Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Case for Gender Anarchy

Want to end trans discrimination? Stop forcing people to label themselves.

Beyond Trans: Does Gender Matter?, by Heath Fogg Davis, New York University Press, 208 pages, $25

New York University PressNew York University PressPhiladelphia used to require every public transit pass to say whether a rider was female or male. For Charlene Arcila, a transgender woman, it didn't matter which option she chose; either way, some bus drivers deemed her pass illegitimate. Left to decide on the spot whether Arcila qualified as a man or woman, individual city workers would come to different conclusions—but every one of them had the power to refuse to let her ride the bus.

Instituted in the 1980s as a protection against fraud, Philadelphia's sex-identifying transit cards didn't cause trouble just for transgender passengers. Plenty of cisgender folks—those whose gender identity conforms to the norm for their biological sex—fail to present as obviously male or female, and passengers of androgynous or ambiguous gender expression also found themselves at the mercy of the public transit sex police.

Following a lawsuit from Arcila and an outcry from local activists, Philadelphia removed sex identification from its transit passes in 2013. Harper Jean Tobin, policy chief for the National Center for Transgender Equality, followed this victory by pushing for mechanisms to make it easier for transgender Americans to change their sex identification on government documents. It's a popular idea in the modern feminist and LGBT movements. But for Heath Fogg Davis, a transgender man who teaches political science at Temple University, the strategy reflects a deficit in the way many activists think about gender liberation.

Instead of making it easier for individuals to move between two binary positions, Davis writes in his new book Beyond Trans, they should be "questioning our need for sex-classification policies" in the first place. What had made the Philadelphia case "so radical and important," he argues, "was the use of antidiscrimination law to challenge the need for bureaucratic sex classification itself." Beyond Trans is his comprehensive case that everyone—not just transgender people—"would be better off in a society with dramatically fewer sex-classification policies."

To be clear on terms, sex refers to your biological status as male, female, or intersex; it's the category that's determined by chromosomes and hormones. Gender incorporates the external fixings we attach to these biological categories—the bits governing our social expectations for how a man or woman should dress, look, talk, think, and act. Sex says men on average have lower levels of good cholesterol than women do; gender says they should be good at working with their hands and hate romantic comedies.

Transgender people are those whose gender identity and expression—whether they feel like a man or woman and whether they look like one—are at odds with what we normally attach to their biological sex. The term does not necessarily imply that someone has been through what was once called a "sex change operation" and is now referred to as gender "reassignment" or "confirmation" surgery. (According to the Human Rights Campaign, only about a third of all transgender people have undergone any such procedures.)

An array of other terms—the most prevalent probably being non-binary, genderqueer, and agender—are being adopted by people who do not necessarily identify as either male or female. Unlike their transgender counterparts, nonbinary individuals seek to remove themselves from the gender category they were assigned at birth without adopting the opposite.

So far, most moves to accommodate non-binary folks on official documents have involved adding a third category, such as X or NB, to sex- or gender-identification options. But Davis discourages this solution, as it "neither dismantles nor significantly challenges the bureaucratic use of the traditional sex binary."

"Even efforts to extend government sex classification policies to include people who reject the binary terms 'man' or 'woman' end up reinforcing the sex binary by leaving it intact," he writes. "These policies create exceptional categories."

Davis doesn't think the current ideology and activism around transgender rights are radical enough. They're driven by assimilation, not gender anarchy, and "fueled by the notion of correction"—the idea that trans men and women (and to a lesser extent the nonbinary) have simply had their true genders misidentified and will find liberation by fixing this mistake.

But while "correction" can make life better for individual trans people, it does nothing to address the underlying stigma we put on those who transgress sex boundaries and gender norms, and it does nothing to diminish the collectivizing hold that gender has on all of our lives. After all, it's not just transgender or genderqueer folks who are affected by what Davis calls sex-identity discrimination. A trans man who "passes" may experience very little hostility or discrimination in public, while a cis woman with a flat chest and masculine clothes may get a lot of it. Stopping prejudice and violence spurred by perceived transgressions of gender norms is crucially important for transgender people, but it's also bigger than this population.

"'Correction' does not solve the problem that sex-classification policies cause," Davis suggests. "As long as sex-classification policies remain in place, they will always trigger discrimination," because they will always require public employees to make subjective judgments about who does and does not belong in each category. A trans woman may successfully get her ID documents changed, but that's not necessarily going to stop an airport security agent who doesn't think she looks womanly enough from second-guessing her passport, and the same goes for some masculine-looking cisgender women. "Not everyone can or wants to assimilate into prevailing gender norms," Davis notes. "Moreover, some people's statements about their sex identities"—like Charlene Arcila's—"will be rejected no matter what they do or say."

"As a 'tomboy' who preferred and was allowed by my parents to wear boy's clothing, and keep a short haircut, I was routinely questioned and reprimanded by girls and women for being in the 'wrong' public bathroom," Davis writes. "Yet, I did not feel entitled to use a male-designated restroom."

Rather than trying "to assimilate and accommodate transgender individuals into existing sex-classification policies," he asks, "why not tackle the genesis of 'transgender discrimination'—sex-classification, itself?"

What would that mean in practice? Davis suggests that organizations of all kinds should scrutinize whether sex classification in any given arena is rationally related to a legitimate policy goal. Much of Beyond Trans involves the author applying this test to various avenues of sex classification and segregation, from birth certificates and driver's licenses to public bathrooms, sports teams, single-sex colleges, corporate affirmative action policies, the U.S. census, military drafts, and more. For instance, with Philadelphia's sex-marked transit passes, the stated goal—fraud prevention—is certainly a legitimate concern. "But the male or female stickers were not rationally related to that goal because females could share their passes with other females, and males could share their passes with other males."

Overall, Davis wants to remove sex- or gender-identifying markers from virtually all government-issued IDs and documents. This step "would help to bring about substantial cultural reform, as it would send a strong message to all of us that a person's sex classification is irrelevant to most public transactions."

Davis does not call himself a libertarian, but there is much to like here for anyone interested in privacy, individualism, and striking a blow against needless bureaucracy. The mainstream trans rights movement has been focused on helping trans and nonbinary people live with minimal hassle as their preferred gender (or lack thereof). Davis wants something bigger: to break down bureaucratic binaries for everyone.

This willingness to look at the big picture—and to look beyond big government—makes Beyond Trans refreshing. Davis situates the struggle for transgender dignity and rights squarely within a larger framework of personal freedom and privacy concerns, and shows how removing institutional barriers to living beyond the gender binary can help everyone live fuller, freer lives.

Photo Credit: New York University Press

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Mark22||

    This step "would help to bring about substantial cultural reform, as it would send a strong message to all of us that a person's sex classification is irrelevant to most public transactions."

    It's not the job of government to send strong messages. And whether it is relevant or but should be up to the individuals involved in the transaction, not to society.

    To me, a person's biological sex is quite relevant.

  • buybuydandavis||

    It's not the government's job to send messages. Neither is it the government's job to snoop into everything that you personally find relevant.

    Info requested by the government should be on a need to know basis, and I don't see why the transit authority needs more than your gender or sex. Or your religion. A picture and a name should be more than enough to get you a transit ID.

  • pan fried wylie||

    A picture and a name should be more than enough to get you a transit ID.

    Why even that much, why is there an ID to get on public transit? The purpose of the card should be to permit one person on the bus/train in exchange for fare, that's it. The transaction shouldn't care WHO that person is, just that they have money in the account to pay for the ride. The system should be smart enough to prevent people on the bus from passing their card out the window to let more people on (sorry, says youre already ON the bus, nice try.)

    This message approved by Sergeant Should and the Hindsight Horde.

  • Rhywun||

    Prolly didn't have the technology at the time.

  • pan fried wylie||

    I was working under the assumption it was like the SmartTrip system, not a buy-a-pass-for-some-period thing, which would be an important implementation detail. But like I'm reading the article, CMON.

  • Rhywun||

    It was started in the 80s. Stuff like that didn't exist then.

  • Dan S.||

    Wasn't this a reduced-fare card for students? In which case it would certainly matter whether or not the person presenting the card is the person it was issued to.

  • styopa||

    There isn't an ID required.
    The transaction doesn't care about the sex identification of the participants.

    It's called CASH MONEY.

    The story stated (as many comments here seem to have skipped, and even the article itself seems to have skipped) that the sex-identification was simply to combat fraud. Now, I'd argue, since gender-ambivalence is such a trendy thing, I'd say it doesn't even serve that and should be pitched.

    If you invest value into a card, you probably want some sort of security that someone else can't use it (or, again, it's pretty much just cash in another format, so why bother?).

    Personally, I'd say that we should be to the point that one's genetic code should be enough to generate a PGP key that will uniquely identify the individual with a swipe of a finger and the miniscule amount of genetic material deposited. Don't want to do that? Fine, pay cash and nobody gives a shit who you are.

    But this is REASON where the slightest suggestion of identification gives everyone the willies....

  • Azathoth!!||

    So everyone should give the state their entire genetic history every time you want to ride a bus--just so trannies don't feel othered by having a gender on an ID card.

    Sure, no problem.

  • Mark22||

    Why even that much, why is there an ID to get on public transit? The purpose of the card should be to permit one person on the bus/train in exchange for fare, that's it. The transaction shouldn't care WHO that person is

    That's your preference. Other people have different preferences. And the overriding principle should be that the people who own the system should decide. In the case of a public transit system, that is the local community that put it in and runs it. Your preferences and opinions are irrelevant.

  • Jickerson||

    No, they are not irrelevant. Setting up a system that collects information about people in a society where mass surveillance is being conducted on the populace is foolish in the extreme. The majority of people tend to be ignorant and unintelligent, and there is no reason to prefer their authoritarian opinions.

    Well, I don't think we should have government-run public transit in the first place, but still.

  • Devastator||

    Have you even read the bill of rights or know the spirit of them? They were created to prevent this very thing; the ignorance of the majority dictating the "rights" of the minority. This is why we're a Republic and not a Democracy.

  • See.More||

    A picture and a name should be more than enough to get you a transit ID.

    Why the hell do you even need a transit ID? Money to pay the fair should be enough to get you onboard the bus/train/trolley/whatevertransitbuggy.

  • Rhywun||

    The ID is presumably the money - i.e. a monthly card or something similar.

  • Brandybuck||

    I can manage to ride the train, take the subway, or take the bus, without needing any photo ID. I just puts my money in the machine and gets me a ticket.

    I've taken trains, subways, and/or buses in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Boston, Washington D.C, and Munich. No difference. All I need is the ticket.

