I could see an argument that there should be an optional marker on IDs for gender. If we want sex to remain natal sex on IDs (which I prefer for a host of reasons including medical ones), there will end up being a small group of people who will face problems as a result. Not a ton, sure, but still. Much as I dislike their posting, and much as I acknowledge that the filters are far overused... there's a plausible argument that India Willoughby is passing enough that an ID that only says "M" could present challenges in some settings. Allowing an optional gender marker of "F" would allow the identity-checker to go through the process of "Male? Huh... oh, yes I see, okay, Trans" and just move on with their day.There's no value in it. A marker to say whether this person wears clothes bought from the men's or the women's department? Seriously? T-shirts and hoodies don't always come in male or female in the first place, and even when t-shirts are available in these "women's cut" styles, most women wear the neutral-cut ones as far as I can see. I'm sitting here now in jeans and a hoodie. The jeans were bought as "ladies" because my natural body shape can't wear men's jeans. Some women can and do though. The hoodie is generic. It's very easy to tell that I'm female, by my body shape, my feminine face (and absence of male pattern baldness) and the fact that my trainers are a size 4. That's a European 37, if that helps. What gender marker is supposed to be on my passport? Who would it help?
Not only that, I would strongly object to being compelled to have any such marker. I don't identify as any gender. I wear what I please, I do my hair as I please, and I wear or don't wear makeup as I please. It's easy to see that I'm female, but if you were to say, I see you identify as woman gender, I'd probably clock you one.
In 99% of cases, you don't have to strip anyone down to know what sex they are. We're really, really, really good at accurately sexing people by face alone, especially when we're in person without filters and precise camera angles intended to deceive the observer.
Not sure how to test this claim; most everyone I've known tends to dress and groom themselves fairly consistently either one way or another.Gender isn't actually well correlated with appearance.
It's estimated that there are 12 million transwomen worldwide. Out of a population of 8 billion, a gender marker would address a minor problem encountered by ~0.15% of the population at most.I could see an argument that there should be an optional marker on IDs for gender. If we want sex to remain natal sex on IDs (which I prefer for a host of reasons including medical ones), there will end up being a small group of people who will face problems as a result. Not a ton, sure, but still. Much as I dislike their posting, and much as I acknowledge that the filters are far overused... there's a plausible argument that India Willoughby is passing enough that an ID that only says "M" could present challenges in some settings. Allowing an optional gender marker of "F" would allow the identity-checker to go through the process of "Male? Huh... oh, yes I see, okay, Trans" and just move on with their day.
It would also work the other way, of course. You'd get the Izzards of the world where everyone know that they're male, and having that "F" for optional gender at least allows the identity-checker to say "Ahh, yep, male who slaps on a ton of bad make-up, but still male".
Yup, pretty muchI think this might be the first time I've ever actually seen this meme in action.
You each have your own bathroom sink?You can tell which sink is which because one of them has hair curlers and one of them has an electric head shaver.

If gender correlated with appearance, people wouldn't have to declare preferred pronouns. We could tell their gender just by looking at them. But no, the whole point of preferred pronouns is that it's rude to assume their gender correlates with their appearance.Not sure how to test this claim; most everyone I've known tends to dress and groom themselves fairly consistently either one way or another.
Just to mollify those few who aren't up to speed here... Let's also acknowledge that the correlation/causality issue is in play too. Perverts exist, have always existed, and have always presented a risk to females and to children at a might higher level than they to do males.I can't see how it would ever be possible to get real stats as to the percentage of trans-identified men who are porn addicts, kiddie-fiddlers, exhibitionists, wife-beaters and so on. Most of these creeps have never been arrested or charged. Much of the objectionable behaviour falls short of the actual criminal. The convicted paedophiles and rapists are just the tip of a very nasty iceberg. But the stats we went over before, from Scotland, England and New Zealand I believe, showed that trans-identifying men were four to five times more likely to be imprisoned for sexual offences than other men.
It would be interesting to know what these US stats would look like if you took women out of the BOP population, but since in most jurisdictions there are few incarcerated woman and many incarcerated men, it might not change the result much.
Won't lie, I absolutely LOVE not having to share a sink with my spouse. I have a much cleaner, well organized sink area, with a whole lot less hair products scattered about.You each have your own bathroom sink?![]()
You each have your own bathroom sink?
Could you imagine some Viking horde pillaging, searching for the women, and happening upon that?This is probably the most accurate front cover of a Glamour magazine in years... probably ever...
![]()
.... and wouldn't they be in for a surprise!!Could you imagine some Viking horde pillaging, searching for the women, and happening upon that?

