>

Gender expression is different but by the DSM definition -
"gender dysphoria,” which refers to psychological distress that results from an incongruence between one’s sex assigned at birth and one’s gender identity
/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? >

Oh it’s on a website, can’t argue with that >

Can go to a textbook too, but have a feeling your "ideas" are more valid to you. >

what is legal sex and why is it important? >

I think we all know what it is, just the gender figures in official records about you, usually from the government. At least here it determines whether you can participate in men's or women's sports events, which prison you are sent to, which tests you are required to pass to join the police or military... Should it exist? Maybe not, as I have already argued in other responses, but my opinion is based on our current system where that "official" distinction still exists. >


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? >

Okay, this is true, restrooms were a bad example, my bad. Giving you a delta for pointing it out. Δ >

To add to that, people who have been on HRT for a few years would need the medical care of the gender they identify as, not thier birth gender, because that is how hormones work and the entire point of HRT. 
For example, if you were running a blood panel for a transgender woman on HRT, female would be the correct reference range, not male. >

This I agree 100% with and have no problem with it. I'm fine with changing the official gender for people who are undergoing hormone therapy and now need medical care of that new gender. Δ >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/pgold05 (40∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

It sounds like you’ve conflated two different things.
1) we should not change indicators of sex/gender on legal documents
2) we there are situations in which we should use biological sex over gender identity
2 is a whole debate on its own which will vary depending on the specific situation. But even if we do determine that we should use biological sex for sports, for instance, there is nothing that says that a sport organization must categorize you based on the indicator on your license or birth certificate. legal documents are used in a wide array of other scenarios where gender identity is a far more relevant category than bio sex. 
Why would we not make the change on legal documents because it works better in the majority of scenarios, and make the exception of not using a persons legal gender identity in the specific scenarios where bio sex makes more sense? >

This argument has, more or less, already been discussed in other comments. You are right that there are cases that involve your "official" gender and where your gender identity is what really matters, but from my experience here in Spain, most of them are more related to what we could call your biological one. Those situations are mostly related to either your physical condition (official sports events, physical tests for joining the police...) or your chances of having intercourse or even sexual assaulting other people (prisons and other similar institutions). There are other cases that are more nebulous, like female quotas for some job positions, and in those I agree with you. Maybe it's different in other countries, but here in Spain very rarely have I seen an scenario where they take your "official" gender into account in an important matter and it's not related to your body one way or the other. As I already said, they do exist, but they seem a minority to me. Thanks for your response in any case, civilized discussion is always welcome in my book. >

Yeah the culture difference is interesting. There are a few things that come to mind right away here in the US but I’m curious if they don’t exist the same way in Spain. 
For instance, when I pick up certain medication, want to purchase cigarettes or alcohol, get pulled over, purchase a M rated video game, get on an airplane, etc, I need to show my official ID for all of them. While in theory a man and woman should be treated the same in all those scenarios, it would often make a trans person feel better to have the person they are interacting with view them as their identified gender. Or rather, it would make them feel bad to know or believe that the person is viewing them as the wrong one. >

Here in Spain you are very rarely asked for your ID. They could ask it if you are buying alcohol or tobacco and you look underage, but I only know of one person who was asked to do so. Police may ask for your driver's ID (which doesn't list your gender here BTW), but they are usually respectful. (Still there are assholes everywhere, obviously.) It can happen, certainly, but I don't think it would be that common here. Maybe we could remove the gender from the ID card and make institutions check it on official records when it really matters? Not sure this would be possible in USA, but it looks plausible to me here. Most situations that require to check your ID card don't really need to verify your gender, I think. >

I have to show my ID to pick up packages from the post office. Or to rent a car. Or hire a hotel room. Or get a job. I really don't see why any of those people need to know what my genitals look like. Knowing my pronouns, however, would be somewhat more useful.
Ironically, I've never had to show ID to play sports. >


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

Why would biological sex matter for restrooms, given that they'll likely only use individual stalls anyway?
And would cis women feel safer if trans men (who look and dress like men; example) are forced to use women's restrooms because that fits with their birth sex?
The latter argument would apply to prisons as well. >


Why would biological sex matter for restrooms, given that they'll likely only use individual stalls anyway?

