception
Receiving unfair treatment because someone thinks you belong to a group with protected characteristics, you may be experiencing discrimination by perception. For example – you are heterosexual but an estate agency refuses to lease out a flat to you because they assume you are gay due to their misconceptions about how gay people look, dress or behave.

Harassment
Harassment comprises of unwanted behaviour that makes another person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated. Unwanted behaviour could include physical gestures, abuse, jokes, spoken or written words or offensive emails and expressions. For example – male gym members passing sexual comments or telling unwelcome jokes within earshot of a female gym member could constitute harassment.

Victimisation
When a person is treated badly or subjected to detriment because they complained about discrimination or supported another victim of discrimination, this may be considered victimisation. For example – you are denied training or advancement avenues at work because you filed a sexual harassment complaint against your boss.

Understanding When And Where You Are Protected From Discrimination

The Equality Act 2010 specifies several situations where you are protected from discrimination. Some of these situations and settings include but are not limited to the following:

- As an employee in any kind of workplace including offices, factories or construction sites amongst others
- As a student or staff in schools, colleges and other educational institutions
- When looking for a place or property to rent or buy a property from estate agents or housing associations
- As a client of a business or organisation that provides services or goods such as banks, shops and utility companies
- When using transport services such as buses, taxis or trains
- As a patient or resident at any healthcare setting including hospitals, private clinics and nursing homes
- When interacting with public bodies such as local authorities and government departments

Special Clauses In The Equality Act 2010 Regarding Disability Discrimination

Under the Act, it is against the law to discriminate against disabled individuals or put them at an unfair disadvantage in educational settings, at work, when renting or buying property or when providing goods, services and other facilities. The only time when disability discrimination is considered legal is if it is possible to justify the action on health and safety grounds or because of unavoidable business reasons.

In the workplace, employers must make reasonable adjustments to the workplace so that disabled workers have access to the all the facilities and benefits as workers who do not have any disability.

Special Clauses In The Equality Act 2010 Regarding Discrimination In The Workplace

The Equality law protects you from being discriminated against at work during every phase of employment, including:

- Recruitment
- Training
- Employment terms and conditions
- Salary and benefits
- Promotion, transfer and other advancement opportunities
- Redundancy
- Dismissal

Understanding When It May Not Be Considered Discrimination

In some instances, it may not be considered unlawful discrimination if someone treats you unfairly on the basis of any of the protected characteristics, provided that they have good enough reason for this unfair treatment and are able to justify the discrimination.

These few examples demonstrate when discrimination may not be considered unlawful:

A construction company requires all applicants for a high-rise construction job to take a series of physical tests. While this might put older applicants at a disadvantage and could be considered as indirect age discrimination, the company is justified as an older worker may not be able to meet the physical rigors of the job.

A shelter for women posts an advertisement for female counsellors only. In this case the employers could escape any potential sex discrimination complaint by arguing that all of their clients are women who have suffered domestic violence by their male partners and they would be reluctant to speak to other men about their experience.

A Roman Catholic school is justified in restricting applications for a job as a scripture teacher to only baptised Catholics.

If an employer turns down an application because a prospective worker insists they be given time off at certain times for religious observance, it could be construed as religious discrimination. However, if the time off coincides with the employer’s business time and all workers are required to be on the job to ensure customer’s orders are met, then the employer may be justified in taking this action by citing the ‘occupational requirements’ clause.

[petra]

I feel bad for this guy if "love" is really what he is after. I'm skeptical though - he sounds like a dick to me! Dick-scrimination (hehe)

Here's another scenario. I prefer older men. Maybe I'm his perfect match (this is hypothetical!) but I just end up ignoring him, because of his fake younger age. If only he had been truthful, we could have had some really stubborn babies together

Sounds like this man is ashamed of his age. If that's true, sooner or later he's going to realize he's being an idiot.