A Dutch court denied a legal request by Emile Ratelband, the 69-year-old Dutch man who sued to legally lower his age by 20 years in November.
The court rejected Ratelband's bid after determining that the move would cause myriad legal issues and complications.
What's the background?
In November, Ratelband went public with his lawsuit over his attempt to change his age.
Ratelband reasoned that because people are permitted to change their genders and names, he should be able to legally become a 49-year-old man instead of a 69-year-old one.
Ratelband, who is a Dutch motivational speaker and media personality in the Netherlands, said that he has several reasons behind his rationale, like having better luck on the dating scene.
In an interview, Ratelband said, "When I am 69, I am limited. 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," he continued, "I don't get an answer. When I'm 49, with the face I have, I will be in a luxurious position."
Ratelband reasoned, "You can change your name. You can change your gender. Why not your age?"
Ratelband, who called himself a "young god," said that he feels his age should match his physique, which he believes appears much younger than 69 years.
On Monday, a Dutch court rejected Ratelband's bid to magically become 20 years younger.
In a news statement, Arnhem court said, "Mr. Ratelband is at liberty to feel 20 years younger than his real age and to act accordingly. But amending his date of birth would cause 20 years of records to vanish from the register of births, deaths, marriages, and registered partnerships.
The statement added, "This would have a variety of undesirable legal and societal implications."
The court ruling said that Dutch law assigns rights and obligations — "such as the right to vote and the duty to attend school" — and ruling in his favor would render such age requirements obsolete and "meaningless."
The court also noted that there is a "trend in society for people to feel fit and healthy for longer, but did not regard that as a valid argument for amending a person's date of birth."
The ruling also went on to add that if Ratelband really wants to combat age discrimination, "there are other alternatives" than attempting to change one's date of birth.