7 ms·

I don't say this in a mean-spirited way whatsoever, but your sex is whatever sex you were born with. There is nothing complicated about that fact. With rare exc

I don't say this in a mean-spirited way whatsoever, but your sex is whatever sex you were born with. There is nothing complicated about that fact. With rare exception, a person comes into the world as a male or female.

legodt 10y ago
Sex and gender are separate concepts. Sex is a basic biological function that is no longer relevant to ascribe anything to beyond that. Gender, a social construct, has been tightly wound up with sex for so long now that breaking down the binary is important to moving forward. Male and female in a pure sex perspective are no longer relevant to gender identity in progressive society.
- ambrop7 10y ago
  That is a reasonable way of looking at this, but the question is which concept belongs on your documents. The corresponding field on my (EU-based) passport says sex not gender - don't know how it is in the US. Your sex is something that is fixed and can be verified (as noted, with very rare exceptions). By this logic, your gender is your own decision. So I think sex has a better place in ID documents. Also I think having the biological sex on your documents can be useful medically - surely you want emergency responders / doctors to be able to tell your biological sex, for medical reasons.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Agreed for the most part, but if sex is something that can be verified, why would having sex on your ID be all that useful to emergency responders and doctors? Can't they...verify it?
    - TruthAndDare 10y ago
      I don't think you can do, or have time to do, a genetic test as an emergency responder, if that's what you mean. But is that really why we put it on documents anyway?
      - hx87 10y ago
        Genetic tests are unnecessary for emergency responders, as physiological sex is what matters to them, and if physiological sex is easily verified, then they can verify it on the spot.
- TruthAndDare 10y ago
  > Sex is a basic biological function that is no longer relevant to ascribe anything to beyond that. No longer? Was it previously but isn't any more? What happened to make this so? And why would gender have any function? Can't we just disregard it?
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    As to the second paragraph: in a "perfect" world yeah gender would probably be meaningless and yeah we could disregard it. But in the real world if you have one group of people that says "I don't 'see' gender" on the one side and the North Carolina legislature on the other side: the first group loses. Every Time.
  - legodt 10y ago
    We are past the point where reproduction is the goal of our identity and existence.
    - TruthAndDare 10y ago
      Really? That notion seems alive and well to me. Maybe it's not important to you.
hx87 10y ago
Your legal sex (gender is a much more appropriate term) is whatever your legal documents say you are, regardless of whatever sexual indicators (anatomical and genetic) you have.
- seanp2k2 10y ago
  Sure, but consider how that's determined in the first place.
  - hx87 10y ago
    Prescriptively or descriptively? Because how it's done isn't always right, and what's right isn't always how it's done.
themartorana 10y ago
Do you believe a person has the right to change it? Some people are born with both male and female genitalia - as many as 1 in 2000. There are also chromosomal differences that show up - not XX or XY. Here are some of the frequencies of this: http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency I agree with you that biologically, the majority of people are born with a well-definite biological sex. But the fact that there is an actual biological set of people that aren't XX or XY, however, means not even in birth is gender guaranteed to be deterministic. "I think, therefore I am" lends itself to gender identity, for me, anyway. Biology isn't 100%, and identity is even less so. Let people be what they want. I don't see where non-sex-identifying is really troubling. Edit: thinking about it more, is gender on documents used as one measure against fraud? Or as a way of protecting against potential sexual crimes? We have sexually separated things like bathrooms and prisons, and I wouldn't advocate for mixed-sex prisons (is there an argument for that I don't know?) so sexual identity and gender can't go away completely, right?
- nostrebored 10y ago
  First, the phrase you're looking for is sexually deterministic. 6 out of 10,000 babies are born without fully formed limbs. Is describing homo-sapiens as bipeds with four limbs no longer correct then? Where is the brink of acceptability for you? I find disputing the notion that human beings are sexually dimorphic to be an overreach. There are in fact arguments that transgender inmates should go to the prison that matches the gender that they identify with. This has (obviously) gone poorly a number of times so far. Another argument you can make is that self identification of gender skews statistics regarding violence by sex. For instance, even if 0.3% of men are transgender, given the huge disparity in violence by sex, you will see the differences start to narrow.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > But the fact that there is an actual biological set of people that aren't XX or XY And that, e.g., people who have Swyer syndrome (missing sex-determining-region-Y on the Y chromosome) are XY but more "female" in phenotype (and in development, with the usual course of treatment.) > I wouldn't advocate for mixed-sex prisons (is there an argument for that I don't know?) I'm not sure what the case against it is supposed to be; AFAICT, the main basis for segregation is implicitly (no one ever comes right out explicitly and makes this argument in full, but usually just makes vague handwaving toward sexual interaction and power dynamics that implies it without actually making an argument) based in the presumption that everyone is a cisgendered heterosexual, and that sexual drive and activity only occur with the availability of members of one's normally preferred sex, so that if you segregate by sex you avoid temptation for sexual interaction and associated power dynamics, violence, etc.
ubernostrum 10y ago
First off, it's likely that "sex" is much harder to define than you'd think. Human genitals all develop from the same proto-bits, creating more of a spectrum of configurations than a stark "clearly this one" or "clearly that one" binary. And chromosomes are not super useful either; just taking stats for two conditions off the top of my head, there are probably at least 1.75 million people walking around who are genitally "male" but chromosomally "female" -- the difficulty of detection (you have to literally look at someone's DNA) masks a lot of that stuff, and probably it's even more common than we currently estimate. Second, "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. So even though the legal system uses "sex", what they're really describing is "gender".
- nostrebored 10y ago
  >Second, "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. So even though the legal system uses "sex", what they're really describing is "gender". Really? I would say genitals as a heuristic for your legal status is probably extremely accurate. Are you denying that humans are sexually dimorphic?
  - DasIch 10y ago
    Why rely on a heuristic, when you can do better?
  - Avshalom 10y ago
    The thing about "heuristics" in this case is that it's a fifty-cent word for "generalizations" and generalizations are almost universally insufficient. Especially when it comes to a legal system.
    - nostrebored 10y ago
      What regarding the "generalization" of sexual dimorphism causes legal issues, in your estimation?

