I suppose that would have to start by identifying why it's necessary to record someone's "race" in the first place. Does it need to change, or can it just be removed altogether?
For similar reasons why biologically accurate gender is important. Those with African genetics are more susceptible to sickle cell for instance. Apparently Asians are more susceptible to liver cancer. Women are more likely to develop breast cancer, a FTM Trans patient doesn't get a male's health risk profile.
Racism is in practice a somewhat different idea ("I don't like brown people / I don't like people from Africa / I don't like muslims or what I think are muslims") from race-segregation ("DOB 4.5.1971, race hispanic"), which is something found in legislation (but is also a racist concept, obviously). You are of course correct that racism is at least somewhat widespread in most countries. The latter concept on the other hand is pretty much exclusive to the US at this point.
> His genitalia regardless of identification indicates sex.
More specifically, his biology regardless of identification. This is a surprisingly complicated gray area, though; there is a pretty wide space for biological sex to be ambiguous in different ways. For example, it is possible for hormonal differences to cause a person with XX chromosomes to develop male features, a person with XY chromosomes to develop female features, or for a person (especially an infant) to have ambiguous or hybrid features.
Intersex individuals, or individuals with genetic deformities or mutations are not that common, and none could appropriately labelled as a "third sex".
I'm not labeling any of them as a third sex, or denying that it's a rare issue. I'm just saying that there's a big enough gray area that one might want to consider it before driving policy. It's probably more common than you think too. From TFA:
> By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have
> differences or disorders of sex development, such as
> hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical
> ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia
> cannot clearly be classified as male or female.
Not according to the article, which purports that as many as 1 in 100 people have "differences or disorders of sex".
That is a much higher number than I've heard thrown around before, and probably it has something to do with the phrasing of "differences or disorders of sex", which may include much greater differences and disorders than usually mentioned (such as XXY chromosomes, etc).
It would be very interesting to know what precisely they are counting as "differences of sex" -- hopefully not simply aesthetic differences, which I believe most people are aware there is an incredible variety of expressions.
Well, it does say "By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have", which sounds like it means, "by the highest estimate anyone has made", or "range with highest maximum anyone has estimated". Usually a more average number is used, than an extreme, when an actual value is unknown.
> If a person identifies as a male, this is gender.
Strictly, gender identity.
> His genitalia regardless of identification indicates sex.
His genitalia is one aspect of biological sex, and it typically correlates with other aspects of biological sex.
If society deems genitalia as particularly important (as many have), it may also determine ascribed gender.
Biological sex, ascribed gender, and gender identity are three different things (and a person may have more than one ascribed gender from different sources, though the most commonly ascribed one in the society in which they live is normally the one that is of most concern.)
It's a common modern norm (that the government proposal at issue flies in the face of) to align ascribed gender with gender identity.
How does this work in practice? Do you perform pre-conversation inspections? (Feel free to save us both some embarrassment and make your reply fully gender neutral.)
I have worked with at least one transgender individual who I must assume wished to be accepted as a woman, given how that person dressed, spoke, and the name that that person used. I was happy to use the pronouns she/her as a courtesy, and agree that it did me no harm. But I can also understand that some people feel that it would be harmful if the state or another authority forced them to say something they deemed to be untrue.
This is the most pragmatic approach, refusing to walk the labyrinthine trail of gender choices.
What is wrong with a man accepting his biological sex and identifying as female, for example? I think the issue is that said man wants people to call him "she" so he can feel his womanhood complete, something he can never achieve because he's still genetically male and his femininity can only imitate that of a genetic female.
He is Paul, born male and identified as female. She is Susan, born female and identified as gay male. Simple.
I highly recommend that anyone who believes the content of that editorial watch the video series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask which can be found online. The short version is, the people pushing the "biological gender is not science" narrative are themselves more driven by ideology than science, not the other way around.
If they really want a special case for people whose genitalia are misformed, that's a different argument than saying we shouldn't classify people based on genetics at all. Also, if people understand that the gender on a birth certificate is genetics based, then they can choose for themselves to discuss with their potential sexual partner why the gender on their birth certificate should be interpreted a particular way due to special factors in their case.
I imagine that if one is being as technical as possible then sex is pretty unambiguous, i.e. egg/female sex cell producing -> female, sperm/male sex cell producing -> male.
Of course that leads to complications when you have to try and generally apply it, which is where the ambiguity comes from.
But XY without a copy of sex determining region Y is (typically, there may be some other variation) female in phenotype, not a male (conversely, XX with SRY, resulting from the same crossover in sex cell formation, is male phenotype, not female.) Biological sex isn't binary, and it's also not as simple as chromosome combinations.
