I was originally going to ask how many legal genders there should be, but I fail to see a compelling argument against 0.
historical reasons
Why do we need legal genders at all?
Submitted 2 weeks ago by neidu4@piefed.social to [deleted]
Comments
gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
TeaWithDani@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
My driver’s license couldn’t even include my proper eye colour: pers (or hazel). So it says my eyes are green… when they are not.
That’s about as correct as my gender designation. lol
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
Medical issues.
Men and women have different anatomy and needs. Kmowing your biological sex for medical reasons is kinda important.
neidu4@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Does it need to be tied to the legal system, though?
Kolanaki@pawb.social 2 weeks ago
Only in-so-far as medical regulation would require. Like if the hospital failed to check this crucial information and made a mistake because of it they should be held liable. Having it on your ID might also be important if you list yourself as an organ donor; not sure if that would matter but it might.
loomi@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Crime investigation purposes. The information on state ID was used s as a resource for crime fighting. Once DNA analysis became a thing, knowing male vs female was even more important.
Witchfire@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
“biological sex” does jack shit at telling a doctor what a trans person’s biological characteristics are. It’s a dogwhistle used to imply that trans women have the same violent sexual tendencies as many cis men.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
- you’re trans
- you’re involved in an accident
- you’re unconscious
- EMTs administer medication at levels that a woman can handle depending on body fat composition and hormonal fluctuations
- being a genetic male, you die because you lack the increased body fats and estrogen that was assumed in dosage
I get your point, but it’s important to have your gender somewhere on a trustworthy source that everybody has.
peacepath@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The blood group is very important too, for medical issues, but I don’t think it is common to make it a legal marker (such as on passport).
Also, some people are born not matching exactly the classical genders, and labeling them legaly male or female can be misleading for medical things…
Hacksaw@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Lol imagine going to a doctor and they can’t figure out your gender if it’s not on you legal documents.
Get another Dr. I think this one got his license from Trump university
jpreston1986@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Everyone has a different anatomy/needs. You know how many random foramen and bones people can have? Random extra shit that the body spontaneously develops on it’s own for no reason? Most of them are fine, some are not, but to say we need to know if you fit into the “male” or “female” box to treat you is incorrect. We need to know so much more. In fact, I think the mere presence of a vagina seems to tell a lot of doctors “Don’t take this persons pain seriously,” so I think if we just assume everyone is a male or a testosterone/testes-deficient male at the clinic, we might get better results.
Tradwench@thelemmy.club 2 weeks ago
Tbh most of the medical history men’s anatomy was treated as the default, not much far off from what you’re suggesting. Therefore now medical doctors still have no idea wtf is going on during perimenopause despure and as someone going through it I can tell you
dingus@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Weird as fuck how heavily this gets downvoted.
Yes, it does matter in a medical context. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fucking ridiculous and not understanding the nature of reality.
I agree that it doesn’t matter in too many other places. But pretending it doesn’t matter in a medical context is quite frankly ridiculous.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 weeks ago
Because there are many laws that grant some benefits to one gender but no the other. For example:
- In Poland women get to retire earlier
- In many countries there’s mandatory conscription only for men
- In many countries maternal and paternal leaves are different
- Physical requirements for some jobs (police, firemen) are lower for women
- There are legally mandated proportions of genders in companies or in political parties (in parliamentary clubs to be exact)
- In Spain there are laws that specifically protect women from violence committed by men and special courts that handle them
- Many other laws/rules that require some % of public grants to go to women
You can remove all those laws but that will make feminists unhappy because most of them are pushed by them and leftists governments. As long as those laws exists you need legal genders.
Aedaz_@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I do think men getting conscripted because they’re men in kinda bullshit.
invertedspear@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Conscription is bullshit. If your war is so unpopular to your people that they aren’t volunteering, then you shouldn’t be at war.
RBWells@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
There’s a funny story here in the US about that. We were trying to pass the Equal Rights Act (ERA) - equal pay for equal work, and some Republican tried to tank it by putting in the bill that women would also be subject to the draft - apparently he figured that was so horrifying it would sink it. Supporters just said “yeah, that seems fair, good idea” and he had to scramble to take that wording out because he had so misjudged the situation. Still managed to sink the bill though:(
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
That one isn’t a feminist law, that’s a fascist one, under the fasc ideal “women are too weak to fight!”
rabber@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Women can have kids so in times of war men are seen as disposables. You can’t rebuild a nation without women but you basically can without men
whaleross@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I think gender mixed prisons might be considered problematic as well.