legodt 10y ago

Sex and gender are separate concepts. Sex is a basic biological function that is no longer relevant to ascribe anything to beyond that. Gender, a social construct, has been tightly wound up with sex for so long now that breaking down the binary is important to moving forward. Male and female in a pure sex perspective are no longer relevant to gender identity in progressive society.

ambrop7 10y ago
That is a reasonable way of looking at this, but the question is which concept belongs on your documents. The corresponding field on my (EU-based) passport says sex not gender - don't know how it is in the US. Your sex is something that is fixed and can be verified (as noted, with very rare exceptions). By this logic, your gender is your own decision. So I think sex has a better place in ID documents. Also I think having the biological sex on your documents can be useful medically - surely you want emergency responders / doctors to be able to tell your biological sex, for medical reasons.
- hx87 10y ago
  Agreed for the most part, but if sex is something that can be verified, why would having sex on your ID be all that useful to emergency responders and doctors? Can't they...verify it?
  - TruthAndDare 10y ago
    I don't think you can do, or have time to do, a genetic test as an emergency responder, if that's what you mean. But is that really why we put it on documents anyway?
    - hx87 10y ago
      Genetic tests are unnecessary for emergency responders, as physiological sex is what matters to them, and if physiological sex is easily verified, then they can verify it on the spot.
TruthAndDare 10y ago
> Sex is a basic biological function that is no longer relevant to ascribe anything to beyond that. No longer? Was it previously but isn't any more? What happened to make this so? And why would gender have any function? Can't we just disregard it?
- Avshalom 10y ago
  As to the second paragraph: in a "perfect" world yeah gender would probably be meaningless and yeah we could disregard it. But in the real world if you have one group of people that says "I don't 'see' gender" on the one side and the North Carolina legislature on the other side: the first group loses. Every Time.
- legodt 10y ago
  We are past the point where reproduction is the goal of our identity and existence.
  - TruthAndDare 10y ago
    Really? That notion seems alive and well to me. Maybe it's not important to you.