  • Mark22||

    Info requested by the government should be on a need to know basis

    There are many different kinds of government. Local government functions more like an HOA, and as such, it should have wide latitude in how it operates.

  • Jickerson||

    Local governments are not inherently better than other types of governments; they are just a bit easier to escape from if you have the money. Any violation of someone's rights is a travesty, regardless of whether a local government did it or not.

  • MarioLanza||

    Unfortunately, for the gender anarchists, they believe that it is the government's job to pay for someones gender dysphorias.

    Is there a reason for transit cards to have gender? Yes. I imagine the sharing of transit cards is rampant. It is one way to cut this down. Is the practical? Yes. Might it cause problems with a tiny segment of the population? Yes.

  • Devastator||

    Most of my friends who are gender bending people should have the right to ride the damn bus and use the bathroom. It shouldn't matter what gender you are. I don't care about local mores, all I care about are individual rights and why public services shouldn't be available equally. I don't give a fuck what some "50s were the best time ever" bus driver I get that fucker should let me on whether I'm male, female, or whatever.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Man, look at these comments. Every comment is the whining of some conservative that thinks that other people are his property. Fuck off, slavers, all of you. This article is awesome and gender anarchy is a celebration of individualism, which is the bedrock of libertarianism. This article broke new ground for me, and for that I thank you, ENB.

  • damikesc||

    Man, look at these comments. Every comment is the whining of some conservative that thinks that other people are his property.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    You certainly told him.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    I bet damikesc breaks a lot of pencils, if you know what I mean.

  • Robert||

    Or her.

  • ||

    "Gender" anarchy, trying to supplant the word sex with gender and then making it malleable and undefinable, does not change the basic definition of biological sex. It just means gender is now a word that means whatever you want it to mean.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Part of the conservative worldview has always been this obsession with word definitions remaining constant. I remember G. Gordon Liddy complaining about this back in the 90s on his radio show, but I am sure it goes back to Buckley and probably all the way back to Burke. I get it, conservatives hate change. But guess what, word definitions change. Even wolves evolve.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Language is a communication tool. Words are a basic component of language. If people begin using a word in a way that is not commonly accepted then the effectiveness of communication is reduced.

    Yes, language evolves, but too often that is used as an excuse to browbeat people who do not agree with that change into accepting it, regardless if the change enhances understanding or impedes it.

  • Eek Barba Durkle||

    There is a significant difference in language changing organically, and changing as a forced attempt to control the direction of society.

    Disclaimer: I have no issue at all with the new distinction between gender and sex.

  • ||

    I don't either, until they try to conflate them, or replace them in order to cause confusion or to get draconian unconstitutional laws passed--then I have a problem. I've seen it north of your border

  • damikesc||

    Part of the conservative worldview has always been this obsession with word definitions remaining constant. I remember G. Gordon Liddy complaining about this back in the 90s on his radio show, but I am sure it goes back to Buckley and probably all the way back to Burke. I get it, conservatives hate change. But guess what, word definitions change. Even wolves evolve.

    Hardly. If nobody can readily define what a word means, then communication is impossible. Unless everybody is on board with changing a word's definition, then devise a new word.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    When damikesc calls you "nice," it's not a compliment.

  • ||

    The hard science behind the term hasn't changed.

  • MarioLanza||

    Part of the leftist view is to make words meaningless. I can ban your speech because the words you use mean something to me that is offensive and there is a constitutional right to not be offended.

  • Devastator||

    The left gets individual rights a lot better than the conservative republicans who want to maintain the status quo of old white men running the world because they inherited a bunch of money. I don't like the way they go about trying to use the government to mandate everything, but they certainly get individualism and respect for education much better than bible belt republicans.

  • BYODB||

    Indeed. The fascinating thing is that it's clear even the transfolk themselves don't appear to know what they're talking about. The bus pass listed their sex not their gender. They wanted to erase their sex, not their gender, so I'm really not sure what the idea is here.


    I don't think it's unreasonable for a bus pass to list the sex of the person that 'owns' the pass, but it's really not a great deterrent or method of identifying the user in particular. It's a 50/50 shot that the person's pass you stole is the same sex as you. Why they needed to resort to 'trans-rights' for something like this is pretty clear. It's because they want to attack the very idea of two sexes within the human genome. If it was just gender identification does that automatically indicate that the person presents as a member of the opposite sex?


    These are the type of idiot questions that arise once you accept a mental illness is a valid state of reality. You see, people with multiple personality disorder really are two or more people in one body, therefore they should have multiple social security numbers and be counted multiple times in the census. If you disallow that, you are a bigot. This is what we're saying, yes?

    Let us not forget that this is a recognize mental health disorder, yes?

  • MarioLanza||

    What is amazing to me is the fundamental dishonesty of the above article. It doesn't even mention the reason the bus pass has gender listed so as to reduce the incidence of fraud.

    As you point out, it only might cut down fraud by a factor of at most one half. The fact that it is imperfect is not a reason to be throw it out.

    To appease a tiny section of the population for a not unreasonable approach to reduce fraud, well, that is what the left does...

  • Brandybuck||

    It is amazing how the word "gender" get twisted out of meaning. Gender is a social role, but it's more than just a social role. The English language is such that when we call a person a "she", we mean that the person is female. It's not a social role at all, it refers to the sex. We are not imposing anything on that person, it is only how we linguistic reference. Unfortunately English does not have a third person personal pronoun. In some cases "they" can work, but in most cases it just sounds stupid. But whatever, the point is that the pronouns are referring to the assumed sex of the person.

    When the overwhelming majority (97+%) of people identify by their sex, then the gender of a person is essentially synonymous with the sex of that person. Those few intersex individuals should not be belittled, but their extreme minority does not give them the right to impose constraints on the emergent orders of language and custom. Those who merely wish they had a different sex have even less standing to impose their wishes upon others.

  • mtrueman||

    "When the overwhelming majority (97+%) of people"

    Be careful there. 97 is a leftist number. Marxists have traditionally used 97% as the figure of 'climate scientists' who agree with the conspiracy.

  • BYODB||

    You're actually correct, in the sense that the figure is a made up number since only 17 states ever asked the question if someone identified as transgender or not. They then took that average and extrapolated it across all states.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What's the cut-off needed before a majority is allowed to tell you how to identify and what to believe? Is it 97%?

  • 68W58||

    I don't really care what other people call themselves or how they think of themselves so long as I am not expected to cater to their delusions.

  • mtrueman||

    "It just means gender is now a word that means whatever you want it to mean."

    And how does your definition of 'gender' differ from that given by a dictionary?

  • Citizen X - #6||

    I love trying to explain radical individualism to people, because the extent to which they think it's a selfish or childish or what have you philosophy is precisely the extent to which they're not willing to accept that all other people are fully human.

  • Crusty Juggler :)||

    I'm all for radical individualism untill it makes me feel uncomfortable.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Translation: Crusty is only a libertarian if he is not wearing underwear. In other words, always.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I feel like this article is expounding such an non-radical stance.

    I read the article thinking what it was saying was so incredibly obvious, but then I got to the comments and learned this is controversial.

    This all is obviously a social issue to me, and so minimizing the government's involvement with it is a no brainer.

  • Joe Squelch||

    Shut up, Cytotoxic.

  • Juice||

    Man, look at these comments. Every comment is the whining of some conservative that thinks that other people are his property.

    Huh? No comment above yours or earlier than yours says anything like that.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    It's called extrapolation, Juice.

  • Juice||

    No, it's called assuming.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Assumptions are necessary for extrapolation.

  • DesigNate||

    This comment would have made a lot more sense if it was near the bottom.

    Did this article get reposted and all of the comments disappeared? Because otherwise, it looks like you're complaining about butt hurt conservatives that aren't there.

  • Teddy Pump||

    Bull-Chit!!!....It is actually the LGBT people & their enablers & supporters who think other people & organizations who are not down with their twisted fantasies are their property & must conform to their views, feelings & whims, etc..no matter how bizarre, illogical & ludicrous they are!!!....Like forcing school teachers to use the made up Pronouns like Ze, Xe, etc...

    Trans people are in need of significant psychotherapy & I for one, do not want to be forced to indulge in their sickness!!!

  • Mark22||

    This article is awesome and gender anarchy is a celebration of individualism, which is the bedrock of libertarianism.

    No, individualism is not the bedrock of libertarianism at all. Libertarianism means respect for private property (violated by forcing people to subsidize public transit systems) and respect for freedom of association (violated by your desire to impose "gender anarchy"). Libertarianism most certainly respects the right of people to live communally and conform to the rules of communities and organizations, even to make binding commitments to doing so, as long as they do so voluntarily.

    The bedrock of libertarianism is most certainly not to take away people's money to pay for government-run, money-losing transit systems and then to impose "gender anarchy" on them because you like "celebrating individualism". If a community of Catholics, Mormons, or orthodox Jews wants to segregate their public life by sex, that is most certainly their right.

    The "fucking slaver" here is you, because you are confusing liberty with the imposition of individualism.

  • RenaD||

    Thank you.

    Also: This willingness to look at the big picture—and to look beyond big government—makes Beyond Trans refreshing. Davis situates the struggle for transgender dignity and rights squarely within a larger framework of personal freedom and privacy concerns . . .

    1. Dignity comes from within. It's not bestowed nor is it achieved by forcing others to accept your lifestyle choices, feelings, or struggles.

    2. Transgenders already have rights. The same that the rest of us have. Which does not include ad hoc solutions to, again, achieve acceptance, by either public or private entities.

  • Stirnerite||

    You're adorable. Your libertarianism is just another dogma forcing people into molds, yet you want to whine about conservatives?

  • Zeb||

    Sex is very relevant. And in the vast majority of cases it is obvious. There is no need to register it with the government. It's not the government's job to send messages that sex is important either. People are quite capable of figuring that out on their own.

  • ||

    ^This^

    The movement seems less and less genuinely concerned about getting trans people protection from things that threaten their lives (let alone the fact that others don't intrinsically owe it to them) and more and more about finding people who make disfavorable decisions and threatening their lives/livelihood for doing so, because culture.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's the one thing I don't like. Plus, we have a system that people claim is a spectrum, and thus an infinite different set of possible states, but we're still going to just keep adding labels.

    I think this shit should become deemphasized entirely, but the gender radicals seem like they find it necessary to have labels to function. So they create more and more.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Of course the government should stay out of it.

