I was originally going to ask how many legal genders there should be, but I fail to see a compelling argument against 0.
You must log in or register to comment.
We don’t.
We don’t. They’re entirely immaterial to a modern world.
The instant 2 atheists got married, it opened the door to people of any gender pairing to get married. Marriage is just a social contact between 2 consenting adults ahemwith tax invectives. Only religion dictated which genders are allowed to do what.
Conservative hand wringing over public restroom use is mitigated by making all bathrooms gender neutral. Easy fix.
What else? Pink is for whoever the fuck likes it, you salmon short wearing closeted frat bros. You do you. Blue is for people doing Frozen cosplay. I dunno, gendered colors are so stupid.
I know it’s just a typo/autocorrect, but I seriously chuckled at “tax invectives.”
So that people with an M on their passport can do obligatory military service
(Yes, I am salty about this, how’d you know?)
((Also I think that’s the only remaining way in which people with an M or an F are treated differently where I live so at least we’re making some progress I guess))
(((Oh also they need it to more effectively grope trans people at airport security)))
Denmark made the military service mandatory for women too this year.
I don’t know of any legal differences at this point.
There’s still plenty of differences but not from a legal perspective.
Like, maternity leave is longer than paternity leave, but that’s not due to gender, but rather who is pregnant. For instance if a lesbian couple has a child, only one of them can have maternity leave, while the co-parent gets the equivalent to paternity leave.
Also, men aren’t screened for breast cancer and vice versa for prostate check-ups. I don’t think that’s done on a legal basis though, it’s just a healthcare service aimed at different demographics. Anyone can request a prostate check or mammography and get it if the doctor finds it necessary.
Changing rooms at public swimming facilities are separated by gender, but they often also have a third room which is for families with small children, people with handicaps or anyone else who don’t want to or can’t use the public showers.
Also, men aren’t screened for breast cancer and vice versa for prostate check-ups. I don’t think that’s done on a legal basis though, it’s just a healthcare service aimed at different demographics. Anyone can request a prostate check or mammography and get it if the doctor finds it necessary.
“Miss, I can confirm you still do NOT have a prostate. Please, stop coming here. This is very inappropriate”
Because church and patriarchal society basically.
Medical issues.
Men and women have different anatomy and needs. Knowing your biological sex for medical reasons is kinda important.
Everywhere else, it’s a social construct and does not matter in the slightest.
“Biological sex” says jack shit about a trans person’s biological characteristics, especially deep into transition. It’s more often than not a dogwhistle that transphobes use to imply that trans women have the same violent sexual tendencies as many cis men, and to imply that those characteristics are somehow immutable.
The state does not need to get involved in a medical discussion between a trans patient and their doctor.
Lol imagine going to a doctor and they can’t figure out your gender if it’s not on you legal documents.
Get another Dr. I think this one got his license from Trump university
The blood group is very important too, for medical issues, but I don’t think it is common to make it a legal marker (such as on passport).
Also, some people are born not matching exactly the classical genders, and labeling them legaly male or female can be misleading for medical things…
Does it need to be tied to the legal system, though?
Only in-so-far as medical regulation would require. Like if the hospital failed to check this crucial information and made a mistake because of it they should be held liable. Having it on your ID might also be important if you list yourself as an organ donor; not sure if that would matter but it might.
I can think of a handful of ways of confirming someone’s biology without checking official documentation. After all, hospitals still check blood types and tissue types
That takes time. You don’t want to get the wrong dose of fentanyl, but you’ll definitely want fentanyl if you’ve been hit by a car and broke some ribs.
need to know weight for dosing, not genitals
Okay but that argument kind of falls apart when you know that emergency medicine won’t, for example, give a patient a dose of fentanyl without having naloxone immediately on hand. I am not a paramedic but I have known a few and a few ER nurses and they are almost always working with more unknowns than knowns.
And why would you want to add an additional unknown factor again? Because that’s what you’d be doing by removing sex from the basic information card.
Don’t see how increasing the amount of times naloxone is given is beneficial here.
I mean it’s not, what I’m saying is that the only time a patient’s gender being unknown is a risk is in emergency situations. Otherwise the doctor and the patient are going to have a conversation before the doctor does anything and it should come up then. Although I should hope that it’s not a doorknob comment.
