>

Oh it’s on a website, can’t argue with that
/u/BenderZoidberg (OP) has awarded 12 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


In my opinion, your biological sex is something different from what gender you identify with.

No kidding? So?
I don't get why you think it shouldn't be on legal documents like, say, your DL. What does that have to do with anything? What does it matter?
Medical places will ask both -- biological sex and gender, because that DOES matter for them often. The fuck does it matter to the DMV? >


Medical places will ask both -- biological sex and gender, because that DOES matter for them often. The fuck does it matter to the DMV?

What does any identifying information matter to the dmv? Perhaps it's because the purpose of a form of identification is to have traits that can identify an individual? >


What does any identifying information matter to the dmv? Perhaps it's because the purpose of a form of identification is to have traits that can identify an individual?

Right, so if someone is identifying as male and their dl says female doesn't that hamper that? >


There are situations where your biological sex is what matters (sports, restrooms, medical services, imprisonment...), 

Can you explain the logic here? For example, a restroom.
In what way do you interact with a toilet that your chromosomes are suddenly of vital importance? >


Can you explain the logic here? For example, a restroom.
In what way do you interact with a toilet that your chromosomes are suddenly of vital importance?

In what way do you interact with a toilet that your gender identity is suddenly of vital importance? >

I think this requires two different contexts: a medical and legal context. Medical professionals should always be aware of your biological sex because that can determine the right course of treatment, however I see no issue with legal documents having an alternative gender as long as one ensures it's consistent. At the end of the day, it's up to what works best for the individual. I see no reason why one shouldn't be able to choose their own identity AS LONG as it doesn't hinder their own health, the wellbeing of other people or cause legal issues. As long as it makes them happy. >

I agree with you, but I think it's difficult to foresee how a person changing their gender could impact any lives in the future. Will they eventually compete in a sports event under their chosen gender, or apply to the military and have different physical tests that they'd have before choosing their new gender? Are these situations fair for other people who compete in that sport or apply for the same position? Most people probably won't take part in any of these situations and could change their gender at will without it impacting other people, but obviously those cases would eventually happen, and then it's just a matter of preference and choosing the lesser evil. I personally have no problem whether the government database lists someone as male or female, I'm thinking about the impact that data could have in some situations when changed at will.
Giving you a delta just for pointing out that it's fine as long as it doesn't impact other people. It may seem obvious, but I think that's just a basic argument in any discussion about this topic. Δ >

I think this is why the debate is so tricky. It really varies on a case by case basis and each institution needs their own policies. Sport is definitely in need of an update in this area. I guess the point I wanted to make was that there are instances where there isn't a need to separate biological and self-identified gender; however that's not to say there aren't situations where that distinction is important. For example it likely wouldn't matter if a student identified as female when applying to a mix sex school, but it's a big deal if they're applying to an all-girls school. >

To be clear, since this is different from a lot of what I see on here:
1) You are saying that biological sex can be altered (eg through hormonal and surgical transition)
2) You are saying that people should be able to change their legally-documented sex if they've taken these steps to transition
I just want to make sure I'm understanding that much correctly. If so, I also want to touch on this:

If someone who is biologically a male wants to dress and act as a woman, I'm 100% fine with that, but that doesn't make him legally a female

Are you referring here to a cis man who cross dresses (eg drag) or are you talking about a trans woman who hasn't transitioned surgically/hormonally yet? Because it seems cruel to withhold correct pronouns just because someone hasn't gone through all the lengths it takes to get bottom surgery. >

I don't think pronouns should be determined by their biological gender as I consider them part of the cultural side of things. That should be respected, whether you are trans, drag or anything else. But if a person wants to take part in a sports match, or has to be imprisoned, I think the biological gender is the one that should matter and they shouldn't be able to change it at will, and that should always figure on official documents.
EDIT: spelling >

How do you justify totally detaching culture from biological gender? Our culture is a reaction to biological gender, and not a baseless fabrication. >

True, the culture aspect originated from our biological nature, but I think it has evolved way beyond that. Our culture and all of its constructs are incredibly complex, and have been for many years. If gender was only important for intercourse, it would have probably stayed as a simple dichotomy, but since our culture has been using it for many other things that are more subjective and nebulous, in many cultures it has evolved past its original duality. I see no problem in making a differentiation between its biological origin and the cultural impact it has on our societies nowadays. >

Gender has been redefined outside of biological respect, but this makes it less relevant, not more relevant. Yet it -extremely controversially - remains used in the same way our original binary genders were used. It occupies an incredibly relevant space that was once used -and still is used for the most part - to recognize biology. Once it exits that space - and it will eventually as it becomes trivialized and easily altered - it will become like flavor text for a person's personality and perception of gender roles. Nothing noteworthy. It doesn't deserve to occupy the same space that biologically relevant genders once did, any social relevance is borrowed from these predecessors. >

I never said that cultural gender should replace the biological one, that's one of the arguments of my post. I consider them two separate things that shouldn't be mixed. Biological gender is important in some areas, and the cultural in others. >

But you're picking the areas with no scientific backing, and with no regard for the mixing of culture and biological consequences. >

