Can't they change their sex on their driver's license/ID card? (it's pretty much all that matters, probably, as of today)
reply to comment below: What I mean is that you could say that you are a male/female or whatever you want and X years old and you would have documentation to back it up.
Age is not an arbitrary social structure—it is a number directly proportional to the number of seconds that have passed since you exited your mother's womb.
Gender expression is a social structure, however. Note that I am using the word 'gender expression' here rather than 'biological sex', which is not an arbitrary social structure.
>'biological sex', which is not an arbitrary social structure.
it's still a potentially dangerous shorthand for typical normative and often simply assumed development that deviates more often than assumed, especially because we only really detect and diagnose it if it causes severe issues as "intersex".
Also, gender and gender expression are not the same. The gender expression of a stone butch is pretty masculine, but their gender is not male.
> age is not an arbitrary social structure
That's not the reason age and gender are different. Both are relevant for how we treat people, but gender, at least with our current social assumptions, is an exclusive or, while old people have already been young.
>Both are relevant for how we treat people, but gender, at least with our current social assumptions, is an exclusive or, while old people have already been young.
How do you reconcile this with fluid genders and non-binary genders?
Recognition of gender outside the binary is the exception rather than the rule, and people all around you make assumptions all the time that you can't correct. It's just descriptive of material circumstances that nonbinary people will face ignorance. We've made some progress, but it's slow.
As a non-binary trans woman, it is absolutely common to have a "fallback binary gender" you'd rather be associated with facing this. You know, for casual encounters, when you don't feel like explaining yourself in detail. Or when accessing trans healthcare, which is often very binary and gatekeepy of everything else (for instance, in Germany you often get denied HRT with F64.8 "Other gender identity disorders", only F64.0 "Transsexualism" is eligible)
Funnily enough, TERFs often want trans people to simply pretend like these conditions do not exist, and that it is their personal responsibility as non-cis people to further gender abolitionism (while they still suggest sex is an immutable super important thing).
> 'biological sex', which is not an arbitrary social structure
‘Biological sex’, the two-valued function of the multidimensional space of observed physical characteristics, is an arbitrary social structure, and one which has evolved over time.
> For most purposes and matters, we should defer to the individual's expressed age of preference.
Pray tell, what are some relevant "purposes and matters" where an expressed age would be more practical than a... legally binding one? My understanding was that age isn't just counted for the hell of it, since we have socially decided that younger people shouldn't be allowed to partake in certain "purposes and matters", as opposed to how we socially settled on the idea that men and women are equals.
>Pray tell, what are some relevant "purposes and matters" where an expressed age would be more practical than a... legally binding one?
The premise of this case is that an individual wants to change their legal age to what they feel is their expressed age. This would enable them to take advantage of the legal and social practicalities of the younger age.
Examples of why some purposes why someone might want to be treated as the age they identify with might be:
To receive legal benefits
corresponding to the age they identify as.
Be protected against discrimination for representing their identified age.
Compete in sporting events for their identified age.
We have socially settled on the idea that mend and women are equals, and that people can identify as either men or women as they choose.
Assuming someone is an adult, they are are considered equal. Why not allow the right to be treated as the age they identify with.
> Assuming someone is an adult, they are are considered equal. Why not allow the right to be treated as the age they identify with.
Not all adults are created equal. Again, society decided that there are hard limits on this for a number of reasons. I get that you're canvassing for some larger queer argument to be made, but it's not a like comparison. I can't identify as 45 years old and run for president just like how I can't identify as 65 years old and claim AARP benefits. You can assume the identity of those ages, but you won't collect any of the benefits that you've listed above.
Dropping the facade, why not if society can decide that someone born with male sex can identify as a woman and receive the social rights and government privileges reserved for women, why can't someone do the same with age? If it is just a matter of social decision, what are the different factors to grant one but not the other?
It's a lot easier of a question when you ask it outright.
Men and women are separate, but equal. They are indeed entitled to slightly different things legally speaking, but the differences are so marginal that any perceived benefits would almost certainly never outweigh the cost of transitioning. If you legally feel like you should be acknowledged as a different gender, it makes sense that we offer the faculties to let people do that. There is no risk of "abuse" as there would be with age transitioning, and if there are then it should raise important questions about how we treat men and women in today's society. If you've got any examples of how someone could misuse this or take advantage of the system, I'd love to pick through them with you.
And, I'm sure you've already heard this quite a bit, but sex and gender are still distinct. You can have gender-affirming surgery and hormone replacement therapy, but a true sex change is not really possible or even feasible in many respects. This is important, because it's certainly true that male and female bodies react differently on a medical level, and separating sex from gender allows us to account for that. Age is closer to sex than it is to gender, in that it has biological implications and an overall meaning that can't be separated from who you are. If you want to identify as a different age, it's a free country: very little is stopping you from telling people you're 20 when you've lived for 30 years. But even the few people who do feel dysphoric about their age are probably never going to go through the trouble. That's why self-expression exists: you can live in any way that makes you happy, "be" any age that you want to be, dress with whatever clothes you want and give yourself whatever name you choose, within the confines of the law. This isn't just a good thing, it's a litmus test for freedom.
