I was originally going to ask how many legal genders there should be, but I fail to see a compelling argument against 0.

  • BreakingBigfoot@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    32 minutes ago

    Traditionally, for inheritance & land tax purposes, the woman takes the owner’s name; her attributes, kids & possessions are settled or accounted for upon her husband/father’s death. Most of these laws were written in maritime law, where men were expected to die in battle or get lost at sea… So who gets a man’s valuables is mostly why there are only 2 genders by law, and always have been… The only reason 70 + pronouns were floated as a concept came from Marxist communist pseudo-philosophy, zionists in the White House trying to subvert the education sector and universities to push transgendeisum. That’s why all the Ivy League academic institutions have liberal democrats running them now, producing idiots who say “men can get pregnant”. American education sector is being bought out, gutted and turned into political brainwashing camps for people who will believe anything.

    • Greystripeycat@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      What??? I can, from personal experience, let you know that’s just bullshit. Do you think genitals at birth determines who receives domestic abuse? In fact, trans femme experience more domestic abuse by percentage. Should we shove trans femme into an all male shelter? There are more all male shelters by a large percentage in the USA, it’s difficult to get into an all female shelter. If they are there, it’s for a good reason. FFS. Terf talking points are ignorant.

  • Greystripeycat@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 hours ago

    Ok. I get the sex differentiation when needing medical care. What I don’t get is why we have to tell everyone else what gender we are. If you can do the job, what does it matter? If you are driving, what does it matter? You can change your appearance at any time. Now, I know that injuries can happen anywhere, but there are so many variables in appearance and dress that it seems pointless. Emergency services don’t demand sex identification before treatment. Doctors treat injuries not sex. Yes, there can be treatments that need this information, doctors do ask for a valid reason. I know I’m neurodivergent. I just feel like it’s not really my business whatcha got going on below the “packaging” in a non-having sexual relations soon kinda way. If I would like to have sex with you, I would then start with what I’ve got going on, then ask if you’re ok with that. I’ve always assumed the people I’ve had sex with were human, haven’t gone wrong with that yet. I didn’t decide to have sex with someone on what I think is under their clothing. Communication is key folks. I have made assumptions in my life, but a quick, kind correction is not going to ruin my day. Yes, I’ve made passes to persons who turned me down, who hasn’t? Didn’t slow me down. I’ve mostly worked in office situations, but I did have a few years driving tractor-trailers, even there, you really don’t know what the “packaging” covers. I think it’s just all just busy bodies poking their noses and prejudice into others people’s lives. They can just fuck off with that shit. So many want to bring up safety reasons, maybe we should start with stopping non-consent culture and supporting those who have suffered. Today’s culture explicitly supports non-consent culture. It’s disgusting. Sorry for the wall of text.

    • LavaPlanet@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Women are excluded from medical studies and even medicines designed for women are trialed on men, anyway, so I would argue it wouldn’t make a difference medically, anyway.

    • withabeard@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      I agree … ish

      I think sex identification is useful for medical stuff, until it isn’t. If I was born with testicles, and I have a motorcycle accident that removes them. I don’t have testicular cancer. The bit here isn’t that I am “male” so I might have testicular cancer, the importance is “do I have testicles”.

      Sex is an overall term that may align with certain likelyhoods, chances or diagnosis. But even then, it’s not a guarantee.

      • Greystripeycat@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 hours ago

        My first statement is about medical personnel asking valid questions about physical sex. Considering there are quite a variety of answers to this question, it’s most likely needed in your example. If you have had testicular cancer, it could have metastatic implications without actually having testicles at that time. I would hope that it would be caught before then, but I take your example to mean your testicles were removed in the motorcycle accident (I assume they are gone?) so you assume that you didn’t have, at the time of the accident, testicular cancer? Idk, seems to support my points. No ish involved.

  • Ace T'Ken@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    4 hours ago

    (from our thread in Actual Discussion) It exists as you see it in this weird middle state now because gender used to be completely synonymous with sex.

    I first became familiar with the idea of gender in High School in the 90’s. Unlike most, I have forestry credits as I was in boarding school and had some very… odd classes. We ran an apiary and made our own honey, kept and raced sled dogs, worked a restaurant we ran, ran a library, etc.

    We were tasked with taking care of a square kilometre of forest up in Northern Canada and, as such, had to learn about plant species native to the region. We learned about plant gender.

    Plants have a gender because they lack a biological sex; it is a different classification system. In regards to humans, however, the dictionaries (and people using the term) at the time used it interchangeably with the term sex. The only differentiation that I ever saw between the two was in dealing with plants or heavily academic papers.

    Intersex humans were, at least taxonomically, an aberration and not a classification. Early on they presented and operated as whatever their dominant sexual traits would indicate and frequently did not deviate and there was little issue with this.