In which case perhaps the proposed legislation is actually pretty good about how to identify sex... look at the genitalia, and only follow up with the genetics if that's ambiguous. The proposed legislation looks better in light of this, not worse. It proposes to identify by phenotype rather than genotype (although ultimately by genotype of specific genes that result in different genitalia), which is a practical way of categorizing people by the genes (most of) society actually cares about in this case.
But people can have one body with multiple chromosome combinations. As soon as we start admitting that there needs to be an "other" category, we're admitting that the categorisation we currently have is at the very least, inadequate.
Biological sex (which is distinct from gender) is science, but it's not binary (for humans, it's loosely bimodal.)
Deliberately choosing some aspect(s) of biological sex as ascribed gender and giving it special legal status isn't science, it's social engineering.
> Also, if people understand that the gender on a birth certificate is genetics based
That's not the proposal; the proposal is genitalia at birth compared to sex stereotypes with genetics resorted to only with ambiguous genitalia. But since it's possible for genetics (at the XX v. XY level, and even ignoring other combinations) to mismatch genitalia at birth without genitalia that would be ambiguous (unless one simply defines all genitalia as ambiguous), this is not equivalent to being based on genetics.
I would say trying to deny that 95%+ of humans are clearly either male or female and trying to engineer the laws around a small percentage that want to be differently identified is the social engineering. The author is not trying to make the minimum possible change to the proposed legislation to make it acceptable, they're just trying to find something wrong with it so they can resist it entirely.
Genitalia match genetic sex in the vast majority of cases.
There are plenty of places where laws are flawed. Laws are designed to handle the vast majority of cases. They are meant to be practical.
Anyway, the point is, if the problem is with how to handle the exception to the rule, the < 5% with ambiguous gender, then the author of the editorial should make that argument, but saying that there is "no basis in science" for the proposed legislation is ridiculous and obviously ideologically driven.
> I would say trying to deny that 95%+ of humans are clearly either male or female
No one is denying that the vast majority of humans fall mostly into one of two biological sex clusters and identify in a way which historically corresponds to the way people in that cluster have been externally ascribed a gender, so that's a strawman.
> and trying to engineer the laws around a small percentage that want to be differently identified is the social engineering.
Yes, the movement to align ascribed gender with gender identity is social engineering, no less than the attempt to reverse the movement made in that direction is. Virtually no one involved in the effort denies that, either.
One side is trying to engineer to remove a palpable source of harm, the other to restore it.
But it seems you either do not understand or do not support that. That's far over 90% you have to appeal to, not just those who happen to have a horse in the race. That's not a strawman argument, it's a viable figure of speech.
> a palpable source of harm
If bio and virtual gender are different, then virtual gender should remain unphased by a notion of bio gender.
Since you seem to be in disagreement about that, your position appears conflicting so that any interpretation is naturally a strawman, but provocating clarification. Same as:
> the other [side is trying] to restore it [harm].
There are gender-specific laws in the US. For example, selective service registration, which is mandatory for males. Without having a legal definition there is no way to enforce this law since everybody will be able to claim not being a male to evade it.
Losing the distinctions in those laws would mostly be a net win for society.
For those that address a real need with sex distinction, if any, you can just define things in terms relevant to the law rather than a general purpose “legal gender” and have better laws without externally imposing broad gender labels.
I don't think drafting women, for example, is going to be a net win for society. But nobody prevents you from campaigning to repeal or amend those laws to remove gender. But while we still have such laws there has to be a legal definition of gender, it seems pretty obvious.
> I don't think drafting women, for example, is going to be a net win for society.
If having a draft is good for society, especially a limited, skills-based draft (one of the things that the selective service system in principle supports), then excluding women from registration for it an exposure is a net loss (even if you might also benefit from excluding or limiting exposure of people who might bear children in the future to the type of mass draft used for, e.g., the world wars.)
> But while we still have such laws there has to be a legal definition of gender
The question was “what is the harm of making legal gender optional?” Obsoleting distinctions in law that are not themselves beneficial is not a harm.
I am not sure this is how arguments work. Saying "if <something> then <something else>" works only if <something else> actually follows from <something>.
The problem isn't the two major gender classifications, the problem is that it's impossible to objectively classify all humans at birth into either category.
Most people's psychological gender corresponds to their genitalia and their genetics, but for some it doesn't. (The entirety of the trans* issue)
The only reasonable way forward is to make legal gender optional and changeable. The idea that you can, or worse, should, classify every human into one of two options is wrong. It's a bizarre conservative, Victorian idea that nature should somehow always be neatly categorized, and when it can't be, those that don't fit in are somehow "wrong".
