Non-binary identities are valid

[d4m10n]

A person’s sex is very relevant to others in many situations.

Such as?

Dating, perhaps?

Locker rooms with communal showers?

Recruiting for the WNBA?

 

[Belz...]

Sure, but the reason why a child's sex is recorded is for the purposes of gender; what is recorded may have -- depenindg on jurisdiction -- inplications on how inheritence is divided, on whether someone is allowed to vote or who one is allowed to marry.

So why are western states still recording it?

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Evidently today is #NonBinaryPeoplesDay on Twitter.

Fascinating cross-section of folx, IMO.

Yeh, as in morbidly fascinating.

 

[Earthborn]

So why are western states still recording it?

Mainly tradition. Though some countries are a bit farther ahead when it comes to elimination of sex and/or gender in the law.

 

[Belz...]

Mainly tradition. Though some countries are a bit farther ahead when it comes to elimination of sex and/or gender in the law.

Have you considered the possibility that it's actually useful information, instead?

 

[shuttlt]

Sure, but the reason why a child's sex is recorded is for the purposes of gender; what is recorded may have -- depenindg on jurisdiction -- inplications on how inheritence is divided, on whether someone is allowed to vote or who one is allowed to marry.

Doesn't this go back to when gender and sex meant the same thing?

 

[Belz...]

Doesn't this go back to when gender and sex meant the same thing?

More to the point: it seems really hard to pin down exactly what "gender" means now. My recent attempts have been unsuccessful.

 

[theprestige]

Sure, but the reason why a child's sex is recorded is for the purposes of gender; what is recorded may have -- depenindg on jurisdiction -- inplications on how inheritence is divided, on whether someone is allowed to vote or who one is allowed to marry.

The problem is easily avoidable. As more and more modern countries decide that discrimination based on gender/sex is to be avoided, there is less and less reason to bother recording sex on birth certificates.

There are biological differences between the sexes. Hormone balances. Characteristic pathologies. Unique organs.

Even if you got rid of gender discrimination completely, there'd still be an absolute need to record sex, and to practice sex discrimination.

Here's what happens when you think sex no longer needs to be recorded, and gender can be whatever you say it is:

https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/elizabethroberts/wp-content/uploads/sites/89/2019/05/classification.pdf

A woman shows up at the ER requiring urgent medical attention for pregnancy complications. But she presents as a man and her medical records indicate her sex is male. So the admitting nurse triaged her as a man, with non-urgent abdominal discomfort. It was several hours before an ER physician got around to examining her and discovering that her situation was a lot worse than previously assumed. If her medical records had been accurate, she would have gotten the urgency her condition called for.

The most bizarre part of this story, to me, is that the patient didn't think to tell the admitting nurse that she was a woman and might be pregnant. She was apparently so committed to living her personal truth that she had forgotten it wasn't actually true. It's bizarre to me because she must have known she still had a fully operational uterus. And at some point in the previous nine months she must have undergone some kind of insemination procedure. She had recently been living as a woman, and it can't possibly have slipped her mind that for medical purposes she was in fact a woman. Can it?

 

[Earthborn]

Have you considered the possibility that it's actually useful information, instead?

I have considered it, but I don't see how it is any more useful than the registration at birth of religion or race, as some countries do.

Doesn't this go back to when gender and sex meant the same thing?

Yes, there have been many attempts at making them mean the same thing and making it taboo to point out how they are different.

More to the point: it seems really hard to pin down exactly what "gender" means now.

Trying to "pin down" a fluid concept is where you go wrong.

 

[Belz...]

I have considered it, but I don't see how it is any more useful than the registration at birth of religion or race, as some countries do.

Theprestige has already noted a number of uses.

Trying to "pin down" a fluid concept is where you go wrong.

What do you mean by fluid? Do you mean that the definition is currently changing? Or that gender itself is complex? Or what?

 

[theprestige]

I have considered it, but I don't see how it is any more useful than the registration at birth of religion or race, as some countries do.

Yes, there have been many attempts at making them mean the same thing and making it taboo to point out how they are different.