    But… even since the early 80’s when I was born, there was a wide berth in what it could mean to be a man or woman. When people were talking about stereotypes, they seemed to be speaking about things that I’d seen in old TV shows from the 50’s and 60’s, not things I was familiar with in real life. That “housewife and single breadwinner husband” home shit was long past and seemed antiquated even then. It wasn’t BAD to be stereotypical or not, mind you, but other than a few farming households I knew, I never saw the “stay-at-home-Mom” dynamic. Every family had a different dynamic and people fit where they built themselves space to do so. I knew very few “stereotypical male” Dads or “stereotypical female” Moms other than on TV, and we all knew damn well that TV wasn’t true to life.

    When I witnessed third-wave feminist messaging start to get big in the 2010s speaking about this stuff like it was common, expected, and had to be destroyed, it was odd to me. It was like they were fighting with ghosts from days long past.

    I recognize that my personal experiences don’t match everyone, but I lived in Cincinnati, Edmonton, Calgary, Saudi Arabia, Kingston, Amsterdam, Thailand, Kentucky, and many more. The only place I witnessed what could be described as “traditional roles” was in Saudi, and even then it was only defined by a few laws, not the way people actually acted. I knew many friends that had their father completely cowed by their mother even in that insane theocracy.

    All that to say that gender in humans… doesn’t seem to have a purpose to me. Since gender can be fluid in humans, it is not at all worth categorizing in humans. It means, effectively, nothing. It’s like trying to categorize hair colour down to the hex code; it accomplishes nothing whatsoever.

    Sex is a medically distinguishing characteristic. I get why it needs to exist. Gender? I don’t understand why it came to be used for anything as it hasn’t done anything other than stir basic culture war garbage.

  • john_save_america@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    What gender someone presents as needs to be tracked for drivers license to ensure proper law enforcement. Sex needs to be tracked for a multitude of medical reasons.

    • TheNextMuon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Gender on a drivers license is irrelevant for law enforcement. When driving a car the law needs to know your identity. What gender you have when driving a car should not matter.

      • john_save_america@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        This is bad faith enough where I’m just going to respond with the same level of bad faith: so by your logic gender isn’t a part of someone’s identity?

    • Greystripeycat@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Like anyone for any reason cannot change their appearance at any time. Better explore how many crimes go unsolved, even with an inkling of appearance of the criminal. It’s depressing.

      • john_save_america@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 hour ago

        So this is the second comment I’ve seen trying to apply a sentiment that doesn’t actually refute the claim, attempt to refute it. The ability to change your appearance isn’t mutually exclusive to allowances being a beneficial data point for identifying someone. Not only is it fringe, but we already have multiple laws that deal with intentionally hiding your identity from the state or law enforcement.

    • Zozano@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      to ensure proper law enforcement.

      Why?

      To identify the correct person? If so, then just let the picture on their licence be the identification.

      • john_save_america@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I mean the most accurate but unsatisfying answer to that is whenever a picture wouldn’t be satisfactory. There are multiple hypotheticals you could come up with. The simplest I can think of is a general description is more important in searching in a crowd than a picture is, but you could certainly come up with more than enough examples to justify m/f identification to be necessary.

        • Zozano@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 hours ago

          If you were looking to ID someone in a crowd, then skin color/heritage (I hate the word ‘race’) would be an important one, yet that isnt listed on a licence, but is shown in the picture.

          • john_save_america@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 hours ago

            That would be a good reason to include race on IDs then, not a counter factual to why gender being listed is necessary. This is also just one example like I said previously.

              • john_save_america@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                2 hours ago

                I have no clue as it would obviously be beneficial. I feel like you’re hyper fixated on this either way. Like I said in my previous reply, this is one example. Even if I granted that this someone disproved my example (I’m not entirely sure how that would work) it wouldn’t actually have any bearing on my original statement.

                • Zozano@aussie.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  2 hours ago

                  Trust me, I do get your point, but the reason we don’t have race on our ID’s is because its arbitrary. Black Irish exist for example.

                  So why would my skin color be listed on my ID if my picture is there?

                  Anyone who is cross referencing the picture could simply just say what the skin color or ethnicity is.

                  In any case, I think your argument is moot. If police are trying to identify someone in a crowd, why would having their gender on their licence help?

                  If police know who they’re looking for, they will look up the person on their computer, and could see gender there. That doesn’t mean it needs to be on a licence.

  • balsoft@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    In an ideal society? No.

    However, in our current patriarchal nightmare, people other than cis-men need various special protections to soften the impacts of sexual violence, sexism, discrimination, and inequality, hence the need to have legally defined genders.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    7 hours ago

    The important thing is not the legal genders, but that we can hate somebody we don’t know for something they haven’t done.

  • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Many users have mentioned medical reasons, but there are also a bunch of legal privileges that only one gender has. In my country,

    • Some number of jobs (usually 33%) are reserved for women. Some states reserve a small number of jobs for transpeople / intersex / third gender people.
    • Maternity leave > paternity leave
    • Many government schemes are only for women.
    • In a divorce, if the children do not have strong preferences for either parent, they are sent with the mother.
    • At night, women cannot be kicked out of trains for travelling without tickets.
    • Women can only be searched / arrested by policewomen.
    • Religious accomodations, like Sikh men but not women having a right to carry knives in high-security areas.
    • In Delhi and nearby areas, men are less likely to get sexually assualted.
  • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Not necessarily legal but tracking genders is extremely important for data analytics in almost every field. For example knowing certain diseases affects genders differently allows scientists to create better medicines or medicines that target different things. Like medicines that are specifically designed to be safe for pregnancy.

    • myotheraccount@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      16 hours ago

      While true, thos doesn’t mean the state has to track the gender. It can be part of medical files. The state also doesn’t care about my blood type, which is also super important in some medical situations.

      • Bluewing@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        When it comes to the “state” tracking sex demographics it can be very important when it comes to future planning for citizens. It can matter if you want to transition for example. The state can make long term plans based on that data to encourage an increase in facilities that can offer more support and services to those areas than need trans people.

        Just tucking that information away in a medical file that only you and a doctor or two will see does nothing to make society better for trans people as a whole.

  • majster@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Procreation is a big part of human experience. So things kinda lead one from another.

  • heartSagan5@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    16 hours ago

    I’d be okay if my sex was scrubbed from my driver’s license. Like, I doubt there will ever be a doppelganger with my name at my address with my birthday that is contrary in sex to myself, ever.

    But sadly, when the cops receive a report, they’ll ask “were they male or female,” which they’ll use to in their investigation.

  • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    21 hours ago

    👆👆👆

    This is part of my problem with bigger transitioning than I’ve already done. I’ve reached about the point where I’d have to get my DL sex changed to not run into various problems and I’m already super uncomfortable with how much the government knows about my genitals. None of that ever should have been the government’s business to begin with.

  • hansolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    We don’t. They’re entirely immaterial to a modern world.

    The instant 2 atheists got married, it opened the door to people of any gender pairing to get married. Marriage is just a social contact between 2 consenting adults ahemwith tax incentives. Only religion dictated which genders are allowed to do what.

    Conservative hand wringing over public restroom use is mitigated by making all bathrooms gender neutral. Easy fix.

    What else? Pink is for whoever the fuck likes it, you salmon short wearing closeted frat bros. You do you. Blue is for people doing Frozen cosplay. I dunno, gendered colors are so stupid.

      • hansolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        Because conservative rich kids wear pink “ironically” as a flex that they’re rich, and therefore “manly enough” that they de-gender pink as a color.

    • ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Those are good points. Genders and gendered colors always were inconvenient to me. I hate how women’s gym shoes are always shitty colors and I have to worry about people offended because of traditional gender roles. It’s annoying af.

      Pink is not considered feminine in many countries. Also, marriage is not Christian. Hindus, muslims, Buddhists, pagans, and all kind of folks get married and have before Christians existed. It’s not one man and one woman. Massai warriors and Mormons have lots of wives.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 hours ago

        Some amount of gendered colors is a useful social shortcut. When our children were babies, we painted the nursery green because that’s my favorite color, and otherwise didn’t bother much with color. However when we went out we tended to have some obvious blue to make it simpler to talk about our baby. It’s easier for someone to say “he’s cute” because he has a blue blanket, than to have the “boy or girl?” Discussion.

        Similarly our dog has a pink collar because it’s easier for someone to say “she’s cute” rather than “boy or girl?” And have some random person checking her genitals. It’s only here on Lemmy where people get pornographic about mention of a dog where they don’t know the gender

        It’s just a problem when it’s forced, or excessive, or becomes someone’s identity

      • hansolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Well and even in the West, pink and blue didn’t used to be gendered like they are. 100+ years ago yellow was boys, light blue for girls. So the gendering isn’t even static, it’s as fluid as gender itself.

    • monotremata@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      22 hours ago

      I know it’s just a typo/autocorrect, but I seriously chuckled at “tax invectives.”

      • hansolo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Thanks for the catch. I didn’t have my glasses so the blur of text looked like the right blur.

          • hansolo@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            14 hours ago

            Hey, a constant point John Hodgeman makes on his judgement podcast is that long term cohabitation without the tax breaks is foolish. There no reason to give the state more money just to stick it to convention.