hx87 10y ago

Your legal sex (gender is a much more appropriate term) is whatever your legal documents say you are, regardless of whatever sexual indicators (anatomical and genetic) you have.

seanp2k2 10y ago
Sure, but consider how that's determined in the first place.
- hx87 10y ago
  Prescriptively or descriptively? Because how it's done isn't always right, and what's right isn't always how it's done.

themartorana 10y ago

Do you believe a person has the right to change it? Some people are born with both male and female genitalia - as many as 1 in 2000. There are also chromosomal differences that show up - not XX or XY. Here are some of the frequencies of this: http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency I agree with you that biologically, the majority of people are born with a well-definite biological sex. But the fact that there is an actual biological set of people that aren't XX or XY, however, means not even in birth is gender guaranteed to be deterministic. "I think, therefore I am" lends itself to gender identity, for me, anyway. Biology isn't 100%, and identity is even less so. Let people be what they want. I don't see where non-sex-identifying is really troubling. Edit: thinking about it more, is gender on documents used as one measure against fraud? Or as a way of protecting against potential sexual crimes? We have sexually separated things like bathrooms and prisons, and I wouldn't advocate for mixed-sex prisons (is there an argument for that I don't know?) so sexual identity and gender can't go away completely, right?

nostrebored 10y ago
First, the phrase you're looking for is sexually deterministic. 6 out of 10,000 babies are born without fully formed limbs. Is describing homo-sapiens as bipeds with four limbs no longer correct then? Where is the brink of acceptability for you? I find disputing the notion that human beings are sexually dimorphic to be an overreach. There are in fact arguments that transgender inmates should go to the prison that matches the gender that they identify with. This has (obviously) gone poorly a number of times so far. Another argument you can make is that self identification of gender skews statistics regarding violence by sex. For instance, even if 0.3% of men are transgender, given the huge disparity in violence by sex, you will see the differences start to narrow.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> But the fact that there is an actual biological set of people that aren't XX or XY And that, e.g., people who have Swyer syndrome (missing sex-determining-region-Y on the Y chromosome) are XY but more "female" in phenotype (and in development, with the usual course of treatment.) > I wouldn't advocate for mixed-sex prisons (is there an argument for that I don't know?) I'm not sure what the case against it is supposed to be; AFAICT, the main basis for segregation is implicitly (no one ever comes right out explicitly and makes this argument in full, but usually just makes vague handwaving toward sexual interaction and power dynamics that implies it without actually making an argument) based in the presumption that everyone is a cisgendered heterosexual, and that sexual drive and activity only occur with the availability of members of one's normally preferred sex, so that if you segregate by sex you avoid temptation for sexual interaction and associated power dynamics, violence, etc.

ubernostrum 10y ago

First off, it's likely that "sex" is much harder to define than you'd think. Human genitals all develop from the same proto-bits, creating more of a spectrum of configurations than a stark "clearly this one" or "clearly that one" binary. And chromosomes are not super useful either; just taking stats for two conditions off the top of my head, there are probably at least 1.75 million people walking around who are genitally "male" but chromosomally "female" -- the difficulty of detection (you have to literally look at someone's DNA) masks a lot of that stuff, and probably it's even more common than we currently estimate. Second, "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. So even though the legal system uses "sex", what they're really describing is "gender".

nostrebored 10y ago
>Second, "sex" in legal terms (for identity documents, etc.) is rarely necessarily tied to genitals or chromosomes, and more often is tied to a set of expectations about how the designated person will appear or behave. So even though the legal system uses "sex", what they're really describing is "gender". Really? I would say genitals as a heuristic for your legal status is probably extremely accurate. Are you denying that humans are sexually dimorphic?
- DasIch 10y ago
  Why rely on a heuristic, when you can do better?
- Avshalom 10y ago
  The thing about "heuristics" in this case is that it's a fifty-cent word for "generalizations" and generalizations are almost universally insufficient. Especially when it comes to a legal system.
  - nostrebored 10y ago
    What regarding the "generalization" of sexual dimorphism causes legal issues, in your estimation?