No, the reality is that nature is messy and anything but neatly categorizable, therefore our systems should be flexible enough to handle that.
How are you going to have sports, many of which have a substantial male/female performance difference between the distributions? Either everyone's lumped together and you have sports that exclude the vast majority of women, or you do away with individual sports and force (force... that doesn't sound gender-neutral to me) 50/50 split for teams.
Gender identification may not be directly relevant to narrow performance in a lot of other areas, but it is relevant to overall human behavior, which affects personal choices that end up affecting things (like work and hobbies) even when performance on specific tasks is not directly affected by gender differences.
Just because corner cases cause problems doesn't imply we should do away with any attempt to identify anyone as anything. Not identifying people according to easily discernible (in the vast majority of cases) characteristics causes its own problems.
> Either everyone's the same and you have sports that exclude the vast majority of women
Most sport, at any serious level, exclude the vast majority of people regardless of gender, gender identity, or biological sex, and sports with a significant sex-associated performance difference offer substantially fewer and poorer paying opportunities for the lower-performing sex whether or not they are sex-segregated.
It means you get to choose whether to watch men's tennis or women's tennis; men's gymnastics or women's gymnastics; men's track and field or women's track and field.
It means you don't have to deal with as much social and sexual drama between team members for team sports, which I suspect (but don't have data because I don't think adequate studies have been done) distracts from practicing the sport. This is a similar problem to mixed-sex infantry squads. You can wish for all the equality you want, but you won't get it.
It means you have many varieties of sports with women competing that girls and other women can look up to as role models or inspiration or motivation to participate in sports.
No, it doesn't mean any of that because sports governing bodies can divide up divisions irrespective of legal gender (e.g., the Olympics handles this, and their standard isn't “look at the legal gender of the athlete and stop there”.)
There may be a good reason to segregate some sports by some traits linked to sex (but “genitals at birth” probably isn't the best standard for that), but even if there is it doesn't require immutable legal gender to do that.
So are you saying we should do away with legal gender only to have de-facto legal gender used for all sorts of things like sports or insurance policies? Who's going to standardize those determinations if it's not the government?
If the government's standards aren't good, and are in fact simply "genitals at birth", then that needs to be fixed, but as far as I can tell that's not true, at least federally or for the state I checked. If you transition, you get a court document with a doctor's statement certifying it, and you update your gender on your official documents. Right? There probably need to be different legal standards based on the purpose the gender is being used for, too. Being a trans woman shouldn't allow you to compete in women's MMA, for instance; there's already been an instance of that happening and it was a disaster.
What concrete problem or injustice are you trying to correct? That people can't decide to change genders for a day, or decide they want to be officially recognized as the opposite gender before they transition? Is that a problem?
People seem to want [biological] sex labels to mirror how they present themselves to others, instead of mirroring (as closely as possible, based on the reason the gender label is being requested) the underlying sex characteristic / hormonal physical reality of their body. That strikes me as a problem. In the limited situations and cases where people are asking for [biological] gender and need to know, how you present yourself ceases to matter. If they don't need to know, they you can use whatever label you want. Same with your name, or your date of birth, or anything else. But it's almost always pointless to informally declare your gender, because anyone interacting with you is going to pick up on what gender you present yourself as (whether verbally, in temperament, or physically). Labelling yourself other than your biological gender isn't needed for enlightened, tolerant people, and will only antagonize people who aren't comfortable with the whole trans/non-binary thing.
It gets women in the Olympics. We can either keep gendered sports and tell people of ambiguous gender where they aren't allowed to compete, or we can have an Olympics that is 99% male(ish) by birth or hormone adjustment. I don't think women are going to like that. Sure, there are a few sports where there is some parity, but not many, at least among the elite.
No, it doesn't. Even to the extent segregation on a fixed biological definition of sex might do that, the IOC can (and does!) regulate standards for that gender segregation (and keeps tweaking details of the rules, which aren't based on fixed-at-birth sex), it isn't constrained to using legal gender as the basis. So fixing legal gender around some biological traits at birth doesn't get you anything in that regard. Which should be obvious, even aside form knowing the Olympic rules, just from the fact that many participating nations (including the current US) don't have immutably fixed-at-birth biologically-based legal gender, and are well represented by women in the Olympics.
> Just because corner cases cause problems doesn't imply we should do away with any attempt to identify anyone as anything.
That's a complete straw-man argument, no one is arguing for the complete abolition of gender categories. They are there, they are useful, they fit 99% of humans, and 99% of humans can be correctly categorized at birth. It's perfectly fine.
The argument is that legal gender shouldn't be compulsory or immutable.