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Is that the problem or is the problem that prisons are largely badly designed in the first place?
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 weeks ago
This is very interesting topic but it’s too complex to discuss on lemmy. Most people would not be able to understand the legal nuances and would just start lashing out. I will just leave this here for those interested.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Reading the comments I’m surprised how many people don’t know about them.
It might be less about not knowing about gender disparity, and more about wanting to get rid of that too.
- global retirement age is bullshit anyway; tell me that someone that worked 50 years in a coal mine (and survived somehow) should retire at the same age that someone that worked in an office. Gender is not needed there
- mandatory conscription is already a dicy subject; if one assume it makes sense, making it men-only doesn’t. No need for gender disparity here either; plenty of military roles that can be done without being a beefcake
- many countries are actually looking into extending paternal leaves because they finally got that both parents are important to raise a child
- physical requirements should be physical requirements. If they exist, they should match the job requirements. Having different bar of entry because of gender makes no sense. If the job is lifting iron all day, and you can lift iron all day, that’s all that matters.
- parity requirements related to gender exists to curb all the disparity that’s ingrained in society because we decided to make men and women a different thing. remove the difference, remove the need to "make amend with a mandatory quota"
- same as previous point
- and same as previous previous point
The only need to keep distinguishing gender for legal stuff is because we keep the “women are lesser than men” mentality, coupled with “women needs protection”.
Guess what: there isn’t a gender that is “less” than the other, and everyone needs protection. Sounds like an equality thing to me, where genders only get in the way.
tmyakal@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
remove the difference, remove the need to “make amend with a mandatory quota”
Have you seen what’s going on in the US lately? Abolishing DEI programs that recognize race or gender helps whoever has the most institutional power. White men have run the world for their own benefit for centuries. You think taking them off the leash now will result in a gender-neutral equitable utopia?
bss03@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
Yes, it turns out if you want to use the mechanisms of the legal system to try to counter the marginalization of any group by the whole system, it has to recognize them in law and provide a method for distinguishing them in practice.
But, once you have some method of distinguishing them, the people that want to strengthen hierarchical structures will use that to identify them and (further) marginalize them.
This is true whether you are talking about chromosomal properties, internal anatomy, external anatomy (not limited to genital shape, but also melanin quantity and distribution), gender-assigned-at-birth, current gendered behavior, religious practices or associations, etc.
Still legal recognition might be the best way to reduce harm until we can achieve a future where the category or distinguishing characteristics no longer make one a target of (extra-judicial) marginalization.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
You act like there’s no option to create GENDER EQUALITY, and instead the only option is to remove those laws.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 weeks ago
Am I? I said that as long as those laws exist legal gender also has to exist. I didn’t say that those laws should or shouldn’t be removed.
Most of those laws are passed by leftists governments and many were passed very recently. Those laws are how the left is trying to create gender equality right now. If you have other ideas you’re free to propose them.
tmyakal@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
I’m curious how you create GENDER EQUALITY without forcing people to acknowledge and correct for systemic biases. It’s not like there was GENDER EQUALITY before such laws existed.
The idea of affirmative action laws is that, systemically, white men in western countries were born on third base thinking they hit a triple, and everyone else needs some amount of help to catch up to their institutional and generational wealth and power. A law can’t correct for that difference if the difference is no longer recognized, and that means white men get to retain their position.
It’s why the Trump administration focused so hard on dismantling DEI efforts. Their position is that we’ve achieved equality and these programs are an unjust bias. Obviously bullshit, but it’s what you immediately end up with if race and gender are not legally recognized characteristics.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Maternal and paternal leave also applies in adoptions and surrogate births so it is gender based.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 weeks ago
I wasn’t sure about that as each country has different rules. Thanks for clarifying, I restored that point.
SCmSTR@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Government database defining what our names are is also backwards.
