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 # to comment.
Shelters for domestically abused women need to be female only.
Please explain why. Do you believe that all males are domestic abusers and that no women in same-sex relationships have ever been abused?
I volunteered at a shelter with my mother as a younger teen. Then overnight I went from someone who could reliably count cans of Habitant soup and diapers to someone who could not be trusted to know the address. My best friend at the time and his mother were victims of domestic violence. The inference hurt and still does 30 years later. So I would like to understand your position.
What??? I can, from personal experience, let you know that’s just bullshit. Do you think genitals at birth determines who receives domestic abuse? In fact, trans femme experience more domestic abuse by percentage. Should we shove trans femme into an all male shelter? There are more all male shelters by a large percentage in the USA, it’s difficult to get into an all female shelter. If they are there, it’s for a good reason. FFS. Terf talking points are ignorant.
I’m saying men don’t belong in women’s domestic abuse centers. I provided no definitions. You chose to jump to outrage.
You provided no definitions, just implications, because you’re too scared to stand behind your own beliefs.
Own your own transphobia, coward.
Little man spouting someone else’s ideas. Go away.
Weak attempt at insult, do better
Ahhhh, a troll. Ic, carry on trolling then.
Go rage someplace else.
Ok. I get the sex differentiation when needing medical care. What I don’t get is why we have to tell everyone else what gender we are. If you can do the job, what does it matter? If you are driving, what does it matter? You can change your appearance at any time. Now, I know that injuries can happen anywhere, but there are so many variables in appearance and dress that it seems pointless. Emergency services don’t demand sex identification before treatment. Doctors treat injuries not sex. Yes, there can be treatments that need this information, doctors do ask for a valid reason. I know I’m neurodivergent. I just feel like it’s not really my business whatcha got going on below the “packaging” in a non-having sexual relations soon kinda way. If I would like to have sex with you, I would then start with what I’ve got going on, then ask if you’re ok with that. I’ve always assumed the people I’ve had sex with were human, haven’t gone wrong with that yet. I didn’t decide to have sex with someone on what I think is under their clothing. Communication is key folks. I have made assumptions in my life, but a quick, kind correction is not going to ruin my day. Yes, I’ve made passes to persons who turned me down, who hasn’t? Didn’t slow me down. I’ve mostly worked in office situations, but I did have a few years driving tractor-trailers, even there, you really don’t know what the “packaging” covers. I think it’s just all just busy bodies poking their noses and prejudice into others people’s lives. They can just fuck off with that shit. So many want to bring up safety reasons, maybe we should start with stopping non-consent culture and supporting those who have suffered. Today’s culture explicitly supports non-consent culture. It’s disgusting. Sorry for the wall of text.
Women are excluded from medical studies and even medicines designed for women are trialed on men, anyway, so I would argue it wouldn’t make a difference medically, anyway.
I wouldn’t, due to biological differences in sex. I mean, not that I wouldn’t take drugs designed for women, but if you’re hemorrhaging blood or have a problem where certain medicines present contraindications with your biology, you’d want a doctor to know.
Primary care physicians need to know what conditions you might be susceptible to in the future, and some of these conditions are based on your sex.
I agree … ish
I think sex identification is useful for medical stuff, until it isn’t. If I was born with testicles, and I have a motorcycle accident that removes them. I don’t have testicular cancer. The bit here isn’t that I am “male” so I might have testicular cancer, the importance is “do I have testicles”.
Sex is an overall term that may align with certain likelyhoods, chances or diagnosis. But even then, it’s not a guarantee.
Anemia is the first thing on my mind, but I don’t have girl parts and fail to grasp the significance of that other than people telling me that it’s bad.
My first statement is about medical personnel asking valid questions about physical sex. Considering there are quite a variety of answers to this question, it’s most likely needed in your example. If you have had testicular cancer, it could have metastatic implications without actually having testicles at that time. I would hope that it would be caught before then, but I take your example to mean your testicles were removed in the motorcycle accident (I assume they are gone?) so you assume that you didn’t have, at the time of the accident, testicular cancer? Idk, seems to support my points. No ish involved.
(from our thread in Actual Discussion) It exists as you see it in this weird middle state now because gender used to be completely synonymous with sex.
I first became familiar with the idea of gender in High School in the 90’s. Unlike most, I have forestry credits as I was in boarding school and had some very… odd classes. We ran an apiary and made our own honey, kept and raced sled dogs, worked a restaurant we ran, ran a library, etc.
