7 ms·

Yes, that is literally what I said - medical IDs, which are presented where and to whom it is relevant and necessary. Not on general purpose IDs that need to be

• the_third_wave 5y ago
  > I don't mean to insinuate but I do have to ask if you're actually reading what I'm saying in good faith or just reacting. I am reacting to the increasing trend of renormalisation of the exception to make it the new norm(al). If the new normal is not to denote sex in the passport this would mean that everyone would need to carry an additional document - like the medical IDs mentioned - to identify themselves as male or female to the aforementioned police officer [1] and doctor to avoid the mentioned risks. [1] as to your earlier remark about me seem[ing] to think that the police officer is supposed to process someone that is unconscious into jail. Just...what? - realise that different countries have different norms, no matter what you may think of that. The Indonesian police officer will act according to Indonesian norms, not according to yours. While what you or I think about those norms is up to us, it is decidedly not up to us to dictate our norms to others.
  • filleduchaos 5y ago
    > I am reacting to the increasing trend of renormalisation of the exception to make it the new norm(al). So in essence you really are not paying attention to what I'm actually saying, you just have an axe to grind and are determined to grind it regardless of what I say. If that's not the case, I'm very interested indeed to know how exactly you arrived at "everyone would need to carry an additional document" from "denoting your sex on general-purpose identification should be opt-in". To me it would seem patently obvious to anybody who is not jumping to argue that the only people who would need to carry additional papers are those who have chosen to (by deciding not to put their sex on their passports, driver's licenses or what have you). I think it would be worth your while to interrogate why your kneejerk reaction to "it should be the individual's choice to disclose this information" is to translate it to "nobody should disclose this information". > While what you or I think about those norms is up to us, it is decidedly not up to us to dictate our norms to others. First of all I guarantee that we are not from the same country nor do we share norms. Second of all, it's not the norm in Indonesia to (for example) recognise same-sex marriages, but I fail to see how this is an argument about those in such marriages owning documents that reflect their union (or making their own decisions about where they can take those documents to and what workarounds they might need where their validity is not recognised). And finally I frankly do not understand what your point is with the police officer. What exactly happens to an unconscious woman in a street in Indonesia found by a police officer with an X in her passport as opposed to an F (or with no passport at all, which is by far the most likely option)?
    • the_third_wave 5y ago
      > I'm very interested indeed to know how exactly you arrived at "everyone would need to carry an additional document" This is in reaction to the proposition to not denote sex in ID documents at all as is proposed elsewhere in this discussion. > First of all I guarantee that we are not from the same country nor do we share norms You are assuming a lot here, both about where I am from as well as what my norms are. Don't do that, both because where we come from is of no concern but mostly because it makes it much more difficult to have an open discussion. > Second of all, it's not the norm in Indonesia to (for example) recognise same-sex marriages, but I fail to see how this is an argument about those in such marriages owning documents that reflect their union (or making their own decisions about where they can take those documents to and what workarounds they might need where their validity is not recognised). In which way is this related to my suggestion that it is not up to you or me to impose our standards on e.g. Indonesia? If the fictional couple in your example were to go to Indonesia they would be treated according to Indonesian norms no matter what their own ideas would be, just like they would be treated according to Swedish norms in Sweden, Indian norms in India and Russian norms in Russia. > And finally I frankly do not understand what your point is with the police officer. What exactly happens to an unconscious woman in a street in Indonesia found by a police officer with an X in her passport as opposed to an F (or with no passport at all, which is by far the most likely option)? If the woman with the X in her passport were to look somewhat like a man [1] she could end up in a holding cell with men. As to whether it is far more likely she would not be carrying a passport at all is doubtful given that she is travelling abroad and as such will be carrying one by necessity. In many places it is mandatory to carry ID, both foreign and domestic, at all times. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27773590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27773590