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.

That's sex, though, not gender

So for a trans person on hormones but without updated id markers they would die?

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.

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.

I am also not a lawyer 🤷‍♀️

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.

You might want to know both in certain situations.

It's very difficult to know what will/not be medically relevant in any given situation.

Counterpoint to 2 - femme presenting people are often discriminated against whether gender is known or not. Orientation isn’t quite as visible.

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.

Up/down votes are weird. Good thing they don't mean much here.

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

Could be because others (like myself) have tagged you as a troll

I fail to think of a situation in a just society

Exactly, we need it because we don't live in a just society.

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

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.

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

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:(

Conscription is bullshit. If your war is so unpopular to your people that they aren’t volunteering, then you shouldn’t be at war.

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

That one isn't a feminist law, that's a fascist one, under the fasc ideal "women are too weak to fight!"

Is that the problem or is the problem that prisons are largely badly designed in the first place?

This is a 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.

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?

I wasn't sure about that as each country has different rules. Thanks for clarifying, I restored that point.

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.

Do 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.