  • MarioLanza||

    Say you are Ellen Mays. The "government" sells transit passes. Some guy steals your transit pass and states that he is Ellen Mays, a transgender 17 year old with a beard. He gets away with the obvious fraud to appease the above essay writer (who doesn't even mention the reason that gender would be on the transit pass).

    Your transit pass is gone. Your and everyone else's transit pass price goes up. All to try to remove the cognitive dissonance of the left - a hopeless endeavor.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    It's not the job of government to send strong messages.

    It's impossible for it not to.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    How else are they supposed to keep people thinking that government is necessary? That's Marketing 101 stuff right there.

  • Lester224||

    You don't need someone's gender on a bus pass. You need their picture for id purposes.

  • Lester224||

    My monthly train pass doesn't even have a picture or a name.

  • Mark22||

    You don't need someone's gender on a bus pass. You need their picture for id purposes.

    Conservative Christian or conservative Muslim communities probably have very different views on that, and they should have the right to choose to, say, segregate their bus service by gender.

    Libertarianism doesn't mean the imposition of individualism, it means letting people live how they choose to live, and that includes choosing to live in communities that are not individualistic at all.

  • MarioLanza||

    Ah, yes. lumping conservative Christians with conservative Muslims. Have you ever heard of segregation by gender until the influx of 3rd world muslims in public places? The conservative Christians have been here since the founding of the country. Give me an example of public pool segregation prior to say 10 years ago.

  • Mark22||

    Have you ever heard of segregation by gender until the influx of 3rd world muslims in public places?

    Yes. That's why I gave it as an example. (Of course, where I grew up, Muslims started fluxing in in the 9th century.)

    Ah, yes. lumping conservative Christians with conservative Muslims

    My, aren't you easily triggered. I simply pointed out that individual communities may choose to segregate by sex in certain circumstances, and that they ought to have a right to do so.

  • Jickerson||

    You should be able to ride anonymously to begin with.

  • Cerebrate||

    You have sex with everyone you meet?

    Wow, you must be tired all the time.

  • JParker||

    The author of the article stated this somewhat poorly; removing gender status from the ID removes the already existing message that government is sending -- i.e. that gender is relevant to transit ridership.

  • damikesc||

    Transgender people are those whose gender identity and expression—whether they feel like a man or woman and whether they look like one—are at odds with what we normally attach to their biological sex

    Anorexics are people whose fat identity and expression are at odds with reality as well.

    Davis situates the struggle for transgender dignity and rights squarely within a larger framework of personal freedom and privacy concerns

    Except they demand US play along with their delusions.

    Why Libertarians have so few qualms with being forced to live lies for others is baffling.

  • mortiscrum||

    I would think most libertarians, in actual spirit of libertarianism, wouldn't give a shit what someone decides to call themselves or identify as. They might even support, I don't know, the individual right to choose.

  • Grumpy Old Timer||

    True. However, I would wager that the vast majority of people would choose to keep things they way they are and continue to id and be id'd by their birth sex and gender. Should they be "forced" to change or do they get to choose.
    Just sayin.

  • colorblindkid||

    There are plenty of practical reasons why we should have our genetic sex labeled, such as medical treatments and body identification. No matter what you call somebody, genetic sex is indeed real and plays an effect in peoples' lives.

  • damikesc||

    I would think most libertarians, in actual spirit of libertarianism, wouldn't give a shit what someone decides to call themselves or identify as. They might even support, I don't know, the individual right to choose.

    Few care what anybody calls themselves.

    If YOU, personally, are obligated to play along with a delusion, that is a dramatically different issue.

  • Zeb||

    Here's the thing. For most transgender people. their condition is not delusion. They don't believe that they are actually, literally the other sex. They are just more comfortable living, dressing and behaving in certain ways. None of that is delusion.

  • BYODB||

    If it isn't delusion then why do they take it to such extreme's as cutting off their genitals then killing themselves? Let us not pretend this is a 'healthy' state of being. In fact, it is a delusion and is recognized as such by the medical profession. Their 'treatment' of this disorder is perhaps the most monstrous part of it, but I won't pretend it's any of my business.

    I wont, however, play along with a patently absurd idea that they are in fact a different sex which is what this crowd claims.

    You are mistakenly conflating a transvestite for a transsexual and there is a difference. For example, one of them is a recognized mental illness and the other is not.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know. There are a lot of people out there not comfortable with conventional gender identities who don't feel the need to modify their bodies. And for a lot of them, living the way they do seems to work. Look at someone like Diedre McClosky. I don't think she's delusional.

    I really don't claim to know what the right answer is to any of this. But I do think it's an issue that government and law should have as little to do with as possible. And one good way to accomplish that is to look at where it really is necessary to consider sex and/or gender and where it isn't.

  • BYODB||


    I don't think she's delusional.

    What do you call a person who behaves in a way that is contrary to reality?

    Delusion:

    An idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.

  • Zeb||

    But what belief does someone like that have that is contrary to reality. She/he/whatever does not try to pretend that the situation is anything other than that they were born a man but later decided that living as a woman was preferable. I don't see any beliefs contrary to reality there.

  • BYODB||


    But what belief does someone like that have that is contrary to reality.

    Look at someone like Diedre McClosky. I don't think she's delusional.

    You said it yourself, you just aren't seeing it. If a person is very well spoken and otherwise logical, but they claim they are Napoleon and demand surgery to appear as such, are they then considered sane because in other aspects of their life they are rational?

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Careful with those definitions of sanity. Some have tried to label conservative worldviews as insane. I mean, what would you call someone that is opposed to societal change?

  • BYODB||

    So Chipper, in your view there is no such thing as subjective reality and therefore no such thing as mental illness? Interesting assertion.

    Clinically speaking, gender dysphoria is indeed a mental illness. Should we take this to mean that, for example, bipolar individuals are not sick? Or are you saying that the clinicians are wrong on this front?

    Personally I could almost agree with the second argument given that they also seem to believe that gender reassignment surgery can be a good treatment even while the individuals have a greater risk of suicide after the procedure than before it.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    I'm completely willing to say that clinicians come up with a definition to describe something, but that it questionable how meaningful it is.

    The realm of mental illness is inherently political and cultural. The fact that you can easily go to 5 Doctors and get 5 diagnoses makes that clear. Plus, the simple fact that what counts as a mental illness clinically changes every time there is a new DSM. If the clinical definition is very important to you, then in 15 years when gender dysphoria is no longer in the DSM due to changing political temperaments then I hope you admit that it is no longer an illness.

    If not, make an actual argument.

  • MarioLanza||

    Just because the hyper-politicized APA removes frotteurism and foot fetishism from the DSM doesn't mean that you aren't whacko if you get off on sucking toes or rubbing your junk on unsuspecting women in the subway.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    You keep begging the question, BYOby.

  • BYODB||


    You keep begging the question, BYOby.

    The fact the Zeb is repeatedly using the word 'she' to describe a man is an example to the length's that people go through to mollify a mental instability, which is why I continually made it bold. It's not delusion on Zeb's part necessarily, but the very act of demanding to be called a woman when you are not a woman is the specific delusion in question.

    IF they acknowledge and accept they are a man, but prefer life as a woman, then why the obsession with labels, drastic surgery, forced hormone cocktails, and a plethora of other behaviors to pretend to be a woman even to the point of demanding that others conform to that falsehood? If what is claimed is true, in that they simply like to behave as a woman, then why all the other externalities? Gay men are quite effeminate in many cases, as are plenty of heterosexuals. Where or what is the difference? Delusion.

    And that is rather beside the point anyway as it is recognized clinically as a disorder.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    This is often called a war over pronouns. You can't just refer back to the pronoun as proof of your argument. You're assuming the conclusion being debated: that 'she' must refer to 'woman' which must refer to 'person with XX chromosomes.'

  • BYODB||


    You're assuming the conclusion being debated: that 'she' must refer to 'woman' which must refer to 'person with XX chromosomes.'

    Ah, so no you didn't have any kind of point. Well thanks for clarifying. I shouldn't need to define 'she' or 'female' as sex related terms, but I guess if you sincerely believe that 'male' and 'female' mean the same thing there really isn't any point in writing any response to you at all. English is a mystery, so you couldn't know what I mean.

    It would appear that Google seems to agree with me along with Miriam-Webster, but what do those CIS-Normative fucks know am I right?

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    Days later, but still... the whole fucking debate is about what those words should mean. Even if you're not swayed a single bit by the other side, they are presenting arguments, and all you're doing here is assuming the conclusion.

  • damikesc||

    Here's the thing. For most transgender people. their condition is not delusion.

    It 100% is. Literally no different than an anorexic. What they BELIEVE is in opposition to reality and they decide that their belief should trump reality.

    They don't believe that they are actually, literally the other sex. They are just more comfortable living, dressing and behaving in certain ways. None of that is delusion.

    Then why the obsession with "I'm not a man. I'm not a woman". You seem to be confusing "drag queens" with "trannies".

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Again, it is just common courtesy to call people by their chosen labels. You can of course refuse. You have the right to be a dick.

  • BYODB||

    My chosen label is 'God Emperor of Man' and if you don't call me by that you are a bigot.

    My goodness, this is fun!

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    You got it, dude. But I hope you realize you just opened yourself up to a world of ridicule.

  • BYODB||

    What do I care, if I am God-Emperor BYODB? If you behave as if I am not God-Emperor, you are a bigot for not indulging me.

    Soon, I will have the force of law behind me. Then you might start to care. ^_^

  • A frilly pink thing||

    "Again, it is just common courtesy to call people by their chosen labels"

    So...why isn't it common courtesy to allow people who don't agree with your label to ignore It?

    "You can of course refuse. You have the right to be a dick."

    Not in New York and not in many workplaces.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    If we're talking about political power, then yes, I think everyone here would agree that this should not be the case. You're conflating two different issues, the social question of how we interact, and the political question of what can be forced upon you.

    As for workplaces, you're on a libertarian site. I imagine most people here do agree with the right of your workplace to put demands on your behavior.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Again, it is just common courtesy to call people by their chosen labels.

    Idk about you, but I'd rather not validate the delusions of the insane.

    You can of course refuse.

    I can and will.

    You have the right to be a dick.

    Yes, yes I do. Except I believe the person who expects me to remember endless gender pronouns with which to address them in order to suit their delicate feelz to be the true dick in this scenario. The expectation is unrealistic. And don't forget that these are often the same people that believe in the concept of "hate-crime" (read: though-crime) and would surely make it a hate-crime to "misgender" them.

  • Dillinger||

    >>in order to suit their delicate feelz to be the true dick in this scenario

    yes.