With the only situation when a person’s gender is undermined is when the doctor and/nurses are already working with less than ideal information. Having a person’s sex/gender on their identification isn’t really answering the questions that need answering then. The only reason it’s so important is because the protocols are built with the assumption that the person is one of two genders. Which lets not even begin to get into the atypical sex’s (XXX, XXy, Xyy, ect). It’s an outdated standard but it’s so engrained into everything.
I can count your ribs faster than I can look up government documentation, and even that’s assuming you’ve already been identified.
My apologies, I didn’t know you were such a slow reader.
I think the same for the donor marker in general. Can’t the hospital system keep that info? Why does it need to be on my ID?
Yup, that’s my point. I don’t think a government (should) need this.
On that note, I learned from another commenter that in Germany you can have your gender deleted from their database.
Crime investigation purposes. The information on state ID was used s as a resource for crime fighting. Once DNA analysis became a thing, knowing male vs female was even more important.
Everyone has a different anatomy/needs. You know how many random foramen and bones people can have? Random extra shit that the body spontaneously develops on it’s own for no reason? Most of them are fine, some are not, but to say we need to know if you fit into the “male” or “female” box to treat you is incorrect. We need to know so much more. In fact, I think the mere presence of a vagina seems to tell a lot of doctors “Don’t take this persons pain seriously,” so I think if we just assume everyone is a male or a testosterone/testes-deficient male at the clinic, we might get better results.
Tbh most of the medical history men’s anatomy was treated as the default, not much far off from what you’re suggesting. Therefore now medical doctors still have no idea wtf is going on during perimenopause despite half the population going through it and as someone in the thick of it I can tell you that no, we abso-fucking-lutely need a more specialized women’s healthcare.
This also I think could be fixed by taking a more human-centric holistic approach. Don’t need to know you’re a woman, just that you’re experiencing drastic hormone changes. BAM, we gotta help regulate those hormones. Men love finding out they’re low on testosterone, so they can start taking a bunch. Women should be able to get their hormones just as easily.
Trans people should go to the doctor and be like, I appear to be missing a bunch of estrogen and progesterone! and the doctor should be like “no shit, that sucks, here’s a prescription for them.”
This assumes that men and women have the same medical needs. They don’t. Our average hormonal balances are completely different so for a doctor to be able asses doses, they need to know what the average hormonal balance is for women.
but what they really need to know is the average hormonal balance for that specific person, before they started going out of whack.
Except women’s hormonal balances change during different phases of each month, but not for men. Thus the need to study women’s health since women and men have different phisiologies. Oh look, we’ve come full circle.
I mean, yes, we need to study women’s health more. It’s a big glaring hole in a ton of medical research. I’m just trying to stay with the vibe of the thread. I think that just like with cutting edge cancer research being done that focuses on tailoring the specific drug/method of action to that persons specific cancer, so too should most of our medical treatments be tailored not just to what’s between your legs, but to you, specifically. More research into everyone, but especially the largely ignored demographic of women, is needed to accomplish this. So… you’re right, but I think I’m right too.
It’s so the state can attack people. So it can control “marriage” privileges. Etc.
That… is a good point
It obviously did matter when same-sex marriages were not legal for example (some countries still do this…), but in most parts of the developed world today… yeah. I guess it does feel a bit grandfatherer-in right now
Obviously things such as the medical system need to know what biological sex someone is, but they don’t have to tie into the legal system
Yeah, that’s what I think some of the replies is missing: Whether or not it needs to be tied to the legal system. I can think of a decent amount of ways of confirming someone’s biology without checking their passport or drivers license.
As for rights and legal protection, I fail to think of a situation in a just society where the same rights and protections shouldn’t apply to both/all.
I fail to think of a situation in a just society
Exactly, we need it because we don’t live in a just society.
It would be cruel to send women criminal convicts to prison with men.
The US does that on purpose. Read up on a barbaric practice called v-coding
maybe we shouldnt let prisoners sexually assault each other regardless of gender
And by “let” you mean sanction and even encourage.
Very true, so while we’re at it let’s abolish prisons.
That happens frequently in the USA.
We don’t.
I don’t see any benefit to society in doing so. Why the hell does the government need to know what my gender is at any point?
I agree that gender public records should disappear.
Because there are many laws that grant some benefits to one gender but no the other. For example:
- In Poland women get to retire earlier
- In many countries there’s mandatory conscription only for men
- In many countries maternal and paternal leaves are different
- Physical requirements for some jobs (police, firemen) are lower for women
- There are legally mandated proportions of genders in companies or in political parties (in parliamentary clubs to be exact)
- In Spain there are laws that specifically protect women from violence committed by men and special courts that handle them
- Many other laws/rules that require some % of public grants to go to women
You can remove all those laws but that will make feminists unhappy. Most of those benefits are backed by women and passed by leftists governments. As long as those laws exists you need legal genders.