Why would gender identity matter for restrooms?
It's surely completely irrelevant to using the restroom. >

So you're agreeing? >


So you're agreeing?

You appear to be proposing that restrooms be separated on the basis of gender identity as opposed to sex.
The reason you allude to for not separating by sex is because you are suggesting it doesn't matter what sex you are to use the restroom.
I'm therefore asking why gender identity matters when using the restroom? >

Because it's who they are and present as.
Or are you saying that the trans guy pictured on the above linked site should be in the women's bathroom? >


Because it's who they are

Why is "who they are" at all relevant to using the restroom?

and present as.

Again, why is this relevant to using the restroom?
You have challenged the idea that sex doesn't matter to using the restroom but you haven't provided any reason to why these other factors you mention of "who they are" or "present as" matter to using the restroom. >

Did you check the link? >

I checked the link. If you're suggesting that a female should be excluded from the women's restroom based on their appearance then no, I do not believe this. Do you?
However, you haven't addressed my point. You criticized segregating restrooms based on sex as in your view it didn't matter what the sex the person was when using the restroom.
So what do you think matters when using the restroom and why?
Should it be based on "who they are", in which case what categories do you propose? And why does it matter to using the restroom?
Should it be based on what they "present as", in which case what categories do you propose? And why does it matter to using the restroom? >


I checked the link. If you're suggesting that a female should be excluded from the women's restroom based on their appearance then no, I do not believe this. Do you?

No, but people who insist on restroom use based on sex often don't realize that this would force transmen like the guy on the linked page to use female restrooms.
And this still wouldn't solve the problem of the anti-trans favorite boogey man who dresses as a woman just to access female-only spaces, since a potential predator could theoretically also pretend to be a trans man.

Should it be based on what they "present as", in which case what categories do you propose? And why does it matter to using the restroom?

Yes, it should be based on who they identify and/or present as. But like I said, restrooms have individual stalls. They could therefore just as well be unisex, perhaps with just a separate urinal room. >

Your initial criticism of sex segregated restrooms was based on your assertion that a person's sex didn't matter when using the restroom.
You are proposing identity and/or presentation as an alternative. I've asked multiple times but you're not providing any answer as to why either of these things matter when using the restroom.
It seems like a double standard that you'd criticize one system of separation (sex) because im your view it isn't relevant to restroom use but the alternative separations (identity/presentation) you propose you can't give any account of why they matter for restroom use. >

I'll just throw in the same data I've done here a few times before: the DSM 5 gives a prevalence for gender dysphoria, meaning somebody who has strongly identified as the opposite sex for more than 6 months, at .014%. By contrast, the CDC puts the prevalence of transgender at .6%. The reason GD is much more rare is because of this duration requirement. Thus, this debate is largely a tempest in a teapot, almost nobody actually feels this way for long periods of time. >

You can mutilate your genitals but you can’t transform your DNA. So I ask what is being transitioned? Good for you OP I’m not gonna change your mind because I completely agree. >

Yeah same >

I would argue that the whole thing is a socio/cultural construct, no matter how we slice it. In the recent past, the words gender and sex were interchangeable, and now we insist they are totally non overlapping magisteria. Okay, fine, but we just made that up, it's not some law of the universe. However we decide to arrange these things, it will always be sort of like an image of something that's a little fuzzy. We all know more or less what we're looking at, but zooming in and focusing on the boundaries doesn't really get us any closer to some kind of platonic ideal of gender or sex or whatever. This is why traditional cultures the world over share a bunch of similar features and views in this area, with a few stark exceptions here and there. 
So for me, at the end of the day, traditionalists, gender critical feminists, and TERFs are all wrong because they all insist on incisively clear categories where none can truly exist. We should make a society that we want to live in based on the result we want in the end, not on falsely "self-evident" categories of nature. >

I agree with you that it's a nebulous topic and male and female, other than referring to genitalia, are rarely clear concepts. A genderless system would probably be better, but if we have a distinction by gender, I think it should adhere to criteria that are as objective as possible in order to prevent people tampering with our system. I'm not really a proponent of the male/female distinction as part of our system. Thanks for the response, giving you a delta for your solid reasoning. Δ >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/danmilligan (3∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