Trying to "pin down" a fluid concept is where you go wrong.

There's nothing fluid about the distinction between testes and ovaries.

 

[Belz...]

There's nothing fluid about the distinction between testes and ovaries.

Yeah but I was talking about gender. Apparently it's completely distinct from biological sex but I can never get a precise definition of what it is. Invariably I get the definition of gender identity or gender presentation or gender role, but not gender itself.

It's almost as if there's no actual distinction.

 

[theprestige]

I have considered it, but I don't see how it is any more useful than the registration at birth of religion or race, as some countries do.

Christianity is a religious belief.

Blood type is a scientific fact.

Do you think biological sex is more like a religious belief, or more like a scientific fact?

 

[theprestige]

Yeah but I was talking about gender. Apparently it's completely distinct from biological sex but I can never get a precise definition of what it is. Invariably I get the definition of gender identity or gender presentation or gender role, but not gender itself.

It's almost as if there's no actual distinction.

Ah, my bad. Thanks for the correction. I was still thinking about the need to record the actual sex of a person for medical reasons.

 

[Earthborn]

There are biological differences between the sexes. Hormone balances. Characteristic pathologies. Unique organs.

Sure. None of which is the government's business.

Here's what happens when you think sex no longer needs to be recorded, and gender can be whatever you say it is:

Registering biological sex in a medical record does not require it putting it on someone's birth certificate and they do not always match. It is quite likely in the example you gave, this person still has an F on his birth certificate and the M on the medical record is there mainly to inform hospital staff how to adress patients. An extra checkbox for "cis" or "trans" might be useful.

 

[Belz...]

Sure. None of which is the government's business.

What is and is not the gov's business is also pretty fluid.

Registering biological sex in a medical record does not require it putting it on someone's birth certificate and they do not always match.

Not always match with what?

 

[Ziggurat]

Sure, but the reason why a child's sex is recorded is for the purposes of gender;

Says who?

what is recorded may have -- depenindg on jurisdiction -- inplications on how inheritence is divided, on whether someone is allowed to vote or who one is allowed to marry.

Not in the US, it isn't. I doubt it is in Germany either. And I also doubt that where it DOES matter for those issues they take the ideas of "gender identity" as different than biological sex seriously to begin with.

The problem is easily avoidable.

It hasn't been established that it is a problem.

As more and more modern countries decide that discrimination based on gender/sex is to be avoided, there is less and less reason to bother recording sex on birth certificates.

Even supposing we stop recording that, it still has **** all to do with this nonsensical notion that doctors "assign" gender. That isn't what happens.

 

[Ziggurat]

Registering biological sex in a medical record does not require it putting it on someone's birth certificate and they do not always match.

Cases where biological sex is inaccurately determined at birth are exceptionally rare. They are not driving the transgender and gender identity debates.

 

[theprestige]

Sure. None of which is the government's business.

If the government is providing and regulating healthcare it sure is.

Registering biological sex in a medical record does not require it putting it on someone's birth certificate and they do not always match. It is quite likely in the example you gave, this person still has an F on his birth certificate and the M on the medical record is there mainly to inform hospital staff how to adress patients. An extra checkbox for "cis" or "trans" might be useful.

The birth certificate is often the original source of truth for other medical records.

And a checkbox that accurately reflects the biological sex of the patient is probably the most useful thing.

Do you really believe the purpose of the biological sex field on the form is to advise the medical staff on how to address the patient? Do you really believe that is the path to good medical outcomes?

Also, if gender is so fluid, then how can their stated gender possibly contain reliable information about how they should be addressed? Isn't it presumptuous to assume that because a person has an "M" on their chart, they want to be addressed as "Sir"?

Also, is it really a good idea to burden medical staff with all the complexities and nuances of personal pronouns? Shouldn't medical records serve to clear the doctor's mind of irrelevancies, and help them to focus on what actually matters to the health of the patient?

 

[theprestige]

Not always match with what?

I think he's saying that sex on the birth certificate and sex on the medical record don't always match (and therefore putting sex on the birth certificate is not important anymore).