As for sports, which still doesn't have anything to do with legal gender, it's obvious that trans women could have an unfair advantage over cis women in sports that require strength or reach or bulk, therefore they shouldn't be able to compete professionally as women. And for sports where there isn't any noticeable difference between genders, it's to whatever governing sports association to decide on their own rules, if they want to allow trans women - fine, if they don't - fine. Whatever.
Without legal gender, based on something other than "what do you feel like today?", how do you prevent exactly the situation you identify: a trans woman, or worse, a man identifying as a woman for a day, insisting she is a woman for all practical and legal purposes and demanding to compete against women?
Without mandatory, biologically-informed, legally meaningful gender labels, how can the discrimination provisions of Title IX and employment law be enforced reasonably and fairly? Anyone choosing to identify as the opposite of their biological gender will be discriminated against. How do you determine whether the discrimination was due to their gender identity or due to the fact that someone doesn't want to deal with someone who has gender dysphoria? And if gender ceases to be mostly-immutable and ceases to have stable legal meaning, how do you conduct a legal proceeding accusing someone of discrimination based on gender?
What is it that you hope to accomplish? Are you trying to find ways to reduce discrimination? I think what you're proposing won't do that. Are you trying to allow everyone to "be themselves" and damn the consequences? (We just need to fix society to be compatible with people being themselves, naturally.) Maybe if your goal were clearer...
What you said, doing away with compulsory or immutable gender labelling, would do away with any (government or gov't-regulated, which encompasses quite a lot) attempt to identify anyone as anything, so what I wrote might be an improper generalization, but I can't see how that harms the argument, and calling it a straw-man is quite a stretch.
> Anyone choosing to identify as the opposite of their biological gender will be discriminated against.
Discrimination is when you treat someone unfairly for no good reason, or for a bad reason.
Excluding trans women from competing in women sports where being a trans woman carries a significant advantage is not unfair, quite the opposite, it would be unfair for all the cis women who are competing. Therefore it is simply not discrimination.
You are the one insisting that sports organizations somehow must use legal gender as the basis for dividing their teams by gender, that is simply not the case. It's a nice default, but any organization has to be free to do whatever they themselves want.
> And if gender ceases to be mostly-immutable and ceases to have stable legal meaning, how do you conduct a legal proceeding accusing someone of discrimination based on gender?
> What is it that you hope to accomplish?
Gender identity is very important to most people, and if your society has legal genders, people who are legally misgendered will be deeply unhappy. Therefore, these people have to be allowed to change their legal gender, or opt out of having a legal gender altogether, if they feel that's the better option.
Your argument against this is that it would be "messy" from a legal standpoint, but the harsh reality is that nature is simply messy, and we have to be flexible enough to deal with that. If current discrimination laws can't deal with trans or intersex cases, then we should of course update the laws so that they can deal with those cases in a fair manner. I don't know exactly how, but I'm sure we as a society can figure something out.
> What you said, doing away with compulsory or immutable gender labelling, would do away with any (government or gov't-regulated, which encompasses quite a lot) attempt to identify anyone as anything
True, that's not a straw-man, it's a gigantic soaped-up friction-less lubricated slippery slope. In the same way that same-sex marriage didn't lead to people marrying their dogs, getting rid of legal gender won't destroy Women's Volleyball, I promise you.
1. Identification purposes. It eliminates about 50% of the population if your sex is specified on your identification. Hair color and eye color are also usually shown on a drivers license.
2. Categorization for sports competitions for fairness.
3. Categorization for restroom usage, locker rooms, etc., given that people still do on average have feelings of modesty such that they don't want to be seen undressed by the opposite sex.
4. Sexual partners may want some proof of how you were born. People could argue whether it's their right or not to have this, but overall I would guess that 90%+ of our society does still care about this, so the law could validly provide for this interest of the majority of society.
5. Laws and other treat men and women differently. Who gets drafted, for example. Retirement ages in some countries are sex-based.
> Identification purposes. It eliminates about 50% of the population if your sex is specified on your identification
Only to the point extent you assume external presentation matches the gender on the ID, which is less likely if that ascribed gender isn't aligned to gender identity. (But not guaranteed in any case, so not a reliable basis for elimination.)
If gender on ID is based immutably on genitals at birth, it only helps eliminate people for identification purposes if those people are conveniently displaying accurate pictures of their birth genitals, which is an exceedingly rare circumstance.
> Categorization for restroom usage, locker rooms, etc., given that people still do on average have feelings of modesty such that they don't want to be seen undressed by the opposite sex
So what happens with people who have sex reassignment surgery? If Bob's got a penis now but his birth certificate says "female", Bob has to use the woman's locker room and the woman's restroom if we go by birth certificate and simple genetics.