This gets complicated by the fact that legal documents do not always definitively know the actual biological sex of a person anyway, not to mention that sometimes a person's biological sex is not as clearcut as male/female.
How is sex determined in the first place? At a very simplistic level you might just ask, "is there a penis or a vagina?" but sex is more complicated than that. Here are the seven factors often discussed in the context of determining a petson's sex:
1) Chromosomal Sex (XY vs. XX vs. other), 2) Genetic Sex (SRY vs. no SRY), 3) Gonadal Sex (Testes vs. Ovaries vs. other), 4) Hormonal Sex (Testosterone vs. Estrogen levels), 5) Internal Genitalia (Wolffian vs. Mullerian ducts vs. other), 6) External Genitalia (Penis vs. Vulva vs. other), 7) Brain Differentiation (male typical vs. female typical vs. other).
Now someone might be defined as male because of the presence of a penis but what if they have several of the female factors, like high estrogen levels or a female typical brain structure? Are they male or female? It is not a strict binary and sex arguably operates on a spectrum as well. These 7 factors often do match up but that is not always the case, there are people that sometimes do not strictly match all 7 factors; what is the threshold? 5 out of 7? 4? Not to mention that most people do not actually know their chromosal sex (or their brain structure or their hormonal levels), they just assume that they do based on the presence of more easily identifiable factors like genitals.
Lastly, what about intersex people? There are people who do not fit cleanly into the category of male or female yet sometimes are assigned one or the other. I can find some videos on YouTube elaborating further if you're interested but there could be contradictory levels of hormones or sometimes even arbitrary genitals (having a very long clitoris that resembles a penis or having a penis as well as ovaries). It is relatively commonplace for doctors to do "cosmetic" surgery on a baby's genitals right after birth to make it more clear which sexual anatomy they fit into but sometimes these corrective surgeries end up being extremely invalidating because of the fact that someone might actually be closer to the opposing sex than the doctor realizes. For example, there have been cases of intersex people being labeled as female but they were born with underdeveloped testicles that were surgically removed at birth. Later in their life they may end up developing a strong feeling of being male that is not just based on the cultural or their own mind's conception of gender, but also on the very presence of large amounts of testosterone.
Sex is not actually as well-defined and cleanly split into two as one might think. Due to that, I believe holding people to the legal sex they were determined at birth is nonsensical because it may not be as objective or accurate as it may seem. >

I agree about the intersex people, they may deserve a different handling in official documents in many cases. In those cases they should probably be given the chance to change their gender at will in any documents, as they could be assigned one at birth under unclear circumstances and then not only disagree with it but maybe their bodies have changed as well.
I still think that in 99% of situations it's very clear whether a person is a male or a female from a biological standpoint, at least for the matters that are influenced by what gender figures in our documents, and that's what should be there and not be changed at will without a medical reason. There are exceptions to that rule, that I agree with. >


I still think that in 99% of situations it's very clear whether a person is a male or a female from a biological standpoint

I don't think that's necessarily true because like I mentioned in my comment, sex is on a continuum and there is not always clear uniformity on all of the 7 factors (not to mention the average person does not know their chromosomes, hormone levels, or brain structure). 

at least for the matters that are influenced by what gender figures in our documents

So you think the presence of a penis vs a vagina is the only thing that matters in determining sex in official documents? >

