• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Transwomen are not Women - Part 14

Status
Not open for further replies.
d4m10n said:
Okay, but that argument also militates against having "sex" on the i.d. cards since some folks are tryna look like the opposite sex pretty much of the time.
Click to expand...
d4m10n said:
A male attempting to be seen by the world as female is generally easier to identify. In my experience, you can usually spot cross-dressing even sooner than eye color.
Click to expand...

I'm having some problems reconciling these two statements. They seem to contradict each other.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm having some problems reconciling these two statements. They seem to contradict each other.
Click to expand...
The first one was about sex alone, the second one includes the possibility of knowing gender (from the i.d.) as well.

Again, I'm not seeing an argument against listing both sex (at birth) and gender (at time of issuance).
 
d4m10n said:
Again, I'm not seeing an argument against listing both sex (at birth) and gender (at time of issuance).
Click to expand...

I'm not making one. I think sex as an identifier makes sense. I think gender as an identifier does not.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not making one. I think sex as an identifier makes sense. I think gender as an identifier does not.
Click to expand...

Indeed. If you are looking for a missing person, and you find a body with no ID on it, having sex listed on the missing person's DL is useful - it could eliminate ~50% of the population. Having gender listed is no use at all.
 
d4m10n said:
If an identification document had both sex and gender, it would say "female" for the former and "woman" for the latter if we're talking about butch lesbians who identify as women rather than non-binary.

Assuming furry activists are asking for a special marker on their i.d. cards wouldn't that be a problem for another thread? I'm tempted to address it here, but not all that much.
Click to expand...

Please no new thread! ;)

For claims of gender I'd argue that a person's tattoo generally lasts longer than their claimed "new gender". So any tattoo should be prioritized as an identifier.
Also their preferred occupation, place where they grew up (and were educated) and sexual orientation are all better used information for quick identifying and some law enforcement purposes than "gender".

As other posters have said..."gender" is meaningless unless you are promoting some stereotype of what each sex is "supposed" to do.
 
Ziggurat said:
I'm not making one. I think sex as an identifier makes sense. I think gender as an identifier does not.
Click to expand...
Suppose you're trying to pick out Buck Angel from a crowd of people, having never seen him on YouTube.

Would it be more helpful to know that he passes as a man or that he is female?
 
Sherkeu said:
As other posters have said..."gender" is meaningless unless you are promoting some stereotype of what each sex is "supposed" to do.
Click to expand...
People who are NOT conforming to either male-typical or female-typical dress and appearance are fairly rare, but this subthread was initially about them wanting their own "X" identifier. I'm fine with them having that, so long as it isn't designed to foster the idea that sex must be replaced with gender identity on government documents. It would be easier to identify them as they/them if we knew that was what they are about.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Indeed. If you are looking for a missing person, and you find a body with no ID on it, having sex listed on the missing person's DL is useful - it could eliminate ~50% of the population. Having gender listed is no use at all.
Click to expand...
It might surprise you to learn that identification documents are most often used by living persons.
 
d4m10n said:
People who are NOT conforming to either male-typical or female-typical dress and appearance are fairly rare, but this subthread was initially about them wanting their own "X" identifier. I'm fine with them having that, so long as it isn't designed to foster the idea that sex must be replaced with gender identity on government documents. It would be easier to identify them as they/them if we knew that was what they are about.
Click to expand...

The only people who exaggerate stereotypical female dress are the men who mostly want to look 'sexy' if I can be honest.
Most of us female folk are in pants and t-shirts a lot of the time - though they may be fitted scoop neck to our liking and our natural shapes.


If transwomen dressed like the average female every day, they would look like... wait for it
....
....


...... Still like Men!
 
d4m10n said:
Okay, but what has this to do with the enbies targeted at post #2450?
Click to expand...