It is possible in most states to get a birth certificate updated after sex reassignment surgery, but it is not automatic, and may take time and money so there likely will be people who do not bother.
BTW, a large fraction of the population doesn't want to be seen undressed in front of strangers of any sex. If we want to make the most people happy, maybe we should design things so that we have more privacy in bathrooms?
Unfortunately, it is important for medical personnel to know whether you are biologically male or female, which is yes, very real, and also very much grounded in science. There are serious implications to avoiding reality here. People could be mistreated and misdiagnosed.
I'm all for trans acceptance, but the people pushing for this stuff need to also learn to accept reality.
Amen. It's also important to be able to identify a suspected criminal at large, a missing person, or the victims of an accident. It's also necessary to properly identify people to make sure they are not committing identity theft and fraud. None of this is possible in a world where we we're either not allowed to make that distinction or the person can choose whichever they wish to be at that specific moment in time.
"Calling all cars, calling all cars. Be on the lookout for a suspect --I'm not sure what sex, I mean hey, it's not that simple, and who am I to judge. Suspect has light skin but maybe suspect identifies as black like Rachel Dolezal. We just don't know, do we... So yeah, be on the lookout for a person of indeterminate sex and race who is 5' 8". Suspect is armed and dangerous. Take caution and be politically correct. We cannot afford to hurt anyone's feeling here!"
> Unfortunately, it is important for medical personnel to know whether you are biologically male or female
It's important for them to know if I'm, say, sensitive to iodine (in fact, the latter is probably far more likely to be fatal quickly if they don't know in an emergency).
What that has to do with legal gender, I don't know, and in any case the aspect of biological sex medical personnel are least likely to need to know is the one this proposal makes deciding as to the immutable categorization of gender—the shape of my genitals at birth.
So, no, “its for your own (medical) good” is not a tenable defense of the proposal.
> whether you are biologically male or female, which is yes, very real, and also very much grounded in science.
Except those aren't the only two categories, and if you want a classification that is comprehensive and grounded in science, it will get messy and complicated very, very quickly.
And, again, what has this got to do with legal gender? In case of emergency there are many things medical personnel will need to know about you in order to avoid fatal mistakes, should they appear on your birth certificate? No, of course not. So why should this?
I am still shadow banned here on HN for questioning this narrative. Bang is encouraging us to make fake accounts by banning our long-held accounts without cause. He hides his personal political views behind the guidelines as if they are in support of his censorship, which they are not.
There are more modern and much more accurate ways dealing with this, as discussed in the video series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask I've mentioned elsewhere.
From the article:
Furthermore, biology is not as straightforward as the proposal suggests. By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have differences or disorders of sex development, such as hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia cannot clearly be classified as male or female. For most of the twentieth century, doctors would often surgically alter an infant’s ambiguous genitals to match whichever sex was easier, and expect the child to adapt. Frequently, they were wrong. A 2004 study tracked 14 genetically male children given female genitalia; 8 ended up identifying as male, and the surgical intervention caused them great distress (W. G. Reiner and J. P. Gearhart N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 333–341; 2004).
69 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 177 ms ] threadMore specifically, his biology regardless of identification. This is a surprisingly complicated gray area, though; there is a pretty wide space for biological sex to be ambiguous in different ways. For example, it is possible for hormonal differences to cause a person with XX chromosomes to develop male features, a person with XY chromosomes to develop female features, or for a person (especially an infant) to have ambiguous or hybrid features.
Intersex individuals, or individuals with genetic deformities or mutations are not that common, and none could appropriately labelled as a "third sex".
> By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have > differences or disorders of sex development, such as > hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical > ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia > cannot clearly be classified as male or female.
That is a much higher number than I've heard thrown around before, and probably it has something to do with the phrasing of "differences or disorders of sex", which may include much greater differences and disorders than usually mentioned (such as XXY chromosomes, etc).
It would be very interesting to know what precisely they are counting as "differences of sex" -- hopefully not simply aesthetic differences, which I believe most people are aware there is an incredible variety of expressions.
Strictly, gender identity.
> His genitalia regardless of identification indicates sex.
His genitalia is one aspect of biological sex, and it typically correlates with other aspects of biological sex.
If society deems genitalia as particularly important (as many have), it may also determine ascribed gender.
Biological sex, ascribed gender, and gender identity are three different things (and a person may have more than one ascribed gender from different sources, though the most commonly ascribed one in the society in which they live is normally the one that is of most concern.)
It's a common modern norm (that the government proposal at issue flies in the face of) to align ascribed gender with gender identity.
This has very little to do with actual science, and more to do with hatred of Trump.