Yeah, this is the most solid argument I usually hear, and one that I can kinda agree with. Prejudices are horrible and anything that can be done to minimize them should be good. I'm still not 100% sure it should mean you can change your gender as you wish, but I see the benefits. Thanks for your opinion. Δ >

I'd like to piggyback on this and point out that the purpose of a ID should be to identify the person in question. If someone looks like and identifys as a woman it is counterintuitive to put male on their driver's license. Keeping biological sex actually makes it harder to identify people. >

Probably true, gender doesn't need to be on your ID card, but gender is still taken into account in many official situations, at least here in Spain. Aside from sports, which are the usual example, requirements for joining the police or military are different based on your "official" gender, for example. I didn't mean so much about being able to confirm your gender by showing your ID card, which you shouldn't have to, but about the role our "official" gender currently plays in our system. >

It’s important to remember trans people are like… less than one percent of the population. So even less than that are people trying to fudge around with the system. So I think you should just let them be what they identify with. There’s this notion that people will just choose whatever gender suits them but…. I dont know its such a negligible number compared to false IDs forgeries stolen IDs etc. >

Number is minimal, as you said, but there have been cases. I guess it's just a matter of being pragmatic or aiming for the most "coherent" system. Maybe I'm just too idealistic, but I hate the idea of people tampering with our system by changing their sex in order to fit their purposes. Seems so wrong to me... >

Yea but consider the amount of other identity fraud situations, be it stolen IDs, credit cards, social security… these are real problems that affect your taxes and other peoples security.  Im not trying to be “whataboutist” but the percentage is just so incredibly small. In reality most trans people are just trying not to be assaulted or killed for BEING that one percent minority. >

You are right that those situations are not only worse, but also more common. Still, they are considered crimes, while the case of changing your gender at will could become some kind of loophole for crooked people. And if we want it to remain an individual and subjective choice, this is pretty much impossible to avoid unless we learn how to read people's minds. I was also thinking if we could implement some kind of supervised process where the authorities verify if your change of gender has some real basis on your everyday life, but then we revert to the old problem of what it means to be a man or a woman and gender roles, which isn't something good IMO. It's a tricky situation, and I know there are many other loopholes in our system that should be fixed. I hate them all and I find this one hard to manage as well... >

I’m sure it wouldn’t be a popular idea with trans ppl but i think A sort of application process not dis similar From something like a passport application, it takes several weeks or months and they talk to people who have known you for a long time for character references… Something formalized like that same as when you change your name or get your license or whatever >

Sex and gender are identical and I refuse to believe gender was ever different and I’m 90% sure the only reason gender was used in place of sex is because sex has explicit connotations.
No one’s ever asked for sex and gender separately. There was never a time when a person was like “oh I know their sex but what about their gender” >

So you identifying as x and saying x needs to wear a dress is what? Sex? It is not a sexual quality to want to wear pink or a dress, for example.  These are gender constructs society places on bodies. Otherwise us women would want to wear nothing by dresses, high heels and makeup 24/7 because we just can't help ourselves. But clearly that is not the. Our gender roles also change based on culture, time in history and all of that. So sex is not the same as gender. >

there is a word for that, it's masculine/feminine the suffix -ine means to resemble >

No it is gender roles and gender identities. It is why we have men and women categories.  Then in your mind what is a women?  Or a man? Does the clothing make the person, if not why were there clothing and dress laws? Why is it still a thing to question men with long hair? Why do we have gender roles when it comes to marriage, for example. These traditions and gender roles are not innately biological, they are cultural. So not sure how you can say there sex and gender are the same. >

no we have men and women categories because we're sexually dimorphic, a  man is just an adult human male, like how a bull is a male cattle.
masculine is literally what you're referring to, google masculine
'having qualities or an appearance traditionally associated with men or boys'
it is culture dependent, long hair can be masculine in some places, seems inverted in metal culture all the women have short hair (maybe not all)
i don't wanna say it's a conspiracy but it's not like i just made this all up, i didn't come up with the word masculine, gender roles is basically another word for sexual characteristics >

Male and female are sex categories. Would you call a male cow a man? No, I am not. I studied both sexual and gender development in psych. They, male/female and man/woman, are not the same. Google gender, since you like googling so much. 
How do you know what qualities are associated with men? Or women? You are telling me they are driven by biology only. Sexual characteristics are biological expressions of an organism. Which is not gender, unless you are making the argument wearing a skirt is biological. Gender roles are just arbitrary categories to place either gender in. Neither is gender role a made up concept. You may not agree with it, but it is nothing new. And what you are describing with hair or other cultural gender concepts is gender identity and gender roles. Lol. How do you define masculine? If at all there is any social or cultural aspect you are no longer talking male or female, but woman and men which are gendered categories. >

Your first question was literally answered, a man is an adult male human, a bull is an adult male cattle. The wiki on gender admits the definition was changed. 
And like I said I’m convinced it’s only used because gender roles is better to say than sex roles. 
Wearing a skirt is feminine, not in all cultures. What do you think masculine/feminine is? That’s all you’re describing gender as. And why? So you can say someone can choose to be masculine or feminine and then that makes them a man or woman? >

link here. Will help you out. You talk about sex roles, how much of those roles are biology and how much is social? How do you know?