I think it’s too far to suggest that sex is a continuum. It’s important for people to know sex isn’t a binary, but it’s misleading to suggest that it’s a continuum. 
Around 98% of all people have congruent genetic, gonadal, and phenotypical sex markers that can be defined as male or female. There are many situations where there may be a difference (like internal organ abnormality in MRKH), but we wouldn’t consider this to represent an individual being on the sex “continuum” rather than being female - if they have their XX chromosomes and female external genitalia and ovaries and normal female development, the lack of uterus ought to to suggest intersex disorder in the way you seem to be suggesting. Just as a human born without a limb isn’t on a species continuum, a female born without a womb isn’t on a sex continuum. 
Some work has been done on sexual differences in brain development but these are far from conclusive. Lise Eliot’s meta-synthesis brings important context to what have really been small studies with mixed results, that no doubt produce interesting questions for further research, but don’t yet confirm the type of sexually dimorphic brain development you’re suggesting can act as a marker in a sex continuum. 
The reality is that we have male, female, and intersex sexes. To be intersex, there really ought to be incongruence between the narrower set of markers of chromosomes, gonads, and genitalia. Beyond those things, there may be situations where one of the more expansive set of markers is considered incongruent or abnormal but needn’t cause us to reposition that individuals sex away from male or female (see MRKH example above).
Sex is the most critical characteristic of life in general - it is the mechanism by which life continues. It’s worrying to see an increase in narratives suggesting sex isn’t a meaningful or useful characteristic or that it is a “construct” or “continuum”.
In terms of trans individuals, there are sex markers we can “change”. Obviously, gonadal sex and internal/external genitalia can be modified surgically. Hormonal sex is a mixed bag, with some outcomes lasting even when interventions are stopped and others more likely to return to birth sex patterns. 
Realistically, I think this necessitates appreciation for new sex categories. I’m a gender abolitionist so I don’t happen to believe gender is an important construct at all. But I’m also not in the camp who insist that trans individuals “can’t change sex”. I think in a lot of ways, they can, and transsexual is a more apt term than transgender (you don’t need to “change” something that doesn’t really exist). 
However, I think assignment of trans individuals into opposite sex categories actually obfuscates their unique needs. I’d like to see us embrace male, female, male-to-female, female-to-male, intersex, intersex-to-female, intersex-to-male, male-to-intersex, female-to-intersex genders that respect the choices any adult should be free to make regarding their own anatomy, the relevance of birth sex and sex characteristics in general, and the unique challenges trans individuals face that we ought to capture through accurate data collection. >

In the US, and some other countries, this would basically mean that only richer people, or people with good insurance that actually accepts trans people, would be allowed to be 'trans'. Everyone else would just be a crossdresser. This would also encourage risky, do-it-yourself medical treatment, which is not what we want. >

Well, that's an argument I hadn't thought about since I'm European and used to a decent public health system. I'm still not 100% convinced, but it's a great counterpoint. Giving you a delta, thanks for your response. >

Even then it might not always work. For example, Philosophy Tube recently put out a video detailing her problems getting trans healthcare in the UK.
Also the delta didn't go through. >

About the healthcare situation you point out, that's true, but I think it's a different problem and it should be fixed by improving the healthcare and not by letting people choose their "official" gender at will. Maybe it's just wishful thinking and I should be more pragmatic about this...
And sorry about the delta, the fancypants editor sucks and goes nuts sometimes. Giving it here.
Δ >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Hellioning (164∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >


The latter is a cultural construct that, though derived from the biological gender, is now very different and pretty much detached from it.

This is a very common misunderstanding. 
You are mixing up gender as a social construct, otherwise known as gender roles or gender presentation, with gender identity which is its own distinct concept and is not a social construct. 
Allow me to clarify the issue and explain the difference between gender identity and gender presentation.

Gender identity is intrinsic and evidence points to it likely being developed at or near birth. A transgender man is a man all thier life, same for non binary, etc. It's defined by the brain/sense of self and according to current evidence, forms during development in the womb and very soon after birth. It is nature, not just nurture, meaning nobody can choose their gender identity any more than they can choose thier sexuality. (Though it may take time and experimentation to determine what your gender identity is, it's not always obvious). This is why things like trying to externally socialize a gender onto someone, via conversion therapy or even starting from birth, never works. 
Gender presentation is just how you like to present to the world, it's a social construct, plenty of women like to present masculine, that does not make them a transgender man, and vice versa. Men who preform drag are still men, tomboys are still women, and there are lots of transgender tomboys and drag queens, its just not related. 