What is wrong with a man accepting his biological sex and identifying as female, for example? I think the issue is that said man wants people to call him "she" so he can feel his womanhood complete, something he can never achieve because he's still genetically male and his femininity can only imitate that of a genetic female.
He is Paul, born male and identified as female. She is Susan, born female and identified as gay male. Simple.
If they really want a special case for people whose genitalia are misformed, that's a different argument than saying we shouldn't classify people based on genetics at all. Also, if people understand that the gender on a birth certificate is genetics based, then they can choose for themselves to discuss with their potential sexual partner why the gender on their birth certificate should be interpreted a particular way due to special factors in their case.
Of course that leads to complications when you have to try and generally apply it, which is where the ambiguity comes from.
You could literally list their chromosome combinations to make it clear. XX, XY, XXY, whatever.
Deliberately choosing some aspect(s) of biological sex as ascribed gender and giving it special legal status isn't science, it's social engineering.
> Also, if people understand that the gender on a birth certificate is genetics based
That's not the proposal; the proposal is genitalia at birth compared to sex stereotypes with genetics resorted to only with ambiguous genitalia. But since it's possible for genetics (at the XX v. XY level, and even ignoring other combinations) to mismatch genitalia at birth without genitalia that would be ambiguous (unless one simply defines all genitalia as ambiguous), this is not equivalent to being based on genetics.
Genitalia match genetic sex in the vast majority of cases.
There are plenty of places where laws are flawed. Laws are designed to handle the vast majority of cases. They are meant to be practical.
Anyway, the point is, if the problem is with how to handle the exception to the rule, the < 5% with ambiguous gender, then the author of the editorial should make that argument, but saying that there is "no basis in science" for the proposed legislation is ridiculous and obviously ideologically driven.
No one is denying that the vast majority of humans fall mostly into one of two biological sex clusters and identify in a way which historically corresponds to the way people in that cluster have been externally ascribed a gender, so that's a strawman.
> and trying to engineer the laws around a small percentage that want to be differently identified is the social engineering.
Yes, the movement to align ascribed gender with gender identity is social engineering, no less than the attempt to reverse the movement made in that direction is. Virtually no one involved in the effort denies that, either.
One side is trying to engineer to remove a palpable source of harm, the other to restore it.
But it seems you either do not understand or do not support that. That's far over 90% you have to appeal to, not just those who happen to have a horse in the race. That's not a strawman argument, it's a viable figure of speech.
> a palpable source of harm
If bio and virtual gender are different, then virtual gender should remain unphased by a notion of bio gender.
Since you seem to be in disagreement about that, your position appears conflicting so that any interpretation is naturally a strawman, but provocating clarification. Same as:
> the other [side is trying] to restore it [harm].
What exactly is the "practicality" behind making legal gender compulsory? What purpose does it serve?
And conversely, what harm is there in making legal gender optional?
Losing the distinctions in those laws would mostly be a net win for society.
For those that address a real need with sex distinction, if any, you can just define things in terms relevant to the law rather than a general purpose “legal gender” and have better laws without externally imposing broad gender labels.
If having a draft is good for society, especially a limited, skills-based draft (one of the things that the selective service system in principle supports), then excluding women from registration for it an exposure is a net loss (even if you might also benefit from excluding or limiting exposure of people who might bear children in the future to the type of mass draft used for, e.g., the world wars.)
> But while we still have such laws there has to be a legal definition of gender
The question was “what is the harm of making legal gender optional?” Obsoleting distinctions in law that are not themselves beneficial is not a harm.
Most people are genetically either XX or XY, but some aren't. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XYY_syndrome)
Most people are born with either male or female genitalia, but some aren't. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism)
Most people's genitalia corresponds to their genetic gender, but for some it doesn't. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivit...)
Most people's psychological gender corresponds to their genitalia and their genetics, but for some it doesn't. (The entirety of the trans* issue)
The only reasonable way forward is to make legal gender optional and changeable. The idea that you can, or worse, should, classify every human into one of two options is wrong. It's a bizarre conservative, Victorian idea that nature should somehow always be neatly categorized, and when it can't be, those that don't fit in are somehow "wrong".
No, the reality is that nature is messy and anything but neatly categorizable, therefore our systems should be flexible enough to handle that.
Gender identification may not be directly relevant to narrow performance in a lot of other areas, but it is relevant to overall human behavior, which affects personal choices that end up affecting things (like work and hobbies) even when performance on specific tasks is not directly affected by gender differences.
Just because corner cases cause problems doesn't imply we should do away with any attempt to identify anyone as anything. Not identifying people according to easily discernible (in the vast majority of cases) characteristics causes its own problems.
Most sport, at any serious level, exclude the vast majority of people regardless of gender, gender identity, or biological sex, and sports with a significant sex-associated performance difference offer substantially fewer and poorer paying opportunities for the lower-performing sex whether or not they are sex-segregated.
What does fixed legal gender buy you there?
It means you don't have to deal with as much social and sexual drama between team members for team sports, which I suspect (but don't have data because I don't think adequate studies have been done) distracts from practicing the sport. This is a similar problem to mixed-sex infantry squads. You can wish for all the equality you want, but you won't get it.
It means you have many varieties of sports with women competing that girls and other women can look up to as role models or inspiration or motivation to participate in sports.
There may be a good reason to segregate some sports by some traits linked to sex (but “genitals at birth” probably isn't the best standard for that), but even if there is it doesn't require immutable legal gender to do that.
If the government's standards aren't good, and are in fact simply "genitals at birth", then that needs to be fixed, but as far as I can tell that's not true, at least federally or for the state I checked. If you transition, you get a court document with a doctor's statement certifying it, and you update your gender on your official documents. Right? There probably need to be different legal standards based on the purpose the gender is being used for, too. Being a trans woman shouldn't allow you to compete in women's MMA, for instance; there's already been an instance of that happening and it was a disaster.
What concrete problem or injustice are you trying to correct? That people can't decide to change genders for a day, or decide they want to be officially recognized as the opposite gender before they transition? Is that a problem?
People seem to want [biological] sex labels to mirror how they present themselves to others, instead of mirroring (as closely as possible, based on the reason the gender label is being requested) the underlying sex characteristic / hormonal physical reality of their body. That strikes me as a problem. In the limited situations and cases where people are asking for [biological] gender and need to know, how you present yourself ceases to matter. If they don't need to know, they you can use whatever label you want. Same with your name, or your date of birth, or anything else. But it's almost always pointless to informally declare your gender, because anyone interacting with you is going to pick up on what gender you present yourself as (whether verbally, in temperament, or physically). Labelling yourself other than your biological gender isn't needed for enlightened, tolerant people, and will only antagonize people who aren't comfortable with the whole trans/non-binary thing.
> It gets women in the Olympics.
No, it doesn't. Even to the extent segregation on a fixed biological definition of sex might do that, the IOC can (and does!) regulate standards for that gender segregation (and keeps tweaking details of the rules, which aren't based on fixed-at-birth sex), it isn't constrained to using legal gender as the basis. So fixing legal gender around some biological traits at birth doesn't get you anything in that regard. Which should be obvious, even aside form knowing the Olympic rules, just from the fact that many participating nations (including the current US) don't have immutably fixed-at-birth biologically-based legal gender, and are well represented by women in the Olympics.
That's a complete straw-man argument, no one is arguing for the complete abolition of gender categories. They are there, they are useful, they fit 99% of humans, and 99% of humans can be correctly categorized at birth. It's perfectly fine.
The argument is that legal gender shouldn't be compulsory or immutable.
As for sports, which still doesn't have anything to do with legal gender, it's obvious that trans women could have an unfair advantage over cis women in sports that require strength or reach or bulk, therefore they shouldn't be able to compete professionally as women. And for sports where there isn't any noticeable difference between genders, it's to whatever governing sports association to decide on their own rules, if they want to allow trans women - fine, if they don't - fine. Whatever.
Without mandatory, biologically-informed, legally meaningful gender labels, how can the discrimination provisions of Title IX and employment law be enforced reasonably and fairly? Anyone choosing to identify as the opposite of their biological gender will be discriminated against. How do you determine whether the discrimination was due to their gender identity or due to the fact that someone doesn't want to deal with someone who has gender dysphoria? And if gender ceases to be mostly-immutable and ceases to have stable legal meaning, how do you conduct a legal proceeding accusing someone of discrimination based on gender?
What is it that you hope to accomplish? Are you trying to find ways to reduce discrimination? I think what you're proposing won't do that. Are you trying to allow everyone to "be themselves" and damn the consequences? (We just need to fix society to be compatible with people being themselves, naturally.) Maybe if your goal were clearer...
What you said, doing away with compulsory or immutable gender labelling, would do away with any (government or gov't-regulated, which encompasses quite a lot) attempt to identify anyone as anything, so what I wrote might be an improper generalization, but I can't see how that harms the argument, and calling it a straw-man is quite a stretch.
Discrimination is when you treat someone unfairly for no good reason, or for a bad reason.
Excluding trans women from competing in women sports where being a trans woman carries a significant advantage is not unfair, quite the opposite, it would be unfair for all the cis women who are competing. Therefore it is simply not discrimination.