  • Leo Kovalensky||

    Christ... the appropriate reaction to someone that you think is being a dick shouldn't be to be a dick back to them.

    It's crazy that the liberals and the conservatives have both chosen this to be the line in the sand on their ideologies. Why sex, gender, any of that is important in how you deal with the government is beyond me.

    What does it hurt you to call someone what they prefer to be called? Live and let live man, this is the fundamental principle of libertarianism. It's also the basic principle of most religious belief systems (ie the golden rule). And yet conservatives claim to be doing God's work under the guise of their version of Christianity.

  • damikesc||

    Again, it is just common courtesy to call people by their chosen labels. You can of course refuse. You have the right to be a dick.

    If a man wants me to call him a woman, I'll just call him "fucking moron".

    But in some states, it is ILLEGAL to not call them what they want to be called.

    Why this isn't an imposition on MY rights is something Libertarianism seems uninterested in explaining.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    It's clearly an imposition on your rights.

  • JParker||

    What makes you think that Libertarianism does not consider it an imposition on your rights?

  • DarrenM||

    OK. Call me "Your Highness".

  • Inigo Montoya||

    You're absolutely right. As a libertarian, I truly don't give a shit how you identify yourself. It's a big part of the whole, "you do your thing and I will do mine, so long as we aren't hurting anyone" philosophy.

    I also like that it undermines if the leftist narrative of group identity being much more important than individual identity.

    And the an-cap part of me likes the idea of taking one more thing away from government, however minor. F them and their ID cards, and fees, and taxes, and endless petty regulations. Those power-grabbers can drown in unisex toilet for all I care.

  • damikesc||

    And the an-cap part of me likes the idea of taking one more thing away from government, however minor. F them and their ID cards, and fees, and taxes, and endless petty regulations. Those power-grabbers can drown in unisex toilet for all I care.

    Except it'll be businesses and taxpayers stuck footing the bill for this nonsense.

  • Zeb||

    What bill? How much does it cost to stop putting sex on ID cards?

  • BYODB||

    Follow up question, how useful is an ID card without sex on it? Leslie Nielsen wants to know.

  • Rhywun||

    If Leslie Nielsen encounters a situation where their sex needs to be known - say, at a hospital - they can surely inform the doctor themselves. Or, if unable, the sex should become readily apparent in the operating room.

  • BYODB||

    Do you really think their sex would become readily apparent in the operating room? Newsflash, they go by your record and if you've had your bits chopped off and folded up inside your torso it might not be readily apparent. Not that I really care, that's the risk they run, but rest assured once this inevitably happens lawsuits and claims of discrimination will fly.


    Again, how useful is an ID card if the information on the ID card is false? That's the question, not some theoretical regarding a Jane/John Doe situation. That's on them if they want to run the risk of a surgical error.


    Sure, if you don't believe in the concept of an ID card in the first place you're going to say 'screw ID cards overall' but if there are ID cards should those cards be accurate? Why, or why not?

  • JParker||

    I suggest that all parties rethink these arguments replacing "sex" with "blood type".

  • Zeb||

    It's useful for pretty much all of its intended purposes, e.g. putting a name to a face.

    In the rare case where someone is undergoing medical treatment that requires the doctor to know their sex and that person is unable to tell them and has erased or modified all of their external anatomy that makes sex apparent, maybe there could be a problem. But how much is that really going to happen? Probably a lot less often than people showing up in the ER without any ID at all.

  • BYODB||

    Absolutely. I worked in the E.R. and there are always people who come in without any I.D. at all. I don't really care about that aspect either way since the person who's erasing all those records is taking on all the risk, so to speak.


    The question is if having an ID reflect accurate information is desirable. If we're saying that people should be allowed to put a different sex on their ID card because of their individual preferences, why not allow people to put a different date of birth because they want people to think they're younger? Or a name that isn't their actual legal name because they don't like their name, but can't be bothered to change it legally?


    All of this is under the assumption that an ID card is going to exist. Arguments that attack the idea of an ID card in the first place don't have any particular place here although I do appreciate that position.

  • Zeb||

    What I'm arguing for is not having sex on the ID at all, not allowing people to choose whatever sex they want.

  • BYODB||


    What I'm arguing for is not having sex on the ID at all, not allowing people to choose whatever sex they want.

    Fair enough. That isn't a realistic option, but it's one I could agree with.

  • DarrenM||

    We need to think ahead. We don't want to have the species there either.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    What identification do you have that it identifies your species?

  • damikesc||

    What bill? How much does it cost to stop putting sex on ID cards?

  • damikesc||

    God damn this site's comment system is fucked.

    It's adorable that you believe the mania ends with that.

    After all, nobody could be harmed personally by the government for not supporting gay marriage...

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    You keep fucking up the tags. Use blockquote, it seems to work the best.

  • Brandybuck||

    Libertarians celebrate the right to choose, they do not celebrate the right to impose choices upon others. That is the crucial difference between a libertarian's "socially liberal" and a progressives "socially liberal". A libertarian says that if you want to pretend to be a woman you can pretend to be a woman, but a progressive will force others to pretend that you're a woman too.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Saying people have a "right to choose", and then never respecting that choice, is a cop-out.

  • chemjeff||

    No it really isn't. Not all choices are wise or smart choices, at least as considered in the eye of the beholder. We don't have to affirm the choices of others or turn off our moral judgment on how other people behave. We just have to not try to interfere in THEIR free choices. That is what it really means to respect the choices of others. Not to agree with the choice, but to stay out of the way if people are choosing something that you disagree with.

  • EscherEnigma||

    ... if someone changed their name, and you insisted on calling them by their old name everywhere, telling everyone what their old name was, and never using their new name, how are you not "interfering"?

    Calling people by their preferred name is basic respect.

  • BYODB||

    I was unaware that someone's name was encoded into their very being.

  • chemjeff||

    Because you are not stopping them from using their new name on their terms.

    Look, the person making a questionable decision (in your view) has agency, and everyone around this person also have agency. Respect for someone's decision does not mean everyone else turns off their agency or their propensity to make free choices of their own.

  • damikesc||

    ... if someone changed their name, and you insisted on calling them by their old name everywhere, telling everyone what their old name was, and never using their new name, how are you not "interfering"?

    So, better to be forced to call them by their new name?

    That is your strategy?

    Hate to break it to you, but individual liberty can be a bitch.

    If Bill says "Please call me Sue", I am under no obligation to do so. Fuck Bill.

  • Cerebrate||

    This is the distinction between the letter of libertarianism and the spirit of libertarianism.

    By the letter of libertarianism, as long as you don't violate their rights by doing so, you can ignore their choices all you want and go ahead and make as big a public stink of how much you don't respect them as you want. Hell, if you want, you are entirely free to refer to everyone else on the planet as "Hey, fuckhead!"

    By the spirit of libertarianism, as long as they don't violate your rights by doing so, it would be courteous to respect their freedom to make even choices you don't agree with by being politely indifferent to them, much as it is courteous of them to ignore those choices you make that they don't agree with. (And if by some quirk of psychological wackiness it hurts you so much to use the name someone tells you is theirs, is it really so hard to circumlocute or shut the fuck up?)

    tl;dr You have the right to be a fun-sized barrel of assholes to anyone you like. That doesn't mean you are obliged to exercise it, nor does it mean that you have the right not to eat the consequences of so being.

  • DesigNate||

    If you just met someone for the first time, it's not rude or bigoted to use the pronoun that seems appropriate for how they look.

    Of course, that's why I call everyone "Peanuthead".

  • Juice||

    You have a right to exist. You don't have a right to be respected.

  • damikesc||

    Saying people have a "right to choose", and then never respecting that choice, is a cop-out.

    So I have no right to choose to ignore your choice?

    Intriguing.

  • Brandybuck||

    There is nothing in the definition of "right" that compels me to respect that right. You must be thinking of "privilege" instead. I believe in the right of people to smoke dope, but I do not have to respect dopeheads.

  • Mark22||

    I would think most libertarians, in actual spirit of libertarianism, wouldn't give a shit what someone decides to call themselves or identify as.

    You're confusing politics, preferences, and morality. As a libertarian, for example, I believe abortion should be legal. At the same time, I also consider abortion immoral and prefer not to support organizations that carry it out.

    In fact, libertarianism at its heart gives you the freedom to "give a shit", a freedom that progressives want to deny you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Does this mean that people with gender mental problems are going to flock to being Libertarians because they think Libertarians want government to stop asking for gender on bus passes?

    People discriminate on many different things. People discriminate on what colors to wear and what to eat, etc. Discrimination, per se is not bad but it is when people are just mean to other people. Women not wanting men in their bathroom while they are using the toilet is understandable. Its not mean, just protective.

    Sorry, that gender confused people are confused but how is that my problem?

  • Literally Hitler||

    Discrimination, per se is not bad but it is when people are just mean to other people.

    What about the bad people we are supposed to discriminate against like Russians, Hackers, and, worst of all, Russian Hackers?

  • ||

    What if they are closet Soviet-sympathizing Estonian hackers?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Do you at least stand by that the original NC bathroom law was wrong because it forced private businesses to adhere to a specific standard instead of allowing them to choose how to handle it on their own?

  • Bruce Hall||

    Odd that the government would insist that people are free to choose their gender and that might be subject to personal whim and subject to change without notice, but you have to declare yourself Democrat or Republican to vote in primaries. Why, today I want to be a Democrat, but tomorrow I want to be a Republican, and the day after that I want to be both plus Libertarian.

  • pan fried wylie||

    both plus Libertarian

    I think you actually multiply by a fraction there, not sure.

  • Zeb||

    Isn't the whole point here that government stop insisting that people identify their gender at all?

  • BYODB||

    Does the ID card list gender or sex because they are claiming the former when it is in reality the latter.

    So do you believe in two sexes, or not?

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, sure. Almost all of humanity can be divided into two biological sexes. I don't think it is necessary to register it with the government, though. If a hospital or whatever finds in necessary to insist that people identify their biological sex, then they can do that.
    I really like the general point of this article because it pushes back both at the ridiculous proliferation of insisting that people be labeled in the "correct" way and at the conservative notions of what acceptable gender identities are. If there are fewer occasions where people are obliged to identify themselves as one sex or other, my hope is that people will feel less of a need to identify as one thing or another and just live their lives they way they see fit.

  • BYODB||

    Again, though, what is being said here is related to sex rather than gender. The fact that the transfolk themselves are confused on this particular point means that it's no surprise that others are confused about it as well, but the fact remains that what is listed on the ID card is your sex, not their gender, so the argument they are making is invalid.

    No one gives a shit what social role they associate with most on an ID card. The idea is patently absurd. They are arguging against the very notion of biological sex here. The fact their argument rests of a body of intellectual work devoid of purpose or meaning is irrelevant because their argument doesn't even rest on that questionable body of work in the first place.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Except by your own argument, it is their gender. People can get their ID changed, you're saying that that sex is unchangeable, so therefore if it is possible to be changed than it isn't describing sex at all.

  • BYODB||

    Of course, by your argument sex is granted by an ID rather than a biological fact of one's genetic structure.

    Below EscherEnigma brought up a reasonable argument that it is actually referring to identifiable features so it could actually be thought of to be gender which seems to hold water to me assuming that the ID is intended to physically identify you at a glance. The reasonable middle ground would be including a new 'gender' field since there is no guarantee they will 'look like' their sex.

    That being said, one's eye color and hair color can also be changed on a whim but are listed on your drivers license according to your 'birth' so I'm not sure why sex should be some magical exception to that. Beyond 'my feelings get hurt', that is. Obviously the state shouldn't use an eye-color mismatch on an ID to harass you, either, and the same should be true of sex I would think.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Ah, no. See, they *claim* they identify sex, but they *actually* identify perceived gender. That's why non-conforming folks run into problems. Because even when their ID lists their sex correctly, people aren't looking at their *sex* when deciding if the ID matches then. People are looking at their *gender*.

    "Sex" is only a good ID characteristic if you're looking at the person naked.

  • BYODB||

    That is actually a good point, I can concede that. The implication there is that the ID should probably list their morphological appearance, but that will cause interesting problems with the androgynous wouldn't it?

    Perhaps they just should alter the ID to include both sex and gender? That would appear to be the most logical solution and would solve all the pertinent issues.

    Sex for medical identification and risk reduction, and gender for appearance and general identification. The gender field would actually be even more useful for medical since it would imply all kinds of things to an E.R. staff regarding potential special care requirements in the cases where it isn't physically obvious at a glance.

  • Zeb||

    If hospitals want to encourage people to keep that sort of information on them, that's great. It's probably a good idea for anyone who takes hormones or other medications or has any medical peculiarities or bodily modifications. I don't think that's sufficient reason to require it on state issued ID.

  • BYODB||

    I agree, but I'm limiting myself to the idea that ID's are necessary since if you expand past that point the more libertarian argument is 'we shouldn't have mandatory ID's at all' which renders the whole exercise moot.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Why are you using a government ID as a stand-in for proper medical records?

    It's not like other folks with medical issues (say folks with deadly allergies, pace makers, insulin pump, ostomies, etc) have that listed on their ID, and most of that will be way more relevant in cases of an emergency then sex. That's why if you are a person with particular medical concerns, you take precautions. Wear a medical bracelet, keep a note in your wallet/purse, tattoo "so not resuscitate" on your chest, whatever.

    Trying to dual-propose a driver's license as ID and "critical medical history" just means you're going to fail at both.

  • BYODB||


    Why are you using a government ID as a stand-in for proper medical records?

    You don't know anything about medical records, do you?

    In emergent care you probably don't have any medical records unless you happen to have already transferred those records to the facility in question. That assumes you even know who it is that you're treating, which in many cases you don't even have that information let alone a medical record.

    In other words, sometimes a person's ID is all you have to go off of.


    It's not like other folks with medical issues (say folks with deadly allergies, pace makers, insulin pump, ostomies, etc) have that listed on their ID

    In some cases, they actually do. In most cases, if they have a serious condition that could kill them if the hospital doesn't know about it they do carry a secondary medical notification of some sort for this very reason.

    I would say that people with these conditions would qualify as someone who should carry one of those types of ID, but that's a narrow situation that most people will never find themselves in let alone a person with this particular mental illness who also had procedures done to mollify that mental illness. It's a faction of a fraction of a fraction.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I'm plenty familiar. I just don't agree that a driver's license (that not everyone has) should be used as a stand-in for medical records. That's all that's available sometimes? Too bad.

    So if you want to argue that we *should* have some sort of "medical ID"? Go for it. But if you want that piggy-backed onto an existing problematic ID, you'll run into problems.

    Hell, the current "identity theft" problems in the US can largely be traced back to creating limited-purpose systems that we're co-opted for identification.

  • BYODB||


    I'm plenty familiar.

    This doesn't appear to jive with the rest of your statements. There already are medical ID's of various sorts, up to and including actual tattoo's. These aren't mandated, since it's generally considered a peril on the person who has the condition rather than the provider given the nature of medical records themselves. It is, however, highly recommended and a Doctor of any sort will think you're insane for not having one.

    Should I take your posting to indicate that you believe institutions such as social security, Medicare, and Medicaid should be abolished given that you believe methods of personal identification are fallible? Something tells me no. I would wager you agree with personal identification when it comes to collection of benefits assigned to a particular individual, but disagree with them when they don't conform to your notions of social justice.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Should I take your posting to indicate that you believe institutions such as social security, Medicare, and Medicaid should be abolished given that you believe methods of personal identification are fallible?

    No, I am totally fine with abolishing those things.

  • EscherEnigma||

    "Should I take your posting to indicate that you believe institutions such as social security, Medicare, and Medicaid should be abolished given that you believe methods of personal identification are fallible?"
    No, that's the strawman you're trying to dress me up as.

    My point is, and always has been: suit the cards to the purpose.

    If the data on a given card is superfluous, either because it's irrelevant to the purpose of the card, or because in any case where it's needed it'll be looked up in a more detailed database, then don't put it on the fucking card.

    The corollary for this is don't try to latch onto other systems to validate your own. Which is precisely what happened when America started using the Social Security Number as a national ID card. Fact is, it's a really shitty, insecure, easily spoofed thing. And using it as a national ID number has caused a lot of problems.

    So yeah. Don't overload simple things so that they can possibly be used for unintended purposes. Don't hijack other systems to purposes they weren't intended for.

  • Mark22||

    The implication there is that the ID should probably list their morphological appearance,

    The ID should list whatever the owners of the transit system wish it to list.

  • EscherEnigma||

    In some states you do have "open primaries" in which you can vote however you want.

    That said, the larger problem is that political parties were *parties*. Voluntary associations and groups that together decided on platforms and which candidate to nominate for a given elected position. The"problem" is that they became overly Democratic, that government got involved, and all of that obscures that political parties are *not* government entities, and no one is entitled to participation in their administration and events. This entrenchment and entanglement is the problem, not that in some states the parties still maintain a semblence of separation.

  • DarkHelmet||

    No. Just no. This nonsense has already gone way too far. XY = male. XX = female.* I personally don't care if you identify as a wombat. But I'm not going to pretend you're a wombat. Neither do I want my tax dollars going to construct special wombat restrooms.


    * (Yes, there is a tiny minority of people with real genetic anomalies. Those aren't the ones getting the headlines.)

  • loveconstitution1789||

    Evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

  • DarkHelmet||

    May the Schwartz be with you.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    You have the ring. And I see that your Schwartz is as big as mine. Now, let's see how well you handle it.

  • Rat on a train||

    Forget the ring! The ring is bupkis! I found it in a Cracker Jack box!

  • loveconstitution1789||

    "What? You went over my helmet?"

  • Radioactive||

    may the Shwartz be with you...

  • ||

    Nobody is asking YOU to pretend that someone is a wombat. Just the the government not give a shit if someone identifies as a wombat or not.

    Also, restrooms are generally paid for with private money, last time I checked. To the extent that public restrooms still exist, they shouldn't care if you're a wombat either.

  • ||

    "o the extent that public restrooms still exist, they shouldn't care if you're a wombat either."

    They should, to the extent that wombats are made to pay for them.

  • damikesc||

    Also, restrooms are generally paid for with private money, last time I checked. To the extent that public restrooms still exist, they shouldn't care if you're a wombat either.

    And how do you juggle the desires of ONE wombat over the desires of A LOT MORE THAN ONE wombat?

    Why should that one get all of the perks?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    The one who owns the restroom can decide how to dole out benefits.

  • damikesc||

    Courts don't like that. Meaning the business who doesn't do what the state decides will lose money because of it.

  • Dillinger||

    >>> identify as a wombat

    phish slayed Wombat in Dayton last week.

  • Mark22||

    Neither do I want my tax dollars going to construct special wombat restrooms.

    I don't want my tax dollars to go towards public transit at all.

    But if tax dollars go to public transit, then the people setting the policies should be the people paying for it: the local communities.

    Some of those communities may choose to build wombat bathrooms, others may choose not to.

  • Longtobefree||

    Of course, the real solution is far fewer government forms, because far fewer government intrusions.
    In a true land of the free, where all are equal, there is no need for designation by race, gender, sex, astrology sign, or any other category beyond citizen of the country, or not.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Identifyimg as a gender at odds with your sex is like skiing uphill. It's possible, and there may well be sound reasons to do it, but it is always going to be harder and blaming the hill doesn't change much.

    I'm odd too, though not in any way that is currently fashionable. To a degree, I sympathize with the transgendered. The people who irritate me are the ones who are using the transgendered. The politically active types who attack mainstream society about transgender issues not because they give a rat's ass about the transgendered, but because they want to tear down mainstream society and replace it with something they run.

    And the ones I really despise are the surgeons who prey on those transgendered who are desperate enough to try to change their sex. 'Gender reassignment surgery' is nothing of the kind. It is mutilation and fraud.

  • ||

    The "destroy western civ, because it's evil" crowd should all be shipped to St.Helena, and put their "new civ" into practice. I'll give anyone 100:1 odds that it turns into lord of the flies in 2-3 weeks.

  • BYODB||

    This I can absolutely agree with. It's apparent to me that many of these groups and organizations are using the transgendered in their own plans rather than really having any genuine sympathy for them as human beings.


    Gender Reassignment surgery is monstrous, in my opinion, and judging from the 'after' suicide rates I'd say even the transgender folks come to this realization even if it occurs to some of them too late. It's a barbaric practice. I'd suppose they should be free to do these types of operations, regardless of the potential harms, but that assumes that the mentally ill are able to make rational informed decisions in this arena. Off the cuff I'd say they are, but I imagine there are those who might disagree.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    How do you know why transgenders commit suicide? Maybe they do it because of societal attitudes like yours.

  • damikesc||

    How do you know why transgenders commit suicide? Maybe they do it because of societal attitudes like yours

    Perhaps it's because mentally ill and delusional folks aren't known for being terrible stable emotionally as is?

    If slicing off one's dick is NEEDED to make them happy, then doing so would do so.

