If Our Age is Really Just a Number, Why Can’t we Change It?

One man’s lawsuit poses a very interesting idea

In 2018 a Dutch gentleman decided that he had had enough of age discrimination and brought suit in local court in Arnhem, Netherlands in order to legally change his age.

Although ultimately unsuccessful, the idea of changing one’s age has a certain amount of merit and appeal. After all, people are frequently heard saying things like, “Age is just a number” to reflect that the subtraction problem that produces the difference between today’s date and our birth date can have no real bearing on how we feel and act.

So why can’t we change the numbers in the subtraction equation? It makes some sense. Especially so today when we can change our name and gender, both of which people have argued successfully to prove establish part of our identity. Doesn’t age constitute some of our identity as well?

I have to say that I came across the article referencing Mr. Ratelband’s suit from another article listing a series of “Ridiculous Court Cases”. While someone suing because they didn’t understand that there was sugar in jellybeans might certainly fall into the ridiculous category, I am not so sure that Mr. Ratelband’s case does.

A writer I follow, Julia E Hubbel writes a bit about age, and often maintains that the way that we feel, and act, is a product of hard work and dedication, not just a fated destiny that we have to accept. That being the case, why is so much credence given to the age number?

An obvious solution to the problem of having age define us and, to some extent, describe our identity is to be able to change our age to match who we truly are.

I have read many stories about people that leave the workforce early and have a tough time getting another job simply based on that math problem outcome: our age. Mr. Ratelband’s image from the BBC news article shows a vibrant looking gentleman that might easily pass for 49 rather than 69; and his suit sought to ask for the right to do just that.

Many of us look and act differently than the mathematical difference between two calendar dates, and it seems like there should be a way express the true “age” of a person by some other definition.

Part of the court’s argument in dismissing Ratelbrand’s case was the idea that if someone could legally become younger, so too then, someone could legally become older. The worry there was that many restrictions on activities are base on age. For instance, in the United States, persons under 21 cannot legally drink alcohol of any kind.

The Dutch court’s thinking was that if age changing precedent was set, that people that had not achieved the requisite age to qualify for such things as voting, driving, and drinking might seek to vault their age forward in order to do so.

While there is certainly some logic in the idea that people need to be mature and responsible enough to handle and accept the responsibility that comes with certain rights, age hasn’t ever actually been a good demarcation of mature versus immature, or responsible versus not.

Any of us can think of a 33-year-old that is far too irresponsible to drink yet can do so legally because of age. While we can likely also think of an 18-year-old that is responsible enough to handle having that legal right. Clearly their respective math problem results aren’t indicative of their true “age” in relation to how they act.

There is no doubt that ageism is one of the more insidious ways in which we discriminate. While the overt examples of smart and capable people with the wrong age “number” unable to find employment (even in times of a strong labor market and low overall unemployment) are everywhere, so too are the harder to detect signs that often on the surface might seem positive or endearing, but camouflage a version of ageism.

One that upset me as a first responder was some of my co-workers’ tendencies to address women of a certain age as “dear”. While I think that most of them were genuinely attempting to be kind, they failed to realize the stigma that comes with being just anyone’s “dear” or “sweetheart”.

Not just limited to women, “sport” and “old-timer” get used as well with impunity because society endorses such behavior as normal.

I am pretty sure that inside, many of them were thinking that they really didn’t want to be a dear or a sport, but rather a vibrant soul that was ready to kick some serious ass in the world. Yet, as a function of having a number assigned to us, we often prematurely get defined as something we aren’t.

So, I have to nod my acknowledgment to Mr. Ratelbrand. I completely empathize with his disgust as being cast in a role he feels does not fit who he is solely based on a number. In fact, I think there is nothing weird, silly or frivolous about his lawsuit at all.

Rather, I think he has given us all some significant food for thought about what makes us who we are as humans, and how we treat other people.

If you are someone like Julia E Hubbel or Helen Cassidy Page (whom Julia points out as similarly minded in one of her articles) and many of the rest of us that work diligently to keep their mind, body and soul as fit as possible. Why should anyone be able to hold up a number to us and say, “You sure look good for XX”?

Why can’t we tell you what number we are?

If you liked this article, you may also like:

Timothy Key spent over 26 years in the fire service as a firefighter/paramedic and various fire chief management roles. He firmly believes that bad managers destroy more than companies, and good managers create a passion that is contagious. Compassion, grace and gratitude drive the world; or at least they should. Follow me on Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter, and join the mail list.