There are tons of transgender people who just wear unisex clothes like jeans and t-shirts every single day. I know I do, I could not care less about gender roles. I am not feminine at all, to the point I get backlash from people asking why I don't I dress/present more feminine, dammed if you do...  
So, that's the long and short of it, you are born and you have an intrinsic gender identity, 99% of the time this matches your sex (you are cis gender) but 1% of the time there is a mismatch (you are transgender). That mismatch often causes Dysphoria but is not defined by the existence of Dysphoria.
Pronouns are a way that we as society recognize a persons gender identity, it is not defined, only suggested, by their gender presentation.
In a world without gender roles at all, transgender people / gender identity, would still exist because the biological aspects of gender identity would still exist. >


Gender identity is intrinsic and evidence points to it likely being developed at or near birth. 
It's defined by the brain/sense of self and according to current evidence, forms during development in the womb and very soon after birth. It is nature, not just nurture,

I find it difficult to get on board with this, as the "studies" are really just hearsay, and not based on significant research. There simply hasn't been enough legitimate long-term studies to back up claims made by those researchers about womb development and infant ideation with relation to long term development. A quote from the study you cited states:
"The biological basis of gender identity cannot be modelled in animals and is best studied in people who identify with a gender that is different from the sex of their genitals"
Meaning that this cannot be replicated, other than in the minority who present as such. How can that be the basis for an overarching hypothesis about biological development, and not an argument for psychological factors?
Additionally,  your definition of gender identity doesn't make logical sense. How can an intrinsic idea, or something developed at birth be based off of social construct? If male/female gender roles and presentation are social constructs, how can a fetus determine its gender identity intrinsicly, without knowing about which roles/presentations it prescribes to? >


Additionally, your definition of gender identity doesn't make logical sense. How can an intrinsic idea, or something developed at birth be based off of social construct?

Just want to state, this is not my definition, it is THE definition, hence me linking to, you know, another source.

How can an intrinsic idea, or something developed at birth be based off of social construct?

it is not a social construct. That was my entire point. >

The link you have for "Gender Identity" is a Wikipedia page with the following definition:
"Gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender.[1] Gender identity can correlate with a person's assigned sex or can differ from it. In most individuals, the various biological determinants of sex are congruent, and consistent with the individual's gender identity." 
Then, the link attached to the word "intrisic" is from "Standards of Care for the Health of Trans...". It states that, 
"Gender identity refers to a person's deeply felt, internal, intrinsic sense of their own gender." 
So you've put two different sources together to strengthen your argument - it isn't "THE definition". It's a Wikipedia article and a random quote from a paper about standards of care.  
Regardless, I was trying to have a discussion. You didn't address any of my points. >

Here you go jeez. Why do I have to do this for you?
noun: gender identity; plural noun: gender identities
a person's innate sense of their gender (chiefly used in contexts where it is contrasted with the sex registered for them at birth).
"he said that young children should be able to explore their gender identities"
This is the oxford languages definition, is that good enough? What source exactly will satisfy you? >

1st) I don't know why you're getting so frustrated over a discussion with someone who disagrees with something you said. I'm not attacking you, if you took it that way, I apologize.
2nd) My issue was with the suggestion that gender identity is developed from birth and doesn't have external factors. The actual definitions you're providing do not say what you implied in your original comment, by citing studies discussing fetal development. >

1.
It's frustrating because it really feels like you did not read or engage with anything I wrote. It is clear you do not like the definition of gender identity and that is, IMO, making you unwilling to concede to the fact that what I said was literally the definition, not just my opinion. 
2.
Gender Identity develops very early.  This is scientific consensus. Studies list varying ages but fully formed by age 4 seems to be a general consensus. A hard rule/age will be nearly impossible to determine because we simply can't communicate to newborns, until that is possible a definitive answer will never be available. That does not mean we can just ignore it though. 
It is true there are no external factors, meaning you can not push a gender onto a baby, it has been tried but never works. However that does not mean a baby is born with a fully formed gender identity nor that society has zero effect, I was simply stating that evidence points to biology being an important aspect of gender identity, and then provided studies backing that statement up, but not stating it is all biology. 
The point of all this is...