Reading the comments I’m surprised how many people don’t know about them.
Yes, it turns out if you want to use the mechanisms of the legal system to try to counter the marginalization of any group by the whole system, it has to recognize them in law and provide a method for distinguishing them in practice.
But, once you have some method of distinguishing them, the people that want to strengthen hierarchical structures will use that to identify them and (further) marginalize them.
This is true whether you are talking about chromosomal properties, internal anatomy, external anatomy (not limited to genital shape, but also melanin quantity and distribution), gender-assigned-at-birth, current gendered behavior, religious practices or associations, etc.
Still legal recognition might be the best way to reduce harm until we can achieve a future where the category or distinguishing characteristics no longer make one a target of (extra-judicial) marginalization.
I do think men getting conscripted because they’re men in kinda bullshit.
There’s a funny story here in the US about that. We were trying to pass the Equal Rights Act (ERA) - equal pay for equal work, and some Republican tried to tank it by putting in the bill that women would also be subject to the draft - apparently he figured that was so horrifying it would sink it. Supporters just said “yeah, that seems fair, good idea” and he had to scramble to take that wording out because he had so misjudged the situation. Still managed to sink the bill though:(
Conscription is bullshit. If your war is so unpopular to your people that they aren’t volunteering, then you shouldn’t be at war.
Tell that to Ukraine.
Also, if there was a very great threat, people would enlist willingly, making conscription unnecessary.
That one isn’t a feminist law, that’s a fascist one, under the fasc ideal “women are too weak to fight!”
I’ve always thought that it’s more ‘we need more women than men to repopulate our country after the war’ as us men are nearly useless when making new life to this planet. But obviously that idea is ‘a bit’ dated too today.
It can be all 3 things.
But no matter what, it’s outdated
It’s less “women are too weak” and more “the point if war is to kill off excess young men so there’s more young women available for powerful older men”
It can be both
Reading the comments I’m surprised how many people don’t know about them.
It might be less about not knowing about gender disparity, and more about wanting to get rid of that too.
- global retirement age is bullshit anyway; tell me that someone that worked 50 years in a coal mine (and survived somehow) should retire at the same age that someone that worked in an office. Gender is not needed there
- mandatory conscription is already a dicy subject; if one assume it makes sense, making it men-only doesn’t. No need for gender disparity here either; plenty of military roles that can be done without being a beefcake
- many countries are actually looking into extending paternal leaves because they finally got that both parents are important to raise a child
- physical requirements should be physical requirements. If they exist, they should match the job requirements. Having different bar of entry because of gender makes no sense. If the job is lifting iron all day, and you can lift iron all day, that’s all that matters.
- parity requirements related to gender exists to curb all the disparity that’s ingrained in society because we decided to make men and women a different thing. remove the difference, remove the need to “make amend with a mandatory quota”
- same as previous point
- and same as previous previous point
The only need to keep distinguishing gender for legal stuff is because we keep the “women are lesser than men” mentality, coupled with “women needs protection”.
Guess what: there isn’t a gender that is “less” than the other, and everyone needs protection. Sounds like an equality thing to me, where genders only get in the way.
remove the difference, remove the need to “make amend with a mandatory quota”
Have you seen what’s going on in the US lately? Abolishing DEI programs that recognize race or gender helps whoever has the most institutional power. White men have run the world for their own benefit for centuries. You think taking them off the leash now will result in a gender-neutral equitable utopia?
What’s happening in the US is not the removal of DEI laws and programs. Well, that, too. But it’s the explicit removal of people that were covered by these program, regardless of skills.
And, it only highlights why the legal gender distinction is a problem. If there were no state-level “what gender are you” line attached to people, you could not mandate the removal of women, legally or not.
It’s one of those funny cases were far left and far right go full circle and collide on the other side. Like with opening stores on Sunday which the left and right both oppose or support depending on the country. Here we see people attack gender violence laws from the left but in Spain it’s the far right Vox party that is against them.
I think gender mixed prisons might be considered problematic as well.
Is that the problem or is the problem that prisons are largely badly designed in the first place?
No, gender mixing would obviously be a problem leading to an insane increase in sexual assaults. Couldn’t imagine being a woman in a mixed prison no matter the design. Quite unethical.