We were tasked with taking care of a square kilometre of forest up in Northern Canada and, as such, had to learn about plant species native to the region. We learned about plant gender.
Plants have a gender because they lack a biological sex; it is a different classification system. In regards to humans, however, the dictionaries (and people using the term) at the time used it interchangeably with the term sex. The only differentiation that I ever saw between the two was in dealing with plants or heavily academic papers.
Intersex humans were, at least taxonomically, an aberration and not a classification. Early on they presented and operated as whatever their dominant sexual traits would indicate and frequently did not deviate and there was little issue with this.
But… even since the early 80’s when I was born, there was a wide berth in what it could mean to be a man or woman. When people were talking about stereotypes, they seemed to be speaking about things that I’d seen in old TV shows from the 50’s and 60’s, not things I was familiar with in real life. That “housewife and single breadwinner husband” home shit was long past and seemed antiquated even then. It wasn’t BAD to be stereotypical or not, mind you, but other than a few farming households I knew, I never saw the “stay-at-home-Mom” dynamic. Every family had a different dynamic and people fit where they built themselves space to do so. I knew very few “stereotypical male” Dads or “stereotypical female” Moms other than on TV, and we all knew damn well that TV wasn’t true to life.
When I witnessed third-wave feminist messaging start to get big in the 2010s speaking about this stuff like it was common, expected, and had to be destroyed, it was odd to me. It was like they were fighting with ghosts from days long past.
I recognize that my personal experiences don’t match everyone, but I lived in Cincinnati, Edmonton, Calgary, Saudi Arabia, Kingston, Amsterdam, Thailand, Kentucky, and many more. The only place I witnessed what could be described as “traditional roles” was in Saudi, and even then it was only defined by a few laws, not the way people actually acted. I knew many friends that had their father completely cowed by their mother even in that insane theocracy.
All that to say that gender in humans… doesn’t seem to have a purpose to me. Since gender can be fluid in humans, it is not at all worth categorizing in humans. It means, effectively, nothing. It’s like trying to categorize hair colour down to the hex code; it accomplishes nothing whatsoever.
Sex is a medically distinguishing characteristic. I get why it needs to exist. Gender? I don’t understand why it came to be used for anything as it hasn’t done anything other than stir basic culture war garbage.
This matches closely with my own experience.
identification
Gender doesn’t help here. Or there would be no confusion over it in place of an image. The image provides more information and the gender marker is unreliable as an identifier even for cis people.
We have laws making it illegal to discriminate according to gender. If there are zero legal gender categories, there is no legal basis by which one can say discrimination has occured, so nobody can technically commit such a crime.
Not necessarily legal but tracking genders is extremely important for data analytics in almost every field. For example knowing certain diseases affects genders differently allows scientists to create better medicines or medicines that target different things. Like medicines that are specifically designed to be safe for pregnancy.
That would be tracking sex, not gender. Gender has no bearing on medical issues as it’s a social construct.
While true, thos doesn’t mean the state has to track the gender. It can be part of medical files. The state also doesn’t care about my blood type, which is also super important in some medical situations.
When it comes to the “state” tracking sex demographics it can be very important when it comes to future planning for citizens. It can matter if you want to transition for example. The state can make long term plans based on that data to encourage an increase in facilities that can offer more support and services to those areas than need trans people.
Just tucking that information away in a medical file that only you and a doctor or two will see does nothing to make society better for trans people as a whole.
☝️
Yep
Different laws apply to different genders
The important thing is not the legal genders, but that we can hate somebody we don’t know for something they haven’t done.
Many users have mentioned medical reasons, but there are also a bunch of legal privileges that only one gender has. In my country,
- Some number of jobs (usually 33%) are reserved for women. Some states reserve a small number of jobs for transpeople / intersex / third gender people.
- Maternity leave > paternity leave
- Many government schemes are only for women.
- In a divorce, if the children do not have strong preferences for either parent, they are sent with the mother.
- At night, women cannot be kicked out of trains for travelling without tickets.
- Women can only be searched / arrested by policewomen.
- Religious accomodations, like Sikh men but not women having a right to carry knives in high-security areas.
- In Delhi and nearby areas, men are less likely to get sexually assualted.