A name is what people call you. You should be able to change it whenever you want. Most people just don’t want to.
Like if you go to a new country, you can tell them anything, and that becomes your actual name, because that’s what names are.
Gender is the same way. I exist for now, and while I do, I have free will. Perks of being alive.
Krudler@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Excellent 👌
comfy@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
While it makes sense immediately to me, it was still surprising that one can have a different legal name in different countries.
ExtraJudgement@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
We don’t.
Here in Germany one of the few good things that came out of our previous federal government was the SBGG, which - among other things - allows you to delete the entry. And before anyone points it out: I’m aware it isn’t perfect.
AskewLord@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
nothing has to be perfect. it just has to work sufficiently well.
fluffykittycat@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
Discrimination. That’s the purporse.
emptiness@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Discrimination is at least what it was introduced for initially in my country. It was to do with women not having the same rights around inheritance, so they needed to record it in order to treat women worse.
hansolo@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
We don’t. There 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 commenting adults ahemwith tax invectives. 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.
ScoffingLizard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Those are good points. Genders amd 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 2 weeks 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
hansolo@lemmy.today 2 weeks 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 2 weeks ago
I know it’s just a typo/autocorrect, but I seriously chuckled at “tax invectives.”
hansolo@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Thanks for the catch. I didn’t have my glasses so the blur of text looked like the right blur.
john_save_america@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Your third paragraph confuses me. Why would conservatives be alright with this solution?
hansolo@lemmy.today 2 weeks 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.
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
We don’t.
I don’t see any benefit to society in doing so. Why the hell does the government need to know what my gender is at any point?
I agree that gender public records should disappear.
Pacattack57@lemmy.world 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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 2 weeks 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.
john_save_america@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
That would be tracking sex, not gender. Gender has no bearing on medical issues as it’s a social construct.
stepan@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Yep
zlatiah@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
That… is a good point
It obviously did matter when same-sex marriages were not legal for example (some countries still do this…), but in most parts of the developed world today… yeah. I guess it does feel a bit grandfatherer-in right now
Obviously things such as the medical system need to know what biological sex someone is, but they don’t have to tie into the legal system
neidu4@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Yeah, that’s what I think some of the replies is missing: Whether or not it needs to be tied to the legal system. I can think of a decent amount of ways of confirming someone’s biology without checking their passport or drivers license.
As for rights and legal protection, I fail to think of a situation in a just society where the same rights and protections shouldn’t apply to both/all.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 weeks ago
I fail to think of a situation in a just society
Exactly, we need it because we don’t live in a just society.
Witchfire@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
We don’t.
craftrabbit@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
So that people with an M on their passport can do obligatory military service
(Yes, I am salty about this, how’d you know?)
((Also I think that’s the only remaining way in which people with an M or an F are treated differently where I live so at least we’re making some progress I guess))
(((Oh also they need it to more effectively grope trans people at airport security)))
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 2 weeks ago
Could help with medical procedures and in case of harassment, otherwise no none at all.
For the harassment example, there can be no protected class if the class isn’t strictly defined. maybe the laws could be changed to protect masculine or feminine instead of male or female but it might become more difficult to prove the discrimination.
CanIFishHere@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Shelters for domestically abused women need to be female only.
technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
It’s so the state can attack people. So it can control “marriage” privileges. Etc.
AskewLord@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
because they aren’t legal genders.
they are sex.
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Agree. Physical sex is impotent but gender identity does not have to be binary.
Radical_Socialist_t00t@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Because church and patriarchal society basically.
Greystripeycat@lemmy.today 2 weeks 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.
TheMuffinMan@piefed.world 2 weeks ago
Counterpoint to those saying ‘biological sex’ is medically relevant information but gender isn’t: have you heard of [medically] transitioning?
If I were treated as female (what I was assigned at birth) in a medical context today, depending on the situation it could kill me. Never mind the distress of e.g. being in a female ward as a man.
Then again, I don’t use the term transgender for myself. I am transsexual.
JustPlainDave@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
One reason I could think of is identification. Say a person is missing. Describing a 5’2, 135lb person with brown hair and eyes is a lot less narrow than a 5’2, 135lb woman with brown hair and eyes.
daggermoon@piefed.world 2 weeks ago
Gender is an artificial construct anyway. I don’t see why it should be on your ID.