As I've stated before, age is not arbitrary. We set an age of consent to correspond with sexual maturity and responsibility. We set a legal drinking age to discourage younger people from acting on impulse and inadvertently causing self-harm. We make people wait until they're 16 for a drivers license so that we have a baseline expectation of motor function and risk management. These things are socially decided, but backed with logic. Gender is similarly socially decided, but largely backed on prejudice and history that nobody bothered to challenge. It's important that we revisit these topics as time goes on, and it's important that we bicker about them online: if we don't argue about them, we don't progress as a people. I think the status quo is better than ever though, and the downsides to letting thoroughly convicted individuals change the gender that the government acknowledges them as is an important landmark in that march of progress. Where should it go next? It's up for debate, but trying to draw up a false dichotomy only buries the lede and makes it harder to engage people on the subject. I'm glad you were able to ask your question in a straightforward manner though, I hope this helps.
The problem with this is that it is arbitrary. Why this and not date of conception, or date from first heartbeat, or date from first word, or date from walking? Any response will attempt to reify the construct, but that doesn't actually do to constructivists what non-constructivists think it does.
The existence of trans/gnc people/how they do better if you let them do their thing has been documented pretty well for centuries[1]/a century[2] respectively.
When it happens with age or race instead of gender it's somehow almost always some conservative taking the piss to draw a false equivalence.
Personal identity is an endless source of fascination for me and most of Western civilization it seems where "individualism" is important, but Eastern philosophers say it just a bunch of thoughts, memories and feelings that are transient and can't be said to really exist. But I guess both East and West would agree identity can be anything that we feel fits since it's made up.
I'm wrapping up Ásta's Categories We Live By[1] and it's been fun learning about models describing the mechanisms which construct social identity and how people agree or disagree on their construction. Using the article as an example, we can see the institutionalization of age as a label though government documents, policy, and law, but there is also a communal construction presumably by way of Ratelband's friends and family celebrating his birthday and keeping track of his age. Even today, people at least self-identify as an age whenever they "lie" about their age to others. Who or what is the ultimate judge of age? Unfortunately I mean this in a technical capacity. Just like an umpire who is the judge of what is a strike or ball in baseball, who is and who do we want to be the judge of age? In a lot of ways self-conferral is the ultimate form of individual liberty. Why would I want someone else enforcing on me properties about myself?
HN should support this. When most of software engineers turn 40, they'll see a sudden loss of interest from hiring managers. Imagine you could claim you're 25 when you're 50, and if HRs make noise about this nonsense, you'll just label them agists, oldphobes and very bad small minded people in general. Repurpose the woke movement for your needs.
You don't have to disclose your age in the beginning of the interview process. Age-based-discrimination is protected by the US government, the only way you could futz this up is if you're the sort of person who keeps a ridiculously robust social media presence that would instantly give away your age, in which case... your loss.
38 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 89.1 ms ] threadLGBTQA+ ?
reply to comment below: What I mean is that you could say that you are a male/female or whatever you want and X years old and you would have documentation to back it up.
Not really understanding this. What does it mean?
Identifying as male or female is pretty much an arbitrary social structure in today's society. Your age is not.
Are you sure that everyone's cells age at the same rate?
There is a lot of social structures and expectations tied to age that are just as arbitrary.
People view you differently and there are laws which govern who you can and can not marry.
Gender expression is a social structure, however. Note that I am using the word 'gender expression' here rather than 'biological sex', which is not an arbitrary social structure.
See the difference?
it's still a potentially dangerous shorthand for typical normative and often simply assumed development that deviates more often than assumed, especially because we only really detect and diagnose it if it causes severe issues as "intersex".
Also, gender and gender expression are not the same. The gender expression of a stone butch is pretty masculine, but their gender is not male.
> age is not an arbitrary social structure
That's not the reason age and gender are different. Both are relevant for how we treat people, but gender, at least with our current social assumptions, is an exclusive or, while old people have already been young.
How do you reconcile this with fluid genders and non-binary genders?
>at least with our current social assumptions
Recognition of gender outside the binary is the exception rather than the rule, and people all around you make assumptions all the time that you can't correct. It's just descriptive of material circumstances that nonbinary people will face ignorance. We've made some progress, but it's slow.