It’s almost like prisons are a terrible idea and shouldn’t exist
This is a very interesting topic but it’s too complex to discuss on lemmy. Most people would not be able to understand the legal nuances and would just start lashing out. I will just leave this here for those interested.
deleted by creator
For anybody wondering, it’s about a male criminal that is allegedly not transsexual but claims so to be held in a female one prison.
Interestingly there is a similar case here in Sweden.
I too abstain from posting any judgement in a complex issue that goes beyond quick opinions based on headlines.
You act like there’s no option to create GENDER EQUALITY, and instead the only option is to remove those laws.
I’m curious how you create GENDER EQUALITY without forcing people to acknowledge and correct for systemic biases. It’s not like there was GENDER EQUALITY before such laws existed.
The idea of affirmative action laws is that, systemically, white men in western countries were born on third base thinking they hit a triple, and everyone else needs some amount of help to catch up to their institutional and generational wealth and power. A law can’t correct for that difference if the difference is no longer recognized, and that means white men get to retain their position.
It’s why the Trump administration focused so hard on dismantling DEI efforts. Their position is that we’ve achieved equality and these programs are an unjust bias. Obviously bullshit, but it’s what you immediately end up with if race and gender are not legally recognized characteristics.
Do I? I said that as long as those laws exist legal gender also has to exist. I didn’t say that those laws should or shouldn’t be removed.
Most of those laws are passed by leftists governments and many were passed very recently. Those laws are how the left is trying to create gender equality right now. If you have other ideas you’re free to propose them.
It’s a case of those laws need to exist, because of gender inequality, but when things become more equitable then it should be changed to not the removal but the widening of them
All genders getting the same amount of (increased) parenthood leave, for example
All genders being allowed to fight in wars if they want to. Nobody being forced to fight in wars.
But the way you were wording it felt like you’re saying “THOSE DAMN FEMINISTS GET AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE”
Maternal and paternal leave also applies in adoptions and surrogate births so it is gender based.
I wasn’t sure about that as each country has different rules. Thanks for clarifying, I restored that point.
Fr
We don’t.
Here in Germany one of the few good things that came out of our previous federal government was the SBGG, which - among other things - allows you to delete the entry. And before anyone points it out: I’m aware it isn’t perfect.
nothing has to be perfect. it just has to work sufficiently well.
the idea of just being able to leave the field blank, is a simple enough solution, but it won’t appease the extremists.
personally i like being able to put ‘unspecified’ in the gender/sex field of things. it’s a lot more elegant than the 50+ gender identities that are ‘available’ now.
Gender is an artificial construct anyway. I don’t see why it should be on your ID.
Your sex is on your ID, your gender isn’t.
That’s not really the case anymore. Most places allow you to put the gender you identify with on your ID now. That’s kind of one of the hot button issues with republicans trying to force only having your biological sex on IDs and not allowing people to change their gender on them.
I can’t think of a single quantifiable reason someone’s gender identity should be on a government ID. But biological sex is important to have for things like organ donation.
Government database defining what our names are is also backwards.
A name is what people call you. You can actually change your name or gender whenever you want. Most people just don’t want to.
Like if you go to a new country, you can tell them anything, and that becomes your actual name, because that’s what names are. Pisses me off when the word “preferred” gets put there. Like, no, that’s not preferred, it is. The government database is just wrong and refuses to update their records because it’s run by a bunch of racist, sexist, misogynist ignorant old fucks.
Gender is the same way. I exist for now, and while I do, I have free will. Perks of being alive. Only in your tiny little backwards kingdom do you think you have any control over your database. It doesn’t change who I ACTUALLY am. That’s just your preferred data for some reason and you’ve conned a lot of people into thinking you define them, rather than are just a single country on this huge planet’s records keeper.
While it makes sense immediately to me, it was still surprising that one can have a different legal name in different countries.
That may be how it is where you live, but where I live the name is very much checked and double checked when you switch countries and it’s next to impossible to change it. Gender is another matter and that is probably one of the exceptions that allow for a name change.
I think you’re misunderstanding. It very much is like this, basically everywhere, including were I am. But I’m saying that, it’s that way because civilization has fucked up its priorities and government is grossly overstepping reality. Because in reality the government doesn’t control what your name actually is, it just controls what it legally is in that country. Which, yeah, unfortunately has a pretty strong hold on you. But, still isn’t how actual names work.
Think of it this way: if nuclear war happened and all government databases and registries were wiped away, your name would still be whatever you say it is. If you get abducted by aliens, and they decide to call you something in alien, that becomes your new name. If you get sucked through a time machine wormhole into the past or future, your literal name is whatever you set it to be. Because that’s how names work: names are just what people call you - not what a government database has written down for your id number.
If your name is written down in the government database, and that aligns with your actual name, then yeah, it is your name - but not because it’s from the government. The government cannot set your name. Only you, and maybe the people around you can.
A government doesn’t have natural authority to set your name, just like they have no natural authority to set your hair color, height, butt position, dick length, who you’re married to, who you love, who your family is, what genitals you have, or where you physically are.
So unless they MAKE YOU A PRISONER, you control your life.
And if they’ve made you a prisoner… that is indeed a different story, for a similar time. I’m sure you understand the implications of that, though.
Excellent 👌
why are there legal genders?
historical reasons
Why do we need legal genders?
we don’t
The two biggest reasons i can think of are:
-
It’s medically relevant information. If you’re incapacitated, this could be vital information to whoever treats you.
-
Legal protections. Gender is a protected class. To receive those protections and to know when they apply, this information is required.
I’m not sure if OP meant sex or gender. I can’t think of a medically relevant reason to know an incapacitated person’s gender. Maybe someone with any experience or knowledge there can chime in.
My understanding of the legal discrimination argument is that whether someone holds a particular gender identity is irrelevant. If the perpetrator perceives someone to be of a particular gender, and acts with intent to discriminate against someone based on that belief, regardless of whether or not it’s true, that still constitutes gender discrimination. But IANAL.
Gender, and other factors that aren’t as “medically relevant”, may help the staff pick between two treatment options. The patient’s comfort and happiness can affect their overall wellbeing.
Say someone grows up in a culture where their gender (or some cultural group the person can belong to) usually has long hair. A particular treatment may have two options:
- shave the head
- something that doesn’t involve shaving the head
Knowing what gender (or other group) the person belongs to might inform their decision.
Note, this is about why medical staff might want to know about gender identity and not the original question of how many legal genders we should have.
For your shaving the head example I would argue that if the person is incapacitated and needing urgent care the solution with the most chance of success should be preferred regardless of gender norms. If both are equally likely the one that doesn’t remove hair should be preferred. You might be a man with attachment to your long hair even in a society where that’s uncommon, gender does not dictate anything of the sort. So I still don’t see a reason why gender is relevant medically.
As a guy with long hair i can tell you i would be pissed if they shaved my head while an alternative was available.
The alternative: Death
That’s fair, and it was a poor example on my part.
If one treatment is much better, then yes that one would be preferred. Generally when there are two treatments being weighed, both will have consequences (else one would obviously be better).
My point was that knowing things about a person, outside of their physical biology, can get better outcomes. It should never be REQUIRED for the patient to share it, but we should educate medical staff about their community so that they can use that information when it is helpful.
Some other examples, that aren’t specific to gender
- knowing what pronouns to use would make the patient trust the provider more and feel more comfortable
- if you know the patients literacy level or knowledge of medical terminology, you can adjust your explanations
- if the patient belongs to a group that might have an aversion to a particular treatment, you know to either spend more time explaining it or to let them know another option is available
- if you know the patient is poor, then you might take that into account when recommending treatments. Even in publicly funded health systems, the lifestyle recommendations might not apply to every person
At the same time, the person shouldn’t be making assumptions based on someone falling into a particular group, and they should confirm whatever it is they are checking for.
IMO, knowing about gender is less important in places where it doesn’t carry as much cultural weight. As another example, if someone identifies as a woman in a culture where they don’t want to be alone with a male figure, knowing their identity might remind the staff to bring someone else who identifies as a woman into the exam room.
We need to finish naming all 12,000 mushroom genders before we can make laws about them
regardless of whether or not it’s true, that still constitutes gender discrimination.
Pretty sure you’re right about that. A person’s state of mind (or “mens rea” if you’re in the profession) is an often crucial component of criminal acts. If someone assaults someone because they think they’re Muslim, the fact that they’re actually Mexican doesn’t make it ok.
BUT, the other side to that is, say for example someone’s gender is male and their sex is female, but they present masculine. If they reveal their sex to someone, and that person discriminates against them for being a woman, how is the victim supposed to claim their protected status? If it’s not apparent and it’s not documented, it will be difficult to claim those protections in court.
I am also not a lawyer 🤷♀️
discriminatory law is not about individuals actions, it’s about institutional ones.
Just spitballing here, but:
If they reveal their sex to someone, and that person discriminates against them for being a woman, how is the victim supposed to claim their protected status?
Maybe we need to turn this around, maybe we should consider defaulting to the assumption that people should not be able to discriminate against other people for any reason instead of just being protected against “certain” kinds of discrimination. If we are going to allow discrimination for certain reasons, maybe we should make those allowed forms of discrimination the ones that need to be spelled out explicitly. If you don’t have a good reason to discriminate against someone about something, maybe don’t discriminate them? Maybe that’s a bit outlandish, maybe I’m not thinking it through, I don’t know, but it seems reasonable enough to me.
because that’s not how people work. you are arguing form an impossible ideal.
you yourself incessantly discriminate people based on their appearances. the point is to prevent people from those discriminations institutionally.
every single day you are dismissing or admiring people based on how they look, they speak, etc. and your ‘reasonable’ for these things is wildly different than somebody else’s. human beings are not capable individually of the levels of self-awarenesss you are presuming exist, even in yourself.
the laws are largely to prevent systematic and institutional discrimination, individual human beings will always be discriminatory. A individual person hiring at a large org can still discriminate, but the institution itself can’t because legally if there is a pattern of multiple discriminatory practices that can be actioned against.
You’re getting into limiting free speech area there, im sure a lot of people would be very against something like that, however good the intentions may be.
It’s medically relevant information. If you’re incapacitated, this could be vital information to whoever treats you.
This one is overlooked and can be literally a matter of life and death. Certain medications react differently based on hormone levels for example, so even if someone was born male if they have a nominally female balance of hormones they need to be treated (medically) as female.
That’s not relevant for justifying legal sex or gender.
That’s still different from gender. Gender is a set of social relations that often, but not necessarily, is associated with a particular body chemistry.
To be pedantic you’d want to know sex not gender for medical reasons.
I made an entire comment about this but I’ll address 1 point here quickly: people like to forget that transition drastically changes your body in a way that only recording “birth sex” does not encapsulate. Both are absolutely medically relevant.
You might want to know both in certain situations.
It’s very difficult to know what will/not be medically relevant in any given situation.
Yes, but poliitcally it’s convenient to argue that gender is oppressive, or essential or something.
What’s ironic to me is the ‘anti gender’ people are the one who are the most obsessed with it and go around policing every else’s gender identity and their language use about it.
Like, if you want to be liberated from gender, why don’t you liberate yourself first, and stop agonizing about other people’s gender identity or lack thereof. Nobody informs/lectures me of my own gender identity more than people who claim to not believe gender exists…
People assume I’m a woman unless I disclose I’m a man anyway, which is also hilarious to me. Because I ‘type like a girl’, and then when they find out my gender they go back and the meaning of all my words suddenly becomes offensive and awful… which just reveals their own inherent gender biases.
We only issue a passport with an M or F sex marker that matches your biological sex at birth.
— us gov
Counter point: Intersex
Intersex people don’t exist in statistically relevant numbers.
Siamese twins also exist, and there are lots of legal issues with them as well as to whether they count as one or two people. Oftentimes they are considered both or neither depending on the specific legal issue that comes up.
But we don’t base governmental policy on the existence of Siamese twins, we base it on the concept of singular individuals.
(I am not arguing with you, just thinking through the ideas out loud) 1. It seems like it could be tracked in the same manner as all other necessary medical information, such as diabetes status 2. There are other protected classes that we don’t make a big deal of legally unless it’s relevant, such as orientation
Counterpoint to 2 - femme presenting people are often discriminated against whether gender is known or not. Orientation isn’t quite as visible.
Although I think I lean to the it shouldn’t be tracked the way it currently is, to further your point we do track other visual things by which people are discriminated against such as race.
people are discriminated based on religion fairly often too, but the feds don’t need to know what church you do or don’t go to
The medical relevance just involves the parts you have, though. Instead of just documenting someone as male and female, just keep an inventory of the parts they have (especially when there are differences from the norm).
Lol our answers were identical but yours came later and got more votes.
Up/down votes are weird. Good thing they don’t mean much here.
Could be because others (like myself) have tagged you as a troll
Whats your defence of that stance? Because I fight Tankies?
more evidence that discrimination harms communities
My comments are almost always sorted by ‘new’ and I bet that is what’s happening here - their comment is more visible as the post gains traction because it’s newer.
I’ve definitely had the same happen to me, so at least you’re not alone hahah
-