AceTKen@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
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 was 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 academic papers involving humans that may have felt that “sex” was a dirty word, but even then they were discussing the same thing.
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 meant 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.
queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
For gender segregation.
VinegarChunks@lemmus.org 2 weeks ago
It would be cruel to send women criminal convicts to prison with men.
majster@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Procreation is a big part of human experience. So things kinda lead one from another.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 weeks 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.
Soleos@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
We have laws making it illegal to discriminate according to gender. If there are zero legal gender categories, there is no legal basis by which one can say discrimination has occured, so nobody can technically commit such a crime.
balsoft@lemmy.ml 2 weeks 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.
gastroglizzy@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
The two biggest reasons i can think of are:
It’s medically relevant information. If you’re incapacitated, this could be vital information to whoever treats you.
Legal protections. Gender is a protected class. To receive those protections and to know when they apply, this information is required.
hungrycat@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m not sure if OP meant sex or gender. I can’t think of a medically relevant reason to know an incapacitated person’s gender. Maybe someone with any experience or knowledge there can chime in.
My understanding of the legal discrimination argument is that whether someone holds a particular gender identity is irrelevant. If the perpetrator perceives someone to be of a particular gender, and acts with intent to discriminate against someone based on that belief, regardless of whether or not it’s true, that still constitutes gender discrimination. But IANAL.
otter@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Gender, and other factors that aren’t as “medically relevant”, might still be helpful if it helps the staff pick between two treatment options. The patient’s comfort and happiness can affect their overall wellbeing.
Say someone grows up in a culture where their gender (or some cultural group the person can belong to) usually has long hair. A particular treatment may have two options:
Knowing what gender (or other group) the person belongs to might inform their decision.
Note, this is about why medical staff might want to know about gender identity and not the original question of how many we should have.
gastroglizzy@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Pretty sure you’re right about that. A person’s state of mind (or “mens rea” if you’re in the profession) is an often crucial component of criminal acts. If someone assaults someone because they think they’re Muslim, the fact that they’re actually Mexican doesn’t make it ok.
BUT, the other side to that is, say for example someone’s gender is male and their sex is female, but they present masculine. If they reveal their sex to someone, and that person discriminates against them for being a woman, how is the victim supposed to claim their protected status? If it’s not apparent not documented, it will be difficult to claim those protections in court.
I am also not a lawyer 🤷♀️
yukichigai@kbin.earth 2 weeks ago
This one is overlooked and can be literally a matter of life and death. Certain medications react differently based on hormone levels for example, so even if someone was born male if they have a nominally female balance of hormones they need to be treated (medically) as female.
bookmeat@fedinsfw.app 2 weeks ago
That’s not relevant for justifying legal sex or gender.
Grainne@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
So for a trans person on hormones but without updated id markers they would die?
cattywampas@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
To be pedantic you’d want to know sex not gender for medical reasons.
hperrin@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
You might want to know both in certain situations.
TheMuffinMan@piefed.world 2 weeks ago
I made an entire comment about this but I’ll address 1 point here quickly: people like to forget that transition drastically changes your body in a way that only recording “birth sex” does not encapsulate. Both are absolutely medically relevant.
gastroglizzy@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
It’s very difficult to know what will/not be medically relevant in any given situation.
Carnelian@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
(I am not arguing with you, just thinking through the ideas out loud) 1. It seems like it could be tracked in the same manner as all other necessary medical information, such as diabetes status 2. There are other protected classes that we don’t make a big deal of legally unless it’s relevant, such as orientation
UiUiUiUiUi@piefed.nl 2 weeks ago
Counter point: Intersex
AskewLord@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Intersex people don’t exist in statistically relevant numbers.
FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 2 weeks ago
Lol our answers were identical but yours came later and got more votes.
Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Could be because others (like myself) have tagged you as a troll
gastroglizzy@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Up/down votes are weird. Good thing they don’t mean much here.
zikzak025@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The medical relevance just involves the parts you have, though. Instead of just documenting someone as male and female, just keep an inventory of the parts they have (especially when there are differences from the norm).