As a non-binary trans woman, it is absolutely common to have a "fallback binary gender" you'd rather be associated with facing this. You know, for casual encounters, when you don't feel like explaining yourself in detail. Or when accessing trans healthcare, which is often very binary and gatekeepy of everything else (for instance, in Germany you often get denied HRT with F64.8 "Other gender identity disorders", only F64.0 "Transsexualism" is eligible)
Funnily enough, TERFs often want trans people to simply pretend like these conditions do not exist, and that it is their personal responsibility as non-cis people to further gender abolitionism (while they still suggest sex is an immutable super important thing).
‘Biological sex’, the two-valued function of the multidimensional space of observed physical characteristics, is an arbitrary social structure, and one which has evolved over time.
For most purposes and matters, we should defer to the individual's expressed age of preference.
I can think of few instances where someone's temporal age is more relevant than the expressed age.
Pray tell, what are some relevant "purposes and matters" where an expressed age would be more practical than a... legally binding one? My understanding was that age isn't just counted for the hell of it, since we have socially decided that younger people shouldn't be allowed to partake in certain "purposes and matters", as opposed to how we socially settled on the idea that men and women are equals.
The premise of this case is that an individual wants to change their legal age to what they feel is their expressed age. This would enable them to take advantage of the legal and social practicalities of the younger age.
Examples of why some purposes why someone might want to be treated as the age they identify with might be:
To receive legal benefits
corresponding to the age they identify as.
Be protected against discrimination for representing their identified age.
Compete in sporting events for their identified age.
We have socially settled on the idea that mend and women are equals, and that people can identify as either men or women as they choose.
Assuming someone is an adult, they are are considered equal. Why not allow the right to be treated as the age they identify with.
Not all adults are created equal. Again, society decided that there are hard limits on this for a number of reasons. I get that you're canvassing for some larger queer argument to be made, but it's not a like comparison. I can't identify as 45 years old and run for president just like how I can't identify as 65 years old and claim AARP benefits. You can assume the identity of those ages, but you won't collect any of the benefits that you've listed above.
Men and women are separate, but equal. They are indeed entitled to slightly different things legally speaking, but the differences are so marginal that any perceived benefits would almost certainly never outweigh the cost of transitioning. If you legally feel like you should be acknowledged as a different gender, it makes sense that we offer the faculties to let people do that. There is no risk of "abuse" as there would be with age transitioning, and if there are then it should raise important questions about how we treat men and women in today's society. If you've got any examples of how someone could misuse this or take advantage of the system, I'd love to pick through them with you.
And, I'm sure you've already heard this quite a bit, but sex and gender are still distinct. You can have gender-affirming surgery and hormone replacement therapy, but a true sex change is not really possible or even feasible in many respects. This is important, because it's certainly true that male and female bodies react differently on a medical level, and separating sex from gender allows us to account for that. Age is closer to sex than it is to gender, in that it has biological implications and an overall meaning that can't be separated from who you are. If you want to identify as a different age, it's a free country: very little is stopping you from telling people you're 20 when you've lived for 30 years. But even the few people who do feel dysphoric about their age are probably never going to go through the trouble. That's why self-expression exists: you can live in any way that makes you happy, "be" any age that you want to be, dress with whatever clothes you want and give yourself whatever name you choose, within the confines of the law. This isn't just a good thing, it's a litmus test for freedom.
As I've stated before, age is not arbitrary. We set an age of consent to correspond with sexual maturity and responsibility. We set a legal drinking age to discourage younger people from acting on impulse and inadvertently causing self-harm. We make people wait until they're 16 for a drivers license so that we have a baseline expectation of motor function and risk management. These things are socially decided, but backed with logic. Gender is similarly socially decided, but largely backed on prejudice and history that nobody bothered to challenge. It's important that we revisit these topics as time goes on, and it's important that we bicker about them online: if we don't argue about them, we don't progress as a people. I think the status quo is better than ever though, and the downsides to letting thoroughly convicted individuals change the gender that the government acknowledges them as is an important landmark in that march of progress. Where should it go next? It's up for debate, but trying to draw up a false dichotomy only buries the lede and makes it harder to engage people on the subject. I'm glad you were able to ask your question in a straightforward manner though, I hope this helps.
The problem with this is that it is arbitrary. Why this and not date of conception, or date from first heartbeat, or date from first word, or date from walking? Any response will attempt to reify the construct, but that doesn't actually do to constructivists what non-constructivists think it does.
(Though using walking would have absolutely ridiculous and insulting edge cases.)
When it happens with age or race instead of gender it's somehow almost always some conservative taking the piss to draw a false equivalence.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_gender#History
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institut_f%C3%BCr_Sexualwissen...
It seriously is WAY to complicated to actually understand.
I've been trying to figure it out for years now, and every time I think I understand, somehow I end up back at square one, every time.
Then again, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.
But I am able to understand man and woman. That's it. Anything more than that makes the water spill out of my teacup sized brain.
1. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12744
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”
Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass