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.
Gender, and other factors that aren’t as “medically relevant”, may help 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:
shave the head
something that doesn’t involve shaving the head
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 legal genders we should have.
For your shaving the head example I would argue that if the person is incapacitated and needing urgent care the solution with the most chance of success should be preferred regardless of gender norms. If both are equally likely the one that doesn’t remove hair should be preferred. You might be a man with attachment to your long hair even in a society where that’s uncommon, gender does not dictate anything of the sort. So I still don’t see a reason why gender is relevant medically.
That’s fair, and it was a poor example on my part.
If one treatment is much better, then yes that one would be preferred. Generally when there are two treatments being weighed, both will have consequences (else one would obviously be better).
My point was that knowing things about a person, outside of their physical biology, can get better outcomes. It should never be REQUIRED for the patient to share it, but we should educate medical staff about their community so that they can use that information when it is helpful.
Some other examples, that aren’t specific to gender
knowing what pronouns to use would make the patient trust the provider more and feel more comfortable
if you know the patients literacy level or knowledge of medical terminology, you can adjust your explanations
if the patient belongs to a group that might have an aversion to a particular treatment, you know to either spend more time explaining it or to let them know another option is available
if you know the patient is poor, then you might take that into account when recommending treatments. Even in publicly funded health systems, the lifestyle recommendations might not apply to every person
At the same time, the person shouldn’t be making assumptions based on someone falling into a particular group, and they should confirm whatever it is they are checking for.
IMO, knowing about gender is less important in places where it doesn’t carry as much cultural weight. As another example, if someone identifies as a woman in a culture where they don’t want to be alone with a male figure, knowing their identity might remind the staff to bring someone else who identifies as a woman into the exam room.
regardless of whether or not it’s true, that still constitutes gender discrimination.
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 and it’s not documented, it will be difficult to claim those protections in court.
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?
Maybe we need to turn this around, maybe we should consider defaulting to the assumption that people should not be able to discriminate against other people for any reason instead of just being protected against “certain” kinds of discrimination. If we are going to allow discrimination for certain reasons, maybe we should make those allowed forms of discrimination the ones that need to be spelled out explicitly. If you don’t have a good reason to discriminate against someone about something, maybe don’t discriminate them? Maybe that’s a bit outlandish, maybe I’m not thinking it through, I don’t know, but it seems reasonable enough to me.
because that’s not how people work. you are arguing form an impossible ideal.
you yourself incessantly discriminate people based on their appearances. the point is to prevent people from those discriminations institutionally.
every single day you are dismissing or admiring people based on how they look, they speak, etc. and your ‘reasonable’ for these things is wildly different than somebody else’s. human beings are not capable individually of the levels of self-awarenesss you are presuming exist, even in yourself.
the laws are largely to prevent systematic and institutional discrimination, individual human beings will always be discriminatory. A individual person hiring at a large org can still discriminate, but the institution itself can’t because legally if there is a pattern of multiple discriminatory practices that can be actioned against.
You’re getting into limiting free speech area there, im sure a lot of people would be very against something like that, however good the intentions may be.
It’s medically relevant information. If you’re incapacitated, this could be vital information to whoever treats you.
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.
Is it? You can have female hormone levels and still have male genitalia. Science is cool like that. And no, people aren’t defined solely by their genitals, but they aren’t solely defined by their appearance either, or their biology. It’s a big mash up of those things and a few more.
Point being it’s really hard to describe that situation as being solely one or the other. It’s definitely something that needs to be indicated for medical reasons though, but most Identification Documents don’t draw any distinction between sex and gender, much less allow for notation of something like that. Once again, paperwork lags behind reality.
But sex is all of the biological part, and yeah, exactly because is holistical and not just a sum of its parts is that it’s the reason because it’s precise.
The gender is all the sociocultural and psicological part.
That’s still different from gender. Gender is a set of social relations that often, but not necessarily, is associated with a particular body chemistry.
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.
Yes, but poliitcally it’s convenient to argue that gender is oppressive, or essential or something.
What’s ironic to me is the ‘anti gender’ people are the one who are the most obsessed with it and go around policing every else’s gender identity and their language use about it.
Like, if you want to be liberated from gender, why don’t you liberate yourself first, and stop agonizing about other people’s gender identity or lack thereof. Nobody informs/lectures me of my own gender identity more than people who claim to not believe gender exists…
People assume I’m a woman unless I disclose I’m a man anyway, which is also hilarious to me. Because I ‘type like a girl’, and then when they find out my gender they go back and the meaning of all my words suddenly becomes offensive and awful… which just reveals their own inherent gender biases.
(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
Although I think I lean to the it shouldn’t be tracked the way it currently is, to further your point we do track other visual things by which people are discriminated against such as race.
Intersex people don’t exist in statistically relevant numbers.
Siamese twins also exist, and there are lots of legal issues with them as well as to whether they count as one or two people. Oftentimes they are considered both or neither depending on the specific legal issue that comes up.
But we don’t base governmental policy on the existence of Siamese twins, we base it on the concept of singular individuals.
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).
My comments are almost always sorted by ‘new’ and I bet that is what’s happening here - their comment is more visible as the post gains traction because it’s newer.
I’ve definitely had the same happen to me, so at least you’re not alone hahah
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.
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.
Gender, and other factors that aren’t as “medically relevant”, may help 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 legal genders we should have.
For your shaving the head example I would argue that if the person is incapacitated and needing urgent care the solution with the most chance of success should be preferred regardless of gender norms. If both are equally likely the one that doesn’t remove hair should be preferred. You might be a man with attachment to your long hair even in a society where that’s uncommon, gender does not dictate anything of the sort. So I still don’t see a reason why gender is relevant medically.
As a guy with long hair i can tell you i would be pissed if they shaved my head while an alternative was available.
The alternative: Death
That’s fair, and it was a poor example on my part.
If one treatment is much better, then yes that one would be preferred. Generally when there are two treatments being weighed, both will have consequences (else one would obviously be better).
My point was that knowing things about a person, outside of their physical biology, can get better outcomes. It should never be REQUIRED for the patient to share it, but we should educate medical staff about their community so that they can use that information when it is helpful.
Some other examples, that aren’t specific to gender
At the same time, the person shouldn’t be making assumptions based on someone falling into a particular group, and they should confirm whatever it is they are checking for.
IMO, knowing about gender is less important in places where it doesn’t carry as much cultural weight. As another example, if someone identifies as a woman in a culture where they don’t want to be alone with a male figure, knowing their identity might remind the staff to bring someone else who identifies as a woman into the exam room.
We need to finish naming all 12,000 mushroom genders before we can make laws about them
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 and it’s not documented, it will be difficult to claim those protections in court.
I am also not a lawyer 🤷♀️
discriminatory law is not about individuals actions, it’s about institutional ones.
Just spitballing here, but:
Maybe we need to turn this around, maybe we should consider defaulting to the assumption that people should not be able to discriminate against other people for any reason instead of just being protected against “certain” kinds of discrimination. If we are going to allow discrimination for certain reasons, maybe we should make those allowed forms of discrimination the ones that need to be spelled out explicitly. If you don’t have a good reason to discriminate against someone about something, maybe don’t discriminate them? Maybe that’s a bit outlandish, maybe I’m not thinking it through, I don’t know, but it seems reasonable enough to me.
because that’s not how people work. you are arguing form an impossible ideal.
you yourself incessantly discriminate people based on their appearances. the point is to prevent people from those discriminations institutionally.
every single day you are dismissing or admiring people based on how they look, they speak, etc. and your ‘reasonable’ for these things is wildly different than somebody else’s. human beings are not capable individually of the levels of self-awarenesss you are presuming exist, even in yourself.
the laws are largely to prevent systematic and institutional discrimination, individual human beings will always be discriminatory. A individual person hiring at a large org can still discriminate, but the institution itself can’t because legally if there is a pattern of multiple discriminatory practices that can be actioned against.
You’re getting into limiting free speech area there, im sure a lot of people would be very against something like that, however good the intentions may be.
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.
So for a trans person on hormones but without updated id markers they would die?
If memory serves one of the affected medications is used to treat some kinds of heart attacks, so possibly literally yes.
That’s sex, though, not gender
Is it? You can have female hormone levels and still have male genitalia. Science is cool like that. And no, people aren’t defined solely by their genitals, but they aren’t solely defined by their appearance either, or their biology. It’s a big mash up of those things and a few more.
Point being it’s really hard to describe that situation as being solely one or the other. It’s definitely something that needs to be indicated for medical reasons though, but most Identification Documents don’t draw any distinction between sex and gender, much less allow for notation of something like that. Once again, paperwork lags behind reality.
But sex is all of the biological part, and yeah, exactly because is holistical and not just a sum of its parts is that it’s the reason because it’s precise.
The gender is all the sociocultural and psicological part.
That’s still different from gender. Gender is a set of social relations that often, but not necessarily, is associated with a particular body chemistry.
That’s not relevant for justifying legal sex or gender.
To be pedantic you’d want to know sex not gender for medical reasons.
You might want to know both in certain situations.
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.
It’s very difficult to know what will/not be medically relevant in any given situation.
Yes, but poliitcally it’s convenient to argue that gender is oppressive, or essential or something.
What’s ironic to me is the ‘anti gender’ people are the one who are the most obsessed with it and go around policing every else’s gender identity and their language use about it.
Like, if you want to be liberated from gender, why don’t you liberate yourself first, and stop agonizing about other people’s gender identity or lack thereof. Nobody informs/lectures me of my own gender identity more than people who claim to not believe gender exists…
People assume I’m a woman unless I disclose I’m a man anyway, which is also hilarious to me. Because I ‘type like a girl’, and then when they find out my gender they go back and the meaning of all my words suddenly becomes offensive and awful… which just reveals their own inherent gender biases.
(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
Counterpoint to 2 - femme presenting people are often discriminated against whether gender is known or not. Orientation isn’t quite as visible.
Although I think I lean to the it shouldn’t be tracked the way it currently is, to further your point we do track other visual things by which people are discriminated against such as race.
people are discriminated based on religion fairly often too, but the feds don’t need to know what church you do or don’t go to
Counter point: Intersex
Intersex people don’t exist in statistically relevant numbers.
Siamese twins also exist, and there are lots of legal issues with them as well as to whether they count as one or two people. Oftentimes they are considered both or neither depending on the specific legal issue that comes up.
But we don’t base governmental policy on the existence of Siamese twins, we base it on the concept of singular individuals.
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).
Lol our answers were identical but yours came later and got more votes.
Up/down votes are weird. Good thing they don’t mean much here.
Could be because others (like myself) have tagged you as a troll
Whats your defence of that stance? Because I fight Tankies?
more evidence that discrimination harms communities
My comments are almost always sorted by ‘new’ and I bet that is what’s happening here - their comment is more visible as the post gains traction because it’s newer.
I’ve definitely had the same happen to me, so at least you’re not alone hahah