> Sex should be removed as a legal designation on the public part of birth certificates, the American Medical Association (AMA) said Monday. Yet shortly after.

> Sex should be removed as a legal designation on the public part of birth certificates, the American Medical Association (AMA) said Monday. Yet shortly after. > only 10 states allow for a gender-neutral designation, usually "X," on birth certificates So now sex and gender are the same? > "Assigning sex using binary variables in the public portion of the birth certificate fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity," Underwood said, and can be used to discriminate. It looks like. I'm skeptical about gender theory (or rather, wary of the identity politics that seem to come along with it), so bear with me if I misunderstand something. Assigning sex assigns sex, not gender. It's a birth certificate, not a "birth fact sheet that needs to be amended in the future with things that can't be known at birth" certificate. I see sometimes (this article included) the argument that when birth certificates are required, it will force trans/queers to "out" themselves in situations where it's not safe for them, but that's disingenuous because, at least in the countries I'm familiar with, you can't change your name in your birth certificate to begin with, and when you can there's the original + amendment. So you're still gonna have John in it even if you're Jane, which raises more questions than an M/F field. You generally obtain a name/sex recognition certificate and with those you can go and obtain updated duplicates of your driving license, ID, passport, diplomas (outing yourself every single time in the process). Personally I see no particular reason to require birth certificates for any purpose when any other government produced document is available, except, maybe, when acquiring citizenships. Maybe that's the way to go, rather than removing sex (or gender) from the birth certificate itself.