"Enbies" are as much a thing as "cat people". As in, it is NOT a real thing the government should take seriously.
Sex is binary, and how you dress doesn't switch you to another category.
/end.
 
d4m10n said:
Suppose you're trying to pick out Buck Angel from a crowd of people, having never seen him on YouTube.

Would it be more helpful to know that he passes as a man or that he is female?
Click to expand...

This is why I earlier mentioned that there might be a place for medical transition status. But "gender" has no connection to medical transition status. The TRA's are very clear about that.
 
d4m10n said:
Okay, but it's not a fact that is remotely obvious in the event that someone is passing and clothed. If you want to identify that person, it helps to know what gender they think themselves to be.
Click to expand...

And then there's pragmatism, something so quickly forgotten these days.

If a person is passing and clothed... nobody is going to challenge them in any of the situations we're talking about.

Seriously, if you see a person and your brain essentially says "hmm, pretty androgynous, but decent chance that's a female" you're not going to hassle them on their way into the toilet. Chances are if your brain says "hmm, pretty masculine looking, but might just be a butch female" you're not going to hassle them. It's only when your brains says "That's like 95% likely to be a male" that you say something.

That's reality, and that ought to be a perfectly reasonable reality.

On the other hand... when we're talking about a shower, and your brain says "when clothed that person is androgynous, so might be female... but there's a penis right there for all to see" that's a different issue altogether.
 
theprestige said:
State trooper makes a traffic stop. Compares the driver's ID to the driver. It's not clear to me how "Male, but Femme" or "A dude, might be wearing a dress today" is any more helpful to the cop than "Male".

In fact, I'm hard pressed to think of *any* scenario where it's helpful to me, or to society, to know what gender a person thinks themselves to be.

ETA: Okay, thought of one. If you're a mental health professional considering a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and accompanying treatment plan, then yes, it's helpful to society to know what your patient is thinking, gender-wise.

On the other hand, society has deemed gender identification to be unhelpful in certain situations. Hiring. Renting or selling a house. Things like that, noticing or caring about someone's gender self-ID is unhelpful.

---

And can you imagine Amber Alerts, for example? "Red Toyota Corolla, [LIC], driver is a white male, but be advised he thinks of himself as a woman."

Or even worse: "Driver is a white male, be advised he also identifies as a white male."
Click to expand...

The only reasonable exception I can see for this is if the cop pulls over someone that looks like Blair White.

One might argue that the markers on IDs could reasonable be set to "M, F, Mt, and Ft". Where the Mt and Ft would denote someone of a specific sex, with some sort of recognition of them being trans, just so the cop's not baffled when White's ID says "M".
 
Paul2 said:
I look at sex designation on an ID card as not necessarily being solely determinative in some specific situation, but, rather, a fundamental distinguishing characteristic - like height, weight (less so, as it can fluctuate), color of eyes, etc., so that, if something goes amiss, or there are questions, or something doesn't add up, authorities have several of these fundamental characteristics and can cross-check them to make sure it all adds up, and if it doesn't add up, then further investigation is warranted.

ETA: I am not a civil authority, so who knows? I'm guessing.
Click to expand...

You've pretty much nailed it. It's the difference between identification and 'identity'.
 
d4m10n said:
People who are NOT conforming to either male-typical or female-typical dress and appearance are fairly rare, but this subthread was initially about them wanting their own "X" identifier. I'm fine with them having that, so long as it isn't designed to foster the idea that sex must be replaced with gender identity on government documents. It would be easier to identify them as they/them if we knew that was what they are about.
Click to expand...

There are a whole, whole lot of butch lesbians that do not conform to "female typical dress and appearance" but are undeniably and obviously female.

Identification documents are intended to allow other people to confirm that the person presenting the document is who they say they are. They exist so that an objective person can check whether the 4'8" childlike person in front of them is actually a very small adult trying to buy vodka, by confirming that their license doesn't say they're a 5'10" 47 year old.

Identification documents aren't intended to advertise to all and sundry how the id-holder thinks of themselves, and what they aspire to look like.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom