Gender-Sex Categories

[BC_chick]

i didn't say anything about getting rid of anything gender based. I said remove gender from government ID per the OP.

I thought you were talking about getting rid of everything, gender and sex. As in going one step further than we are now.

Unless I'm still misunderstanding you?

[cybercoma]

I said it's unnecessary on government issued photo ID.

[BC_chick]

I said it's unnecessary on government issued photo ID.

That's what I thought, so getting rid of gender all together. I should have perhaps qualified it further by stating on government ID but in the context of the thread I thought it was apparent.

That's the part of your post with which I disagree and my reasons are similar to those cited earlier by other posters. Gender and sex aren't completely irrelevant at this point in time.

[cybercoma]

They're not irrelevant personally, but what purpose do they serve on government issued photo ID? I can't think of any reason why they would be necessary there.

[TimG]

They're not irrelevant personally, but what purpose do they serve on government issued photo ID? I can't think of any reason why they would be necessary there.

Government ID has a number of invariant biometric criteria that can be used to determine if the person presenting the ID is the legitimate holder of the ID. These biometric criteria include a picture, eye colour, height, weight and biological sex. None of these criteria are perfect and can be disguised or changed but they still serve a useful purpose - especially if someone is detained and forced to remove any disguises. For this reason, the biological sex as determined by the presence of sex-specific reproductive organs is a legitimate biometric criteria and replacing it with some self defined 'gender' is pointless. Removing it reduces the number of biometric criteria which is objectively bad but it is not the end of the world because other criteria still exist. If any change is required it would be a new designation for hermaphrodites who have both sets of reproductive organs. Edited August 26, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

If any change is required it would be a new designation for hermaphrodites who have both sets of reproductive organs.

So why didn't you pick the second option in the poll?

[TimG]

So why didn't you pick the second option in the poll?

Because people who want 'other' don't want it only for hermaphrodites - they want it for people who want to pretend their biology is something different than what it is.

[cybercoma]

Government ID has a number of invariant biometric criteria that can be used to determine if the person presenting the ID is the legitimate holder of the ID. These biometric criteria include a picture, eye colour, height, weight and biological sex. None of these criteria are perfect and can be disguised or changed but they still serve a useful purpose - especially if someone is detained and forced to remove any disguises. For this reason, the biological sex as determined by the presence of sex-specific reproductive organs is a legitimate biometric criteria and replacing it with some self defined 'gender' is pointless. Removing it reduces the number of biometric criteria which is objectively bad but it is not the end of the world because other criteria still exist. If any change is required it would be a new designation for hermaphrodites who have both sets of reproductive organs.

Invariant hair colour, weight, eye colour, height?

None of those things are invariant and neither is a person's gender.

[TimG]

None of those things are invariant and neither is a person's gender.

Based on that logic we should eliminate pictures from photo id because pictures are not invariant so such a line of argument is silly.

These biological metrics are useful not because they can never change but because they cannot be easily changed and if they are changed there are limits to how much change can occur (a 125lb/5foot woman is not going to turn into a 300lb/6ft man). This is true for biological sex as well.

[cybercoma]

You can't easily change your weight or hair colour? Ok then.

[-1=e^ipi]

Because people who want 'other' don't want it only for hermaphrodites - they want it for people who want to pretend their biology is something different than what it is.

I used other because I wanted to have options that were inclusive of the opinions of different members. If you want male, female and intersex, I think the second option best reflects this. Should I change the poll options to just be 2, 3, more than 3, less than 2?

[TimG]

You can't easily change your weight or hair colour?

First, I never mentioned hair colour. That is garbage you made up. Second, weight is not easily changed and there are limits to what changes are possible. i.e. a 5'/125lb person is not going to become a 6'/300lb person.

Bottom line: biometric criteria are useful on ID as long they are not easily changed and biological sex is not easily changed. There are few biometrics which are impossible to change so that is not the primary requirement (even faces can be changed). It is crazy to argue that only impossible-to-change criteria should be on ID because that would mean IDs could only have DNA (assuming no one figures out how to manipulate that too).

Edited August 27, 2015 by TimG

[Rue]

That's what I thought, so getting rid of gender all together. I should have perhaps qualified it further by stating on government ID but in the context of the thread I thought it was apparent.

That's the part of your post with which I disagree and my reasons are similar to those cited earlier by other posters. Gender and sex aren't completely irrelevant at this point in time.

There are still unfortunately far too many issues specific to gender to make it irrelevant in terms of examining problematic laws or social policies that intentionally or unintentionally create unfair double standards because of gender.

I believe reproduction issues pertaining to a woman's body for example raise many issues and I am from the school of thought where I do not feel comfortable as a man imposing laws telling women what they can and can not do with their uterus. I would prefer women and their doctors in private settle and manage such matters and hopefully with their loved ones. I am a classic conservative in the sense that I do not see that as the role of the state. Likewise I believe states should remain neutral to gender when considering access and service and that is relevant to gender because some access to health services makes it problematic for women to get access to certain medical services that could prove life threatening to them.

I personally believe there are still numerous issues in family law that are dependent on understanding gender differences and how they may cause misunderstandings and incorrect assumptions.

Bottom line is I agree with your past posts on this issue.

Women have different issues than men that can not be white washed with the defective belief equality comes from ignoring this.

As for i.d. can we use common sense. If I want to identify a terrorist, a criminal, someone in need of immediate emergency care, let's not play games as to their gender.

On a purely psychological level of discussion I think parents who have children and think they can teach them to grow up sexually ambiguous are misguided and going to screw up their children.

I think as parents we should teach our children to be proud and at ease with their bodies and help protect them from the adults surrounding them who are not happy with their own bodies and project their confusion into the world media, art, and onto children.

If one of my kids said they wanted to be the other sex I probably would have done what a lot of men did, tell them to speak to their mother and go for a walk with the dog. Dogs are a lot easier to understand damn it.

In any event, people change, times change, curmudgeons change. I just figure, treat people the way you want to be treated and the rest will sort itself out. That's the best I can comment on it other than to say, its a private issue and I don't see it as a state issue. Th state should try be neutral when it can.

Edited August 28, 2015 by Rue

[-1=e^ipi]

help protect them from the adults surrounding them who are not happy with their own bodies and project their confusion into the world media, art, and onto children.

So you advocate some sort of anti-lgbt propaganda law like they have in Russia? What happened to the free market place of ideas?

We were taught certain things come with being a man, i.e., holding the door for a woman, getting a job, not showing excess emotion, not showing too much touchy feely. I come from an era where men punched each other in the shoulder. That was considered extreme affection display.

Yes. It's a big mystery why men commit suicide 3.5 times as much as women and transwomen outnumber transmen 3 to 1. *sarcasm*

I believe certain people would be healthier and better off accepting themselves as gay.

Gender Identity and transexualism are not the same thing as sexual orientation. You can be a transwoman/transman and be androsexual, gynosexual, pansexual, asexual, etc.

[-1=e^ipi]

Our federal government has passed a law recognizing rights of transpeople, yet we still have this archaic male or female binary when it comes to birth certificates, passports, etc.

My non-binary roommate was a bit annoyed when we were doing the census earlier this month and we added a bit complaint about it in the comments/suggestions. How does it help anyone if the government has less accurate data on the gender/sex of people in society?