Sounds like the problem is a lack of gender equality, which I suppose would in fact need to be fixed first.
Also a disturbing amount of sexual assaults, particularly around Delhi. (Men getting assaulted by women is rare enough that we haven’t had to make rules specifically for it.) During the recent protests a policeman harassed a female protestor after arresting her, despite the rule that only policewomen should arrest women. Now most police forces aren’t as bad as Delhi police, but that bar is underground.
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.
Weird as fuck how heavily this gets downvoted.
Yes, it does matter in a medical context. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fucking ridiculous and not understanding the nature of reality.
I agree that it doesn’t matter in too many other places. But pretending it doesn’t matter in a medical context is quite frankly ridiculous.
It’s important for people with breast tissue to get screened for breast cancer.
It’s important for people with prostates to get screened for prostate cancer.
People who bleed each month often have lower hemoglobin levels that are not as immediately alarming as in people who don’t bleed every month.
It’s not rocket science. Enjoy not being treated for potentially deadly issues because you think biological sex is irrelevant to medical issues.
Look…express yourself however best suits you. I absolutely advocate people expressing themselves in whatever manner of gender that is truly them. But biology is incredibly important in a medical context.
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.
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.
need to know weight for dosing, not genitals
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.
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…
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
“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.
- you’re trans
- you’re involved in an accident
- you’re unconscious
- EMTs administer medication at levels that a woman can handle depending on body fat composition and hormonal fluctuations
- being a genetic male, you die because you lack the increased body fats and estrogen that was assumed in dosage
I get your point, but it’s important to have your gender somewhere on a trustworthy source that everybody has.
This sounds convincing, but then, is there actually any medication an EMT would administer based on sex? I honestly dont know.
Maybe we should all have blood types written down somewhere, because that surely is the same situation right? (I mean, we should all know it, I don’t)
If you donate blood, depending on the org, you might get a card that has your blood info on it. Seems like a good thing to keep in your wallet :)
Emergency medication isn’t dosed by gender, it’s dosed by weight. It really would only matter with certain drugs in pregnancy.
It is helpful to know the original gender for some things because certain illnesses present differently in men V women and not all of that changes post transition so if you are treating a man it would be helpful to know that he was born a woman so you don’t brush off certain symptoms as minor if in fact in a women they would be very alarming. For example, men having heart attacks are more likely to present with the classic chest pain radiating to their arm. Women can have chest pain, but often present as sudden onset of nausea and vomiting with no pain. That’s a rare presentation of a heart attack in a man, so a man complaining of severe nausea is more likely to be thought of as GI in nature, but if you know he’s trans then alarm bells start screaming that this might be cardiac and you need to do an EKG now.
But in an unconscious trauma patient, it doesn’t really matter. If a trans man still has a uterus then that’s an additional organ to be damaged that might not be expected, but that’s not something that’s going to be caught in the ambulance either way because we don’t have a CT scanner hanging out in the cabinets.
For example, men having heart attacks are more likely to present with the classic chest pain radiating to their arm. Women can have chest pain, but often present as sudden onset of nausea and vomiting with no pain. That’s a rare presentation of a heart attack in a man, so a man complaining of severe nausea is more likely to be thought of as GI in nature, but if you know he’s trans then alarm bells start screaming that this might be cardiac and you need to do an EKG now.
This is why we need more medical research focused on trans and intersex bodies. It’s honestly a travesty that it hasn’t been studied much, largely due to the pushback from oppressive governments and transphobes. The problem extends beyond trans people, so much medical research is modeled on white cis male bodies, but I’m sure you’re already aware of that issue.
Transition affects nearly every part of the body. It’s already known that trans brains more closely resemble their cis counterparts rather than their sex assigned at birth (citations: NIH.gov, Scientific American). It wouldn’t make sense to treat a trans woman as a cis man for brain imaging. In trans men, testosterone deepens the vocal chords and can even slow down or stop periods. In trans women, estrogen shrinks the prostate and can even reverse male pattern baldness. Surely there are other effects on internal medicine, both positive and negative
Part of trans liberation involves sponsoring more research in this topic. In your heart attack example, has it been scientifically proven that the symptoms are immutable with transition? Does the amount of time someone’s been transitioning affect it? These are genuine questions, I don’t know the answers to them
I agree that more research needs to be done. I don’t know the answers to those questions either. I’m sure there’s lots more knowledge out there that is known that I just don’t know, but there’s also tons of knowledge that’s lacking, the same way that there’s tons of knowledge that’s lacking about women’s bodies. Humans are fascinating and there’s so many different factors that can affect medical presentations or risk factors.
