you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (26 children)

Yeah, from working in a medical field - your sex can have a huge effect on the way your body interacts with certain medicines/drugs - and as such I find the trend of conflating Gender and Sex to be rather dangerous.

And it's not just people that started doing it either. I've worked on multiple studies where data entry points have asked for Gender when they very much meant Sex. Again dangerous, because the answer to both is only the same for cis identifying people - and you really don't want to get that wrong.

What you do with your Gender is nobody's business but your own. Express yourself however you please - but if a medical professional is asking your assigned sex at birth, consider they may be doing so to keep you safe.

(For the record I'm not stating either as a binary, I'm aware intersex people exist, and do believe more should be done to accommodate them in medical settings which mostly currently act like they don't exist)

Edit: Somehow the end of my second to last paragraph got replaced by a fullstop. Weird stuff

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

    I have some antitrust issues with Epic (the EMR) but they have a literal checklist option where you literally just check which organs the pt had at birth then can specify whether or not they still have them. Super simple, cuts straight to the medically relevant info, and covers all areas from binary cis to cancer to intersex to pre, mid, and post transition. Best way I've ever seen it done. Epic is one of those things that's dominating the market by just being on a different level from everybody else but I gotta admit I'm a little worried about how much influence they have when they finally (as all large corpos do) go full supervillan.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago (9 children)

    Which is why we need to put M/W/N/(etc.) on driver's licenses while medical professionals have access to M/F/I/(etc.)

    Even from the ostensible purpose of M/F on a driver's license of efficient identification, it's lacking. Then there's the medical downsides you state - I'm sure you're aware many medical professionals check IDs rather than sequencing someone's sex chromosomes before performing emergency or other care.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

    Honestly, yeah.

    Gender is someone's outward, public-facing expression. Having it on there to aid identification is not a bad thing IMO.

    Whereas sex really feels like more private knowledge that should be restricted to where medically necessary to avoid complications, rather than being forced on your identification for everyone to see.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 hours ago (6 children)

    Woah, why would you need gender markers on your ID, wtf.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

    Because it's a valid method of identification linked to one's personal expression.

    Versus the current scenario of sex being on there which can lead you anywhere from awkwardly being outed as trans, to medical complications arising from being misidentified.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    not everyone has a gender, so at best it should be an optional marker for those who consent.

    but also gender is not always a good method of identification because

    • not everyone passes as their gender
    • people can just lie about their gender to get fake id

    birthdate, place, and full name should be sufficient id and if they are not, add a uuid in the mix. no need for gender really, which just complicates things.

    of course alternative is not to use sex for id, but no one except bigots is asking for that. but also, i believe that many places, such as that whichs nationality i hold, say sex on the id, but effectively treat it as gender, at which point it's really just semantic

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

    You prefer sex assigned at birth to be on someone's ID?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 11 hours ago (1 child)

    Neither wtf. Wtf is wrong with you you have to diminish and argue with everyone who tries to talk to you. You're answering comments i haven't even said to you. You're really not cool.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago (12 children)

    The thing that impacts care more than sex is the hormones in the blood. If care is based on gender assignment rather than the hormones in their body, it can be equally disastrous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 child)

    You're kinda right, but unless you're on a gender affirming therapy (like HRT), then those hormones are going to be linked to your sex assigned at birth.

    (Though there are plenty of non-hormonal sex-linked differences in drug interactions as well)

    And if you are, that's a whole other layer of complication that your medical caregiver would also need to account for when prescribing you certain drugs/medical products.

    Edit: Added bracket part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 hours ago

    Yeah the "in a perfect world" medical solution would be for emergency caregivers to have rapid access to "apparent sex at birth" and "current hormone levels and when they were started," but everyone here knows a lot of evil people (especially in the US in 2026) would love to have a government record of transgender people for nefarious purposes, so that's probably unwise.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 12 hours ago (5 children)

    I expect hormones-at-birth have effects on medical care as do hormones-at-present, and I'd bet anything transgender people (or anyone that has a difference between hormones-at-birth and hormones-at-present, including cis menopausal women for example) have adverse medical outcomes due to that confusion.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

    Babies don't have hormones like that, holy fuck what is the education like where you are. Puberty! What's puberty! Think McFly Think!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 hours ago

    No need to be insulting towards them, especially when they weren't insulting you.

    Also, you're technically wrong. There definitely are hormones flying about your body even before you're born. All fetuses start as female, and its literally testosterone that causes differentiates towards male (or intersex in some cases). The only reason you don't start puberty as an infant is because those levels normally diminish within the first year after birth, returning again just before puberty begins.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

    Sex chromosomes at birth, then?

    Are you being pedantic and adding ad hominem just to pick a fight?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

    I'm sorry buddy that's really not a thing. At all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

    Yes, it is. As an example, trans women have an increased risk of breast cancer over cis males. The risk is not as high as cis women, but there is a statistically significant increase in risk amongst that demographic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    The risk is simply from having developed breast tissue, you can spot check that one by just looking and seeing if they have breast tissue

    Gynecomastia can also progress to male breast cancer

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 hours ago

    Yes, and the breast development is stimulated by HRT.

    I'm a data analyst for a research facility doing genetic analyses on rare variants of cancer. My PI specializes in breast cancer. We regularly have discussions about the research we're involved in.

    I know breast cancer still develops in cis men.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 hours ago (1 child)

    Except the drugs are originally always tested on men for efficacy, anyway so moot point.

    https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/a-drug-for-women-tested-on-men/

    Yes you need to tell a doctor if you might have different organs than you apear to have, maybe there's an ectopic pregnancy, but medications, yeah not so much.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 10 hours ago

    I don't disagree with you - American pharmaceuticals in particular still seem weirdly gung-ho about excluding female participants from studies. Coming from Europe we routinely have to tell them they're not allowed to do that.

    ... but I think it's bad faith to say that bad study design makes my point moot, especially when it takes only a few seconds of Googling to find plenty of papers discussing sex-linked effects on drugs/medicinal products.

    Heck, here's a literature review of sex-linked effects on the pharmakinetics and pharmacodynamics of various drugs, which even acknowledges the bias towards males in various clinical trials you referred to.

    I don't think the paper mentions it, but I imagine throwing intersex people into the mix would render even more related differences. Which is why your assigned sex at birth matters medically, and I think it is dangerous to conflate it with gender identity (which again is your's to express as you please)

  • source
  • parent