    Johns Hopkins stopped doing them for a reason.

  • BYODB||

    It's because the rate of suicide is higher after gender reassignment surgery which should arguably make them a more convincing member of the opposite sex which should logically reduce negative attitudes. This is observed in the male-to-female transition.

    My personal theory is it's because they realize that there is no other option, and what they truly want is to actually be a member of the opposite sex. Something that I might note is impossible at the moment.

    I'll straight up admit that if they come up with a gene therapy that actually changes your gender I wouldn't have a problem with it. Mutilation, however, I have an issue with. I also loathe people who put their children who haven't gone through puberty yet through these procedures. It's madness.

  • DarrenM||

    Or those partaking in gender reassignment surgery are more likely to commit suicide to begin with.

  • BYODB||

    Perhaps so. It could be true that only the most desperate of these individuals are willing to consider such a drastic surgery and this could, perhaps, indicate a more unstable individual. It does imply a link to the underlying condition to their eventual suicide in either case though. These could just be those who suffer the most acute version of the disorder, perhaps even to the point of needing to actually be a member of the opposite sex and once they confront the reality that it's impossible they just don't want to live anymore.

    Perhaps confronting the inescapable reality of their disorder in tandem with the actions that led up to their current situation are enough to drive them over the edge. It's a sad state of affairs, make no mistake. I don't pretend to know for sure.

    It's all supposition, of course, since as far as I'm aware there hasn't been a definitive study and the studies that have been done have provoked more questions than they have answered. It's at least enough to make the practice of gender 'reassignment' surgery and so-called 'hormone therapy' suspect in the near term but it's their choice.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Except it's not. If we want to just talk about the Swedish study we can.

    You're citing the famous Swedish Longitudinal study:
    http://journals.plos.org/ploso.....ne.0016885

    If you are citing a different article, I would love to see it, as this is the one that has been cited anytime I have seen evidence provided.

    The Issue is that their control group they compare suicide rates of post-operative transgenders is the population at large. In that comparison, yes, post-operatives have a higher suicide rate than the general population.

    In comparison to identified transgenders who do not receive treatment though, their suicide rate is actually much lower. This Is backed up by every other study I have every seen on the subject.

  • BYODB||

    Since you cite the study that confirms what I said, but none to confirm your claim, I'll admit I'm a little confused. By all means, I'd be interested in reading newer studies.

  • BYODB||

    As a follow up, I will tentatively say that comparing crazy-to-crazy would help illustrate causality. In comparing crazy-to-sane you would find the relevant metric of 'are these people more likely than average to kill themselves'.

    The 'why' could have light shed on it though, and I'm always curious about that. It would make a certain amount of inherent sense that discrimination could cause a higher rate of suicide but it would also make a certain amount of sense that cutting off one's...bits...might drive one to it as well.

    It's odd that female-to-male transition does not share the same issues though, as far as I know, which does point tentatively to the surgical transition as a potential cause.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The country with the highest rate of male-to-female transexual surgery is Iran. Think about that.

  • HenryC||

    Gender is a social artifact. However, sex is a biological fact. Avoiding the reality of your biology is not ever wise. The physical and hormonal differences are real, which is why some trans go in for hormonal treatment. There is simply to much family and inheritance law dependent on sex for ignoring it in the law or on ID. It has little to do with gender, and everything to do with sex.

  • Zeb||

    There is simply to much family and inheritance law dependent on sex for ignoring it in the law

    Is that true now that gay marriage is a thing?

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Avoiding the reality of your biology is not ever wise.

    Oh, look, a Christian Scientist. Next time you get sick, I hope you accept God's plan without complaints.

  • Brandybuck||

    Gender is not a social artifact. I looked up both "gender" and "sex" in the dictionary. The first definition for both was:

    Gender: "either the male or female division of a species..."

    Sex: "either the male or female division of a species..."

    The difference is that gender has the emphasis on the social, while sex has the emphasis on the biological, but they are still the same. If it were only a social role, then I would literally become a female if I pretended to be on in public. That's nonsense.

  • BYODB||

    Indeed. Instead of coming up with a new term for these groups and theories they perverted the intent and meaning of 'gender' which was done purposefully to confuse the issue; at least in my opinion.

    What is bandied about today as 'gender theory' seems to be a realm of study intended to purely confused rather than to clarify anything. Hardly surprising for a field of study that accepts the premises of post-rationalism or post-empiricism.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "I looked up both "gender" and "sex" in the dictionary."

    Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. The authors of the dictionary you consulted have merely taken note that the word "gender" is now widely being misused. "Gender" is a system for organizing the nouns in inflected languages. "Sex" is either the male or female reproductive divisions of a species. The current misuse of the term "gender" was initiated by feminists who wish to abolish distinguishing between the sexes because they see being labeled "female" as a disadvantage. There is no universally accepted definition of what "gender" is when applied to people, even among the "scholars" and activists who promote the concept.

    "...I would literally become a female if I pretended to be on in public."

    That is in fact the claim made by many promoters of the "gender identity" concept.

  • Brandybuck||

    Go look it up in old dictionaries. The misuse is redefining "gender" to mean "ephemeral social identity unrelated to biological sex".

    Merriam Webster 1828 dictionary:

    Gender (2) -. A sex, male or female

    Dictionaries are indeed descriptive. That is their purpose. But the new identitarianism insists on definitions being prescriptive. Bob wants to be called "she" therefore everyone must use the pronoun "she".

  • HenryC||

    Gender is a social artifact. However, sex is a biological fact. Avoiding the reality of your biology is not ever wise. The physical and hormonal differences are real, which is why some trans go in for hormonal treatment. There is simply to much family and inheritance law dependent on sex for ignoring it in the law or on ID. It has little to do with gender, and everything to do with sex.

  • ||

    Gender is a social artifact.

    Gender norms or roles are, arguably, a social artifact. Gender, while highly correlated with sex, is neither socially constructed nor artifactual for the biological reasons you indicated.

    In this country, I can put my hand 5'7" in the air and do a better than random job of sorting adults by sex/gender. This and similar, as you indicate, have been true well before humans started organizing into tribes and cultivating food.

    The irritating part that goes unspoken, IMO, is the fact that non-binary gender rights advocates are seeking to advance their own special kind of discrimination. A pass to ride a bus that says "6', Male" is too invasive and allows bus drivers too much personal discretion, but a card providing "6', male(fixed), 32" waist, 38" chest, 180 lbs., 30-Apr-1975, CHO 180 mg/dl" to your single-source medical provider is just good sense.

  • Mickey Rat||

    If transgenderism is a real thing, then one cannot believe gender is a mere social construct. One cannot have an innate identification with something that has no inherent reality.

  • BYODB||

    So you're saying it's a circular argument? That does appear to track, but it's hardly surprising from a group of people who are quite definitely mentally ill. Mental illness generally doesn't track well with rational argumentation.

  • WakaWaka||

    Sure, eliminate government identification on licenses and government sex-segregated restrooms. But, in the meantime this magazine ignores state laws that are mandating fines for people who use the wrong preferred pronoun or prevent businesses from having sex-segregated restrooms. Pee pee bureaucrats and speech police are far more frightening expansions of government, but let's not kid ourselves this isn't about reducing the size of government anymore.

  • Radioactive||

    heh, heh, heh...you said pee-pee

  • Inigo Montoya||

    I call bullshit on the whole "state fines for using the wrong pronoun." All it takes is for someone to have the balls (no pun intended) to go to court and declare they made an honest mistake. "I'm sorry, your honour, I referred to him as her -- I hadn't yet had my coffee/I didn't look up from my phone/my eyesight isn't so good/English is my second language and my grammar, she ain't so nice-a."

    I'd wager these fines would not hold up very well against any legal challenge.

  • Rhywun||

    Here's someone trying frantically to spin their way out of the fact that, yes, you can indeed be fined for using the wrong pronoun.

    Bonus reference to the "arguably transphobic" Volokh.

  • ||

    Do you think it occurs to them that the "Assume nothing" with the little devil symbol at the bottom might invoke a "Two in the chest, one in the head." or "Keep firing until it's dead." instinct in some people?

    Not that I want to see any trans people shot or harmed, of course, but the phrase 'assume nothing' is a spook and/or hollywood trope for 'show me the body' and the female symbol with horns is, well, a female symbol with horns.

    People have rights to be dicks and assholes to each other. 'Assume nothing' and expecting to get your proper pronoun and whatever else you want seems presumptuously optimistic.

  • Mark22||

    Your majesty, this person may look like a girl, but they do not dress, nor do they behave, like a girl.
    And since it is quite obvious that they are not a boy, this person must therefore be a non-she.

    YouTube: Girltown Aka feminists in hell.

  • damikesc||

    I call bullshit on the whole "state fines for using the wrong pronoun." All it takes is for someone to have the balls (no pun intended) to go to court and declare they made an honest mistake. "I'm sorry, your honour, I referred to him as her -- I hadn't yet had my coffee/I didn't look up from my phone/my eyesight isn't so good/English is my second language and my grammar, she ain't so nice-a."

    But why should you HAVE to go before a judge in the first place for stating a biological reality? The process is the punishment.

    I'd wager these fines would not hold up very well against any legal challenge.

    That few will challenge them is the underlying belief.

  • Crusty Juggler :)||

    A man is a man and a woman is a woman and that's all there is to it

  • Bruce Hall||

    My preferred pronoun is "god" (lower case). If you don't refer to me as "god", you will be punished.

  • B.P.||

    You're a member of the Wu Tang Clan?

  • Rebel Scum||

    this magazine ignores state laws that are mandating fines for people who use the wrong preferred pronoun

    Wouldn't this be a 1A violation?

  • BYODB||

    Yes, since it would indicate prior restraint. Although with the ever-expanding concept of 'hate speech' it's possible this particular flavor of prior restraint might gain more and more traction until it butts up against the Supreme Court where it isn't unheard of for them to make sweeping terrible judgments on the 1A in the past (RE: Shouting fire in a crowded theatre being an argument on why the government can prohibit someone from distributing leaflets against the draft).

  • ||

    Men and women pay taxes. They have heterosexual preferences (broadly understood, such as women's preference of their own femininity). How do gender-neutral facilities they are made to pay for facilitate their well-being? It appears she advocates imposing gender neutrality on those who prefer something else. That's a loss of utility, it impoverishes life, and reduces pluralism to some lifeless technocratic realm.