Unfortunately in the current climate that research is considered too “woke” to “waste” money on, so people will continue to suffer from insufficient medical care even when their providers are genuinely trying their best.
Weight isn’t the only consideration for emergency medicine dosing, though… There are lipophilic drugs in emergency medicine. CT scanners aren’t the only thing used in emergency medicine, point-of-care ultrasound is used by physicians too.
It’s not like biological sex is irrelevant in emergency medicine.
Sure, but none of the drugs that would be used in the situation you describe would matter enough to kill or seriously harm anyone. At worst it would just have a longer half life and then you just don’t give as many or as high doses later on. And that also applies to many different demographics including old people and people with other medical issues that causes them to clear drugs slower, which is why patients are monitored and dosed accordingly and the dosage schedule is a guideline not a rule.
If some random distribution of body fat could kill a person then you’d have people dropping dead left and right based off differences in everyone’s muscle mass to body fat ratio and it just doesn’t work that way.
I never said it was irrelevant, I literally wrote that it can be very very relevant in some cases, but it’s not so relevant that it’s vital to know if you’re unconscious and bleeding out.
deleted by creator
I mostly agree with you, but it’s not like overdoses caused by medical errors don’t ever happen either. Because it has a longer half-life (due to biological women commonly having a higher percentage of body fat compared to biological men, for example), medication levels can build up (as you mentioned) and result in adverse effects if you make a mistake with dosing. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics do matter too.
Just because it’s not common (because physicians are trained to handle it appropriately) doesn’t mean it’s not possible.
Like you said, demographics (including age, biological sex, etc) do matter.
As someone who’s been transitioning for 12+ years, I guarantee my body fat and hormones are literally nowhere near “genetic male”. Medically confirmed in fact, repeatedly. You’re making big assumptions about trans bodies that aren’t necessarily true.
I’d love to see what emergency meds you’re talking about that are more dependent on body fat composition rather than something like BMI, allergies, medical conditions, or age. But even then- soft tissues are the most affected by medical transition and are more closely aligned to their cis targets. That’s kinda the whole point. Not to mention the medical expertise behind whoever is administering said drugs.
Edit: oh you’re from lemmy.ml, that explains a lot
Cisgender women have a naturally higher percentage of body fat than cisgender men, so lipophilic drugs have a larger volume of distribution in women. They sink into the fat tissue, stay in the body longer, and can take much more time to clear out. Overlooking sex-based variations in volume of distribution can be dangerous in an emergency situation, it absolutely can result in adverse drug reactions.
That kind of information can be a factor in an emergency medicine situation, it’s not worth pretending that it’s not the case.
Medicine is one of the areas where biological sex is actually relevant.
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.
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 incentives. 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.
Your third paragraph confuses me. Why would conservatives be alright with this solution?
Because conservative rich kids wear pink “ironically” as a flex that they’re rich, and therefore “manly enough” that they de-gender pink as a color.
What does that have to do with gender-neutral bathrooms?
That conservatives use gender as a weapon at their discretion.
Let me reframe my original question. How does making gender neutral bathrooms neutralize conservatives concern over restrooms? That’s literally what they’re concerned about.
It can’t. Their identity is wrapped up in the expectation that most people, like them, lack impulse control and can’t be trusted in any situation where genitals are involved. They think every horror imaginable is only seconds away from happening in every bathroom.
No, they have separate values that make their priorities in this debate separate from your own.
So was your third paragraph meant as sarcasm then?
Those are good points. Genders and gendered colors always were inconvenient to me. I hate how women’s gym shoes are always shitty colors and I have to worry about people offended because of traditional gender roles. It’s annoying af.
Pink is not considered feminine in many countries. Also, marriage is not Christian. Hindus, muslims, Buddhists, pagans, and all kind of folks get married and have before Christians existed. It’s not one man and one woman. Massai warriors and Mormons have lots of wives.
Some amount of gendered colors is a useful social shortcut. When our children were babies, we painted the nursery green because that’s my favorite color, and otherwise didn’t bother much with color. However when we went out we tended to have some obvious blue to make it simpler to talk about our baby. It’s easier for someone to say “he’s cute” because he has a blue blanket, than to have the “boy or girl?” Discussion.