Gender identity is intrinsic, it can not be changed externally, nor is it a choice internally. 
Gender identity is not a social construct (very common misconception)
Tied to #2, Gender identity would still exist even if gender norms did not exist, because there is a biological, hard wired aspect to gender identity that would remain. >

I truly think there is a miscommunication here. In this comment thread, you cite and quote multiple definitions for gender identity, from various sources. It isnt the legitimate definition I have an issue with. It's the suggestion that it is determined at birth, you even compare it to sexual orientation. That is not the scientific consensus. That is the assertion of certain researchers and groups who believe it to be true - there are many others who have the exact opposite opinion, stating that it is in deed external.  Something that has only begun to be studied in recent years cannot be scientific consensus. 
I'm just raising the idea that there are differences in points of view, which should be commonplace with a phenomena that has only recently become subject to significant scientific research. >


multifaceted interaction of biological traits, environmental factors, self-understanding, and cultural expectations

Thats what I'm trying to say, there are external factors associated with the presentation of gender dysphoria, and the feeling of not identifying with one's biological sex as their gender. Im not arguing that there may be a biological component, but that there are others that also play a role. >

While these things are different (and ignoring for now the fact that "biological sex" isn't really one thing but many things grouped together) gender identity is the relevant one of the two in 99% of all cases. Biological sex is really only relevant in a small number of medical scenarios, and for this the medical record already does a perfectly fine job of recording a person's status. Other official documents only need to record a person's gender identity for all the purposes for which they are used, and there is no more need to record a person's biological sex than there would be to record any other private medical information. >

Maybe it varies a lot from country to country, but here in Spain your "official" gender matters mostly with situations that are related to either physical activites (e.g. sports, requirements for joining the police, etc.) or interactions with other people that could result in sexual assault (e.g. imprisonment). There are other cases that are more unclear, like requiring a quota of female personnel in some job positions, but I honestly can't think of many situations where the gender from your ID card is taken into account and your gender identity is what really matters there. As I said, maybe it's different in other places and I'm just biased.
EDIT: spelling mistakes. >

All the situations you mentioned are ones in which gender identity is the thing that matters, and biological sex is almost irrelevant or would be visible in medical records. Sports leagues are separated by gender, and any medical considerations needed for a sport would involve medical records, requirements for joining the police use medical records, etc. >

That isn't necessarily true. Here in Spain there are different requirements for joining the police based on your gender, as the physical tests for men are (understandably) harder. And also the minimum height requirement is almost always different based on gender as well. This was corrected a few months ago for our national police force, but is still a thing in other police or military forces. I never meant medical tests or anything like that. >

This just sounds like a bad system, one which was enabled by having biological sex on identification. It would have been much better to have only gender identity on official forms to discourage this sort of system. >

I agree. My opinion is that if there's some kind of distinction, we should try to keep it as "objective" as possible when it can impact other people. Otherwise, just get rid of the distinction by gender. I'd be fine with that. Just want a coherent and fair system, one way or the other. (Genderless would probably be better.) >

I think you are correct but it bothers me that you are correct only under the terms that our system is archaic.
Our biology is the buisness of doctors, why do we even have identification descriptors, that we as normal citizens even see? I can't recall my blood type. That's the doctors job.
Olympics is also an archaic , and old tech. Test of strength are based around our perception of what strength was. (Our sports don't typically take advantage of all the traits, and are really old world concepts of such)
There have always been hypotheticals about changing this. I know many people are interested in a sports world where you can take enhancements, as well as bionics. 
As sports, government, and humans evolve. This will be an old world discussion.
So again, I think your correct. But for all the wrong reasons. Documentation should adapt to the people, not the other way around.
**My idea being that eventually m or f will be a condition you are under, that is read on a chart. Not an ID that follows you everywhere.
***So yes for now, in our slow to adapt system, you are correct, but I hope you start to advocate for an alternative. >

Yeah, I do advocate for a different system. I just think that with our current system, letting people change their gender at will is not the way to go. And I see a good deal of people defending that here (in Spain). If there was a referendum about suppressing the need for an "official" gender, I'd probably vote yes. But with our current system, letting people change their gender at will seems a mess to me. Either suppress the need for the criteria, or, since it's something that can affect other people in some instances, try to keep it as "objective" as possible.
EDIT: clarify what I meant by "here". >

I am not sure suppressing sex in documents just because we can't decide on its relationship with gender is such a good idea. One reason why is because it allows for better statistics. It will be exponentially harder to know such things as gender pay gaps, rates of violence, rates of stay at home parenthood (or anything else that actually is segregated by biological sex). 
It may be more productive to keep record of both biological and preferred gender and not show it on the ID (that should probably solve the issue discussed above). >