  • ||

    It's kinda entertaining that the binary can only be as restrictive as it is predictive. Those who complain about "female" being too restrictive a "role" acknowledge that it has substantial, noticeable, and precise facets. They implicitly hold that it's clearly possible to make the distinction between "male" and "female", and that this is of tremendous importance in all realms of life. They claim it is not a mere nuisance, but oppressive and omnipresent. So this categories are telling, they are predictive (a girl likely is Xn and will do Zn).

    Add stereotype accuracy to this, and research on how stable sex differences are, more pronounced in more "gender egalitarian" societies, and you have predictiveness, stability, and substantial differences. It'd be sheer idiocy if economies, society, and governmental services wouldn't adjust to that and create sex-specific products and services. The sexes sell, and buy.

    "public bathrooms, sports teams, single-sex colleges, corporate affirmative action policies, the U.S. census, military drafts, and more"

    Yeah, hilarious. How did that go, for freedom of association? My guess is the answers are "progressive". Drafts for men, affirmative action for women, mixed-sex sports teams unless it depresses women too much, no segregated restrooms at all.

  • ||

    Do you even see that this just another round of "public accommodation", "bona fide (occupational) qualification/requirement", reasonable accommodation, and the essence of things? It's just that he/she or whatever gets to impose her understanding. This isn't about anarchy. It's about claiming authority. It is as interesting as it is unreasonable that you fall for this.

    By the way, here is PGA v. Martin (Scalia) on golf. Compare it to the game of sex.

    "Since this is so, even if respondent here is a consumer of the "privilege" of the PGA TOUR competition, see ante, at 14, I see no basis for considering whether the rules of that competition must be altered. It is as irrelevant to the PGA TOUR's compliance with the statute whether walking is essential to the game of golf as it is to the shoe store's compliance whether "pairness" is essential to the nature of shoes. If a shoe store wishes to sell shoes only in pairs it may; and if a golf tour (or a golf course) wishes to provide only walk-around golf, it may. The PGA TOUR cannot deny respondent access to that game because of his disability, but it need not provide him a game different (whether in its essentials or in its details) from that offered to everyone else.

  • ||

    Since it has held (or assumed) professional golfers to
    be customers "enjoying" the "privilege" that consists of PGA TOUR golf; and since it inexplicably regards the rules of PGA TOUR golf as merely "policies, practices, or procedures" by which access to PGA TOUR golf is provided, the Court must then confront the question whether respondent's requested modification of the supposed policy, practice, or procedure of walking would "fundamentally alter the nature" of the PGA TOUR game, §12182(b)(2)(A)(ii). The Court attacks this "funda-
    mental alteration" analysis by asking two questions: first, whether the "essence" or an "essential aspect" of the sport of golf has been altered; and second, whether the change, even if not essential to the game, would give the disabled player an advantage over others and thereby "fundamentally alter the character of the competition." Ante, at 20-21. It answers no to both.

    Before considering the Court's answer to the first question, it is worth pointing out that the assumption which underlies that question is false. Nowhere is it writ that PGA TOUR golf must be classic "essential" golf. Why cannot the PGA TOUR, if it wishes, promote a new game, with distinctive rules (much as the American League promotes a game of baseball in which the pitcher's turn at the plate can be taken by a "designated hitter")?

  • ||

    If members of the public do not like the new rules–if they feel that these rules do not truly test the individual's skill at "real golf" (or the team's skill at "real baseball") they can withdraw their patronage. But the rules are the rules. They are (as in all games) entirely arbitrary, and there is no basis on which anyone–not even the Supreme Court of the United States–can pronounce one or another of them to be "nonessential" if the rulemaker (here the PGA TOUR) deems it to be essential.

  • ||

    If one assumes, however, that the PGA TOUR has some legal obligation to play classic, Platonic golf–and if one assumes the correctness of all the other wrong turns the Court has made to get to this point–then we Justices must confront what is indeed an awesome responsibility. It has been rendered the solemn duty of the Supreme Court of the United States, laid upon it by Congress in pursuance of the Federal Government's power "[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States," U.S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 3, to decide What Is Golf. I am sure that the Framers of the Constitution, aware of the 1457 edict of King James II of Scotland prohibiting golf because it interfered with the practice of archery, fully expected that sooner or later the paths of golf and government, the law and the links, would once again cross, and that the judges of this august Court would some day have to wrestle with that age-old jurisprudential question, for which their years of study in the law have so well prepared them: Is someone riding around a golf course from shot to shot really a golfer? The answer, we learn, is yes. The Court ultimately concludes, and it will henceforth be the Law of the Land, that walking is not a "fundamental" aspect of golf."

  • Crusty Juggler :)||

    Check out Marcel Proust over here.

  • ace_m82||

    Overall, Davis wants to remove sex- or gender-identifying markers from virtually all government-issued IDs and documents

    Funny, I just want to remove all government-issued IDs and documents.

    Also, I want to remove all government. Problem solved.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    It's a start!

  • Dillinger||

    >>>Funny, I just want to remove all government-issued IDs and documents. Also, I want to remove all government. Problem solved.

    yes.

  • ||

    Also, I want to remove all government. Problem solved.

    Just make sure you don't appear too bigoted or anti-transgender-y when doing so. Otherwise, you might be confused for a Republican and everybody knows that it's bad when Republicans want to shut the government down. Even if it's for the Constitutional, thematic, or even precise reasons you think they should, it's still a problem.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Republicans ARE anarchists, Harry Reid said so.

  • Dillinger||

    can I think of myself as a boy and not give a fuck about any of the rest of it ever?

  • Brandybuck||

    Look you idgits. The reason we have two different restrooms set up is because of innies and outies. Innies can't use urinals, outies can. Simple as that. It's not about what they want to call themselves, or if they think there's an innie hiding inside them trying to escape, or because it's trendy to be an outie pretending to be an innie, or whatever. It's all about the plumbing.

    The fact that some weak livered college kids hiding in the Playdough and Puppy room are wagging their fingers at us does not change the morphology of urination. Do you stand or do you sit, that's all that matters.

    My first week in the San Francisco bay area, I'm using the urinal, when this sexy broad some in with a slinky red satin dress and stilettos. "She" then hiked up her skirt and used the urinal next to me in the ordinary manner urinals expect to be used. If she could stand to do her business, then don't tell me all the other people with outies can't stand to do theirs as well. Sheesh.

  • EscherEnigma||

    What? No. We have sex-segregated rest rooms because requiring then was a way to keep women from the work force in the late 1800s. It's stuck around for the same reason the majority of American men are circumcised: inertia and after a generation people think it "just makes sense" without critically analyzing the underlying reasons.

  • BYODB||

    Yeah, I'm sure sex segregated bathrooms had more to do with keeping women out of work rather than the prudish leftovers from Puritanism, Victorianism, and the prudishness of Christianity in general at the time.

    This smells like revisionist history to me, but if you have a citation it could be a lark to read it.

  • EscherEnigma||

    As I've said before: I have basic pattern recognition. Giving citations is not a good user of my time. You'll either look it up yourself or continue believing your similarly un-sourced belief, and my effort is not needed.

  • ||

    As I've said before: I have basic pattern recognition.

    This explanation fits my bullshit pattern to a 't'.

  • BYODB||

    So no, you make the claim that bathroom use dictates one's ability to work and leave it at that. Righto.

  • Brandybuck||

    Largely a myth. Sure there was a restroom problem when large numbers of women entered the workforce, but the cause wasn't sexism or anti-identitarian-bigotry. It's because of the need for large restrooms for groups. You don't need segregated restrooms in home because homes are small. One single room (or single plus half) is sufficient. The problem only arises when people start queuing up to use the restroom and you consider expanding the size of the restroom.

    Suddenly the restroom is no longer private. For some cultures it makes no difference. Everyone shits out in the open before the get nekkid and sit around in the sauna. But some cultures are more modest and wish to keep the private parts of the genders separate. Hence male and female restrooms. It's not due to the evil patriarchy. Prudery maybe, but not bigotry.

  • ||

    Prudery maybe, but not bigotry.

    And to believe either one exclusively/predominantly requires you to ignore the facts of physiology and engineering, as well as the state of 'science' at the time.

  • Mark22||

    We have sex-segregated rest rooms because requiring then was a way to keep women from the work force in the late 1800s

    That's a nice fairy tale spun by anti-capitalist lefties. A few seconds of serious reflection should tell anybody why that theory makes no sense whatsoever.

  • JeremyR||

    It's not just urinals. A lot of times women's restrooms have products to help them deal with periods

  • lap83||

    That read kind of like an NPR human interest segment. The reaction to the bus pass fraud problem shouldn't be "but what about the gender fluid!!!!!111" it should be getting rid of publicly subsidized transportation.

  • ||

    it should be getting rid of publicly subsidized transportation.

    This is right but then the issue becomes that you can't punish people for making decisions you don't like.

    It's entirely likely these bus drivers weren't making a gender-binary statement as much as an anti-prostitution statement. And while their anti-prostitution stance may be legally motivated, it could equally well be motivated by the behavior of protectionist pimps or jealous spouses. Not to say that any given bus driver is worried about a pimp stabbing a tranny hooker on their bus, but that letting an obvious tranny with a pass on your (or 'your' as the case may be) bus can be a hassle not worth the fair.

  • Lester224||

    Why are you making excuses for bus drivers who won't let trannies on buses?

  • Mickey Rat||

    OK, gender does not matter, but sex often does matter. Where does that put us?

    The trans activists are not telling that gender does not matter, they are demanding that it is the only thing that should legally matter.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    How about we go with just one gender: Nunya. As in "nunya business."

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    The Hungarian exchange student?

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    So, transit workers in Philly were actually looking at the Gender (sex) indicator on the transit pass when you boarded? Holy shit.

  • ||

    In an article calling for more equality and less hate in labeling, I believe ENB referred to them as the 'public transit sex police'.

    I'm unsure whether to be more surprised by the brilliant undercover and apprehension capabilities or by the fact that the would-be passenger didn't end up with a handful of bullet wounds.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Public Transit Sex Police would be an awesome name for a band.

  • BYODB||

    It should absolutely be a J-Pop band. I've heard Japanese public transit likes to make sure girls are girls.

  • Mickey Rat||

    So if an identification marker is not 100% effective at distinguishing one person from another its use shoukd be forbidden?

    Is there any identification marker that passes that test?

  • EscherEnigma||

    If it's not useful for the task at hand? Sure.

    In the case of a bus pass, what does sex/gender matter? For that matter, what does it matter for a driver's license? Dolls that actually need-to-know can/will still collect that information.

    The hospital's records are going to include things the DMV doesn't care about and vice-versa.