You are the one insisting that sports organizations somehow must use legal gender as the basis for dividing their teams by gender, that is simply not the case. It's a nice default, but any organization has to be free to do whatever they themselves want.
> And if gender ceases to be mostly-immutable and ceases to have stable legal meaning, how do you conduct a legal proceeding accusing someone of discrimination based on gender?
> What is it that you hope to accomplish?
Gender identity is very important to most people, and if your society has legal genders, people who are legally misgendered will be deeply unhappy. Therefore, these people have to be allowed to change their legal gender, or opt out of having a legal gender altogether, if they feel that's the better option.
Your argument against this is that it would be "messy" from a legal standpoint, but the harsh reality is that nature is simply messy, and we have to be flexible enough to deal with that. If current discrimination laws can't deal with trans or intersex cases, then we should of course update the laws so that they can deal with those cases in a fair manner. I don't know exactly how, but I'm sure we as a society can figure something out.
> What you said, doing away with compulsory or immutable gender labelling, would do away with any (government or gov't-regulated, which encompasses quite a lot) attempt to identify anyone as anything
True, that's not a straw-man, it's a gigantic soaped-up friction-less lubricated slippery slope. In the same way that same-sex marriage didn't lead to people marrying their dogs, getting rid of legal gender won't destroy Women's Volleyball, I promise you.
1. Identification purposes. It eliminates about 50% of the population if your sex is specified on your identification. Hair color and eye color are also usually shown on a drivers license. 2. Categorization for sports competitions for fairness. 3. Categorization for restroom usage, locker rooms, etc., given that people still do on average have feelings of modesty such that they don't want to be seen undressed by the opposite sex. 4. Sexual partners may want some proof of how you were born. People could argue whether it's their right or not to have this, but overall I would guess that 90%+ of our society does still care about this, so the law could validly provide for this interest of the majority of society. 5. Laws and other treat men and women differently. Who gets drafted, for example. Retirement ages in some countries are sex-based.
Only to the point extent you assume external presentation matches the gender on the ID, which is less likely if that ascribed gender isn't aligned to gender identity. (But not guaranteed in any case, so not a reliable basis for elimination.)
If gender on ID is based immutably on genitals at birth, it only helps eliminate people for identification purposes if those people are conveniently displaying accurate pictures of their birth genitals, which is an exceedingly rare circumstance.
So what happens with people who have sex reassignment surgery? If Bob's got a penis now but his birth certificate says "female", Bob has to use the woman's locker room and the woman's restroom if we go by birth certificate and simple genetics.
It is possible in most states to get a birth certificate updated after sex reassignment surgery, but it is not automatic, and may take time and money so there likely will be people who do not bother.
BTW, a large fraction of the population doesn't want to be seen undressed in front of strangers of any sex. If we want to make the most people happy, maybe we should design things so that we have more privacy in bathrooms?
I'm all for trans acceptance, but the people pushing for this stuff need to also learn to accept reality.
"Calling all cars, calling all cars. Be on the lookout for a suspect --I'm not sure what sex, I mean hey, it's not that simple, and who am I to judge. Suspect has light skin but maybe suspect identifies as black like Rachel Dolezal. We just don't know, do we... So yeah, be on the lookout for a person of indeterminate sex and race who is 5' 8". Suspect is armed and dangerous. Take caution and be politically correct. We cannot afford to hurt anyone's feeling here!"
It's important for them to know if I'm, say, sensitive to iodine (in fact, the latter is probably far more likely to be fatal quickly if they don't know in an emergency).
What that has to do with legal gender, I don't know, and in any case the aspect of biological sex medical personnel are least likely to need to know is the one this proposal makes deciding as to the immutable categorization of gender—the shape of my genitals at birth.
So, no, “its for your own (medical) good” is not a tenable defense of the proposal.
Except those aren't the only two categories, and if you want a classification that is comprehensive and grounded in science, it will get messy and complicated very, very quickly.
And, again, what has this got to do with legal gender? In case of emergency there are many things medical personnel will need to know about you in order to avoid fatal mistakes, should they appear on your birth certificate? No, of course not. So why should this?
From the article:
Furthermore, biology is not as straightforward as the proposal suggests. By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have differences or disorders of sex development, such as hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia cannot clearly be classified as male or female. For most of the twentieth century, doctors would often surgically alter an infant’s ambiguous genitals to match whichever sex was easier, and expect the child to adapt. Frequently, they were wrong. A 2004 study tracked 14 genetically male children given female genitalia; 8 ended up identifying as male, and the surgical intervention caused them great distress (W. G. Reiner and J. P. Gearhart N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 333–341; 2004).