Similarly our dog has a pink collar because it’s easier for someone to say “she’s cute” rather than “boy or girl?” And have some random person checking her genitals. It’s only here on Lemmy where people get pornographic about mention of a dog where they don’t know the gender
It’s just a problem when it’s forced, or excessive, or becomes someone’s identity
Good point. Also babies don’t have different body types so I guess you can use whatever you want. Unlike when I see cool shoes but the women’s sizes a pink or shitty pastel colors while boys get cool stuff.
Well and even in the West, pink and blue didn’t used to be gendered like they are. 100+ years ago yellow was boys, light blue for girls. So the gendering isn’t even static, it’s as fluid as gender itself.
Oh wow. I had no idea. That’s fun to imagine. I guess it’s easy to adapt the mind to the idea.
I know it’s just a typo/autocorrect, but I seriously chuckled at “tax invectives.”
Thanks for the catch. I didn’t have my glasses so the blur of text looked like the right blur.
It’s extremely apt. I’m definitely going to remember it next tax season.
Hey, a constant point John Hodgeman makes on his judgement podcast is that long term cohabitation without the tax breaks is foolish. There no reason to give the state more money just to stick it to convention.
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.
So for a trans person on hormones but without updated id markers they would die?
If memory serves one of the affected medications is used to treat some kinds of heart attacks, so possibly literally yes.
That’s sex, though, not gender
Is it? You can have female hormone levels and still have male genitalia. Science is cool like that. And no, people aren’t defined solely by their genitals, but they aren’t solely defined by their appearance either, or their biology. It’s a big mash up of those things and a few more.
Point being it’s really hard to describe that situation as being solely one or the other. It’s definitely something that needs to be indicated for medical reasons though, but most Identification Documents don’t draw any distinction between sex and gender, much less allow for notation of something like that. Once again, paperwork lags behind reality.
But sex is all of the biological part, and yeah, exactly because is holistical and not just a sum of its parts is that it’s the reason because it’s precise.
The gender is all the sociocultural and psicological part.
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.
That’s not relevant for justifying legal sex or gender.
To be pedantic you’d want to know sex not gender for medical reasons.
You might want to know both in certain situations.
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.
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.
(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
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.
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
-
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.
I do think men getting conscripted because they’re men in kinda bullshit.
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.
I would say that if people don’t care about their country and don’t want to fight for it it’s OK for this country to lose a war.
Back when I lived in Poland, if it was invaded I would be the first one to flee the country. Let the people that want to live there die for it… Now that I live in Spain, if anyone tried to invade, I would definitely join the fight. Well, maybe not if they invaded Catalonia but once they reached Murcia I would be on the front lines.
Yep
Also, if there was a very great threat, people would enlist willingly, making conscription unnecessary.
You would have to believe that people are willing to sacrifice to protect their communities but people aren’t even willing to look at windmills to protect their communities from climate change. Which does not mean they don’t want to keep their community as it is, they might just be to afraid and/or selfish to join themselves.
If people were guided by some intristic “goodness” we wouldn’t have such a shit society in the first place.
Meh people aren’t really known to do the “right” thing if they would we wouldn’t have had war in the first place. Also people might be fully supportive of a war but don’t want to get their hands dirty themselves.
The natural conclusion would be that any country forcing its people to fight will probably have an advantage over any country that doesn’t and if that country overtakes you you get conscripted anyway.
Women can have kids so in times of war men are seen as disposables. You can’t rebuild a nation without women but you basically can without men
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:(
That one isn’t a feminist law, that’s a fascist one, under the fasc ideal “women are too weak to fight!”
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”
Like it or not that women will guaranteed face harsh realities.
Iraq.
A line of “Iraqi military” taking turns at a boy. Nothing you can do about it.
It can be both
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
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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?
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.
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.
You act like there’s no option to create GENDER EQUALITY, and instead the only option is to remove those laws.
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”
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.
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
why are there legal genders?
historical reasons
Why do we need legal genders?
we don’t
My driver’s license couldn’t even include my proper eye colour: pers (or hazel). So it says my eyes are green… when they are not.
That’s about as correct as my gender designation.
You have to think of the poor cops who don’t know more than 4 colours. Can’t scare them too much with challenging nuance and facts.