Yeah, that's true. Keep it as internal data that you shouldn't need to disclose to anyone. All data can be eventually useful, whether it's your biological gender when you were born, your current one or your gender identity. They can all relate to different aspects of your life and help with statistical analysis that can be useful for many different things. (All this assuming the government cares about you, but that's a different topic.)
Good point, here is a delta for you. Δ >

Thank you! >

How about this. I don't give a shit. >

I totally agree. I thought it was a total farce and fucked up that despite still having a penis that swimmer was allowed to compete against women and change in their lockerroom and flash his dick to them. I do not think a man should be allowed to put on a wig or even just say "I'm a woman" and go in the women's bathroom. Totally perverted and sad women need to deal with that now >

So what determines biological sex, and how many sexes do you think there are?

There are situations where your biological sex is what matters (sports, restrooms, medical services, imprisonment...), and that is the one that should figure on all official documents.

So for example, a trans woman who wants to travel should carry around a passport that says M? 
How does that help anyone? >

As I said biological sex is determined by your genitals and hormone levels. If a trans woman has undergone surgery for changing her genitals and hormone therapy, then it should say F. Otherwise, it should stay at M. It probably won't matter in most cases and it could have easily been an F, but in official situations I still think the biological gender is what matters and should be there (medical services or imprisonment, as I cited as examples). >

So how do genitals and hormones determine your sex? What combinations match up to what sexes? >

If you are born with a penis, you are a male. If you are born with a vagina, you are a female. If you are born with both sets of genitals, then it depends, but usually if the penis is more developed and you have high testosterone levels, you are a male, and otherwise a female. As I said, I understand that hermaphrodite people are a different scenario and I agree with those deserving special treatment. >


As I said biological sex is determined by your genitals and hormone levels. If a trans woman has undergone surgery for changing her genitals and hormone therapy, then it should say F

So has that trans woman changed sex or not? Because if she hasn't then you're chosing the put gender on passports instead of sex. >

Nobody can actually change sex. People must know that. >

Most people do. It's the trans community and their ally's who say otherwise. >

Yes, but even they must know it. Seems like a game of lies >

It's easier to just say gender.  When a person says sex, people can too easily think it's referring to intercourse. >

lol true. Here in Spain it's fairly common to say sex for the biological side of things and gender for the identity one when we need to differentiate them, so sorry if that didn't sound very good in English. >

What in God's Green earth are you smoking man? Pass that same shit to all of us, so we all can have the same trip you are having >

Biological males should not be allowed to participate in female sports no matter their current gender or sex. They are born superior in strength and muscle mass. Women spent generations fighting for equal rights in sports. Also women train their entire lives for sports. How is it fair that a biological male can hold trophies, medals, titles, records in a women's sport? Men have taken enough from women all throughout history. Leave our sports alone. Beyond that, you do you. >


I consider myself a progressive person

You sound worse than harry potter fans complaining because you have only watched the movies >

Well, thanks for your constructive response. If voting for BNG, IU and Podemos in Spain isn't considered being progressive on the social side of the political spectrum, I guess I'm just another conservative guy who simply hates different people. Next time I'll start with "I have gay friends, but...". >

You are more pretentious than a manga reader talking to anime only dudes >

But isn't gender identity synonymous with gender disphoria? We keep seeing post op gender transitions suing medical practices after physiological treatment >


But isn't gender identity synonymous with gender disphoria?

No? They're different things. You can look it up on Wikipedia to learn more. >

From my medical studies they are the same, so medically labeled the same, different by definition that can be altered via user >

What medical studies are you talking about? The DSM is pretty clear that they are different things. >

The DSM states its the same, DSM-5
American psychiatric association 
Idc personally what someone is, I will address them as they wish. Its none of my business, as a parent it is a bit scary. When your kid, who just last week wanted to be a dinosaur, is being taught they can change from their assigned sex.
If its a mental illness, IF, im not 100% on that myself, but if- its crazy to normalize a 14 yr old getting HRT without parents consent >


The DSM states its the same, DSM-5 American psychiatric association

Can you quote the bit from the DSM-5 that you think asserts it's the same? The definition I'm reading seems to say the opposite.