    And face it, none of these systems are really great at "identifying" people, because none of them were designed, from the ground-up, to identify people. And until we get a "national ID card" we're going to have this problem.

  • Mickey Rat||

    It seems the thinking behind the bus pass was that it wss to prevent one person from using another's bus pass. Who it was protecting depends on if the pass was "charged" or a flat rate. The point is if other markers like height, weight , hair color, eye color, photo, etc. do not, by themselves, slways prevent someone from using another's pass does that mean thisevmarkers should be firbidden from being used? What do you use to establish identification?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yes, that way their thinking. And as noted, it failed at the purpose and created problems.

    So if it fails at it's purpose and injects new problems, why double-down?

    So it's not that anything should be "forbidden", it's that they should be restricted to what's actually useful and works. In the case of most IDs? The sex indicator is one of the least useful things in the card.

  • Mickey Rat||

    No, it created some problems. There was no evidence given that it generally failed.

  • ||

    So if it fails at it's purpose and injects new problems, why double-down?

    Your 'failing at purpose' is exceedingly arbitrary. It completely ignores any and all fraud detection/sensitivity and bases success on an arbitrarily small sample of failures of specificity.

    Sure, women get their passes stolen by men on a daily basis and the thiefs would use them fraudulently but because a tranny was denied twice it failed?

    Again not to say that any given M/F on any given card is bona fide truth, but that I refuse to believe that the M/F offers unquestionably zero advantage with regard to fraud prevention. Hell, Google and probably 3/4 of private industries on Earth who aren't required by law to know and would prefer if I provide them with as much information as possible.

  • Rebel Scum||

    Biologically there are two genders. These are male and female. Let's stop validating the delusions of the mentally insane. That said, I do believe everyone should be free to live as they please so long as they are not harming anyone else or anyone else's property. If you want to mutilate your body, go ahead. But do it on your own dime. And don't expect me to remember and use an infinite number of pronouns to address you. You are a 'he' or a 'she'. The end.

  • Tony||

    Well that's settled.

  • Vernon Depner||

    "Biologically there are two genders."

    No. Biologically there are two sexes. There is no general agreement on what "gender" is.

  • Crusty Juggler :)||

    This entire conversation will be rendered moot as soon as the government mandates biometric tattoos.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Or as soon as CRISPR enables us to switch sex back and forth at will. Wanna go out, Crusty?

  • ||

    Or as soon as CRISPR enables us to switch sex back and forth at will. Wanna go out, Crusty?

    Is that before or after CRISPR solves the gay wedding cake problem? Come to think of it, I'm befuddled as to why CRISPR didn't fix the 2016 election.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    History shows us that civilization needs gender. Or else, why do we have genders in the first place?

    If we don't have a system of gender, then people will use violence to assert gender roles on others, and we will descend into cavemen.

    Therefore, we must have official, government-approved genders. Duh.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There is X, and there is Y. There is nothing else. There is no other sex chromosome. It is, therefore, binary. Ideally, one is born with two of these--XX or XY(YY is not viable)--but even of something happens and one has more than 2--XXX,XXY, XYY or even more, the thing is still expressed in binary.

    Sex is binary.

    There is 'he', there is 'she', and there is nothing else. 'It' is not a gender and is therefore not included--much as the chromosomes that make bones are not sex chromosomes and do not affect the binary nature of sex chromosomes. There are no 'gender roles' associated with a third gender. There are roles associated with males, roles associated with females, and roles that are not associated with any specific gender. There are no roles associated with an additional sex because there is no additional sex.

    Gender is binary.

    People can blend gender roles however they please. Gender roles are simply societal norms derived from the demands of natural function coupled with the structure of a given society. But there are only two. No matter how you blend things, you're blending things based on XX or XY...which, in turn as the result of X or Y

    Binary.

    Until we have reproduction that requires a sperm, an egg, and a '?', binary is what we're stuck with because we have no idea what that third role is.

  • Lester224||

    What does this have to do with the need to state whether you are an XX or an XY on your bus pass?

  • BYODB||

    It addresses the idea that someone can be 'transgender' in the first place. Deconstruct that, and all the arguments presented in the article fall apart. It's the shrill keening of the mentally ill demanding special treatment for a niche disorder.

    There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, lord knows there are plenty of special accommodations for the mentally ill who can not be cured, but changing the structure of society for 99.9% of mankind for the final .01% is a special sort of idiocy.

  • ||

    There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, lord knows there are plenty of special accommodations for the mentally ill who can not be cured, but forcing the changing of the structure of society for 99.9% of mankind for the final .01% is a special sort of idiocy.

    FIFY.

    That's a key part of all of this. We aren't talking about burning bras, doing away with neck ties, or allowing women to walk the streets of New York topless. We're talking about actively undefining and/or repressing hardwiring that predates civilization.

  • BYODB||


    We aren't talking about burning bras, doing away with neck ties, or allowing women to walk the streets of New York topless.

    I'm all for each of those things. Notably, for instance, walking around the streets topless is illegal as a woman but not for a man pretty much everywhere in America with perhaps a few exceptions. Where would a transperson fall on that spectrum, legally? Whichever is best for them, probably.

    I completely agree though. Just thought it was amusing to note legal differences in the law itself when it comes to sex and gender.

    I don't think this is the bottom of the barrel that they're scraping in terms of mental illness that will be used as a civil rights issue in the future, either. I don't expect them to pick up non-monogamous coupling any time soon though. I could be wrong, obviously, but they seem to really hate the idea of a man with ten wives more than anything else, those lefties.

  • ||

    Notably, for instance, walking around the streets topless is illegal as a woman but not for a man pretty much everywhere in America with perhaps a few exceptions.

    This is not true and was kinda my point. Or it's only true on an exceedingly local level or in an exceedingly ambiguous fashion and contra-patriarchical fashion where men are picked up for 'indecent exposure' at greater numbers or rates than women. I mean hell, ENB, has on more than one occasion, documented attempts to enact sight-unseen 'erect in public' laws.

    Anyway, to my point, men tend to prefer not to walk around with erections for strictly discretionary purposes and women prefer to wear tops and even bras for reasons having nothing exactly to do with Puritanism or laws specifically. Most of the FtM trans persons I know and/or can identify would prefer to keep their shirts on and prefer undergarments that actively conceal their sex/gender.

  • BYODB||

    Yes, your source mentions state law whereas it is in fact a more local ordinance in most places.

    Laughably, Texas is 'green' on the chart yet no place I have ever been in the state allows women to go topless outside of the odd-ball nudist beach you might stumble across here or there.

    So yes, against the law in many, many places. Just not at the level of government you choose to list. I also take some issue with your comparison of an uncontrollable reaction such as an erection to a willful act such as removing an article of clothing. Neither should necessarily be illegal, but they are a false equivalency.

  • ||

    Laughably, Texas is 'green' on the chart yet no place I have ever been in the state allows women to go topless outside of the odd-ball nudist beach you might stumble across here or there.

    The point being, the choice to force women is exceedingly local and (presumably) dominated by the men and women of a/the local community. A brief internet search reveals that there are at least a half dozen places in/around San Antonio where women/people can freely walk around nude, in violation of the law, without generally being harassed by the police for their nudity. I know first hand that while Indiana is bright red, enforcement of public nudity laws is 'spotty' over the majority of the region. The state is home to the largest nudity pageant in N. America.

  • ||

    My larger point being that things like racism, clothing, and disfavoring public erections have been a part of our culture much longer than just the laws on the books and even religious cultural norms pre-date them. Arguably, men no more choose to have erections than women choose to have breasts. The point being, even when accepting of naked breasts, nudist colonies and nude beaches still generally frown upon or disfavor erections. Not as much in a 'GTFO' way but, certainly in a 'Nobody really wants to see that.' or 'Well, this is awkward.' sense. No law commanding people to use the restrooms with a person of the opposite sex in some manner of gender-blind intersex utopia is going to effectively bring the utopia about (not that that's the point). Even 100% body and nudity-comfortable individuals are still going to find erections awkward and/or a consistent abundance of erections disturbing.

    You said, changing the structure of society for 99.9% of mankind for the final .01% is a special sort of idiocy, I'm suggesting that the idiocy is two-fold/redundant. Changing 99.9% of mankind for anything from bras to blackness is a fools errand even when logical and/or moral consistency is on your side.

  • Juice||

    There is 'he', there is 'she', and there is nothing else.

    Well, except for the hermaphrodites.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Nope. They are he AND she. They are not a third distinct sex, with a third distinct gender role.

    X and Y. That's it.

  • Chipper Morning, Now #1||

    Many cultures throughout the world have historically recognized a third sex.

  • ||

    Many cultures throughout the world have historically recognized a third sex.

    More or less successful than a completely randomly selected modern day culture like say, Ethiopia? I mean many cultures throughout history have recognized forced castration as a viable social practice.

  • Azathoth!!||

    No, they have not.

    You cannot 'recognize' something that does not exist.

    They have referred to males who take on aspects of female roles AS a 'third sex' but that 'third sex' has never been anything other than yet another admixture of the standard binary.

    There IS no third sexual chromosome, no third sexual role to be filled, and therefore no third gender role that can be included.

    There are 2.

    Binary.

  • Juice||

    They are not a third distinct sex, with a third distinct gender role.

    Well, they really aren't any "sex" at all, but they aren't male and they aren't female.

    It's very rare that a hermaphrodite will be fertile. If that person is a true hermaphrodite that's fertile, then maybe you would consider them to be whatever sex is fertile for them. But it's not like they are a true version of that sex.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Hermaphrodites have only 'X' and 'Y' sex chromosomes. They have no third or fourth type of sexual chromosome. No 'Z', no 'L'. Just X and Y.

    Binary.

  • ||

    The fertility of hermaphrodites reinforces this issue.

    Human hermaphrodites fertile as both sexes don't happen. The hormonal/developmental milieu to develop a fertile and functional adult female will render a pre-pubescent non-hermaphroditic male infertile and vice versa. It's quite conceivable that one, given enough science, could generate a hermaphrodite with dual fertility. However, even then, the fundamentals of our genetics strongly indicate that it would be little more than something between scientific oddity and moral abomination.

  • Juice||

    There is 'he', there is 'she', and there is nothing else.

    What would you call a completely infertile true hermaphrodite?

  • Azathoth!!||

    A hermaphrodite.

    Also, a 'true' hermaphrodite is fertile. An infertile hermaphrodite is the victim of a severe birth defect.

  • Robert||

    Why can't people just be ab-normal—away from the norm? We all are in some ways. There wouldn't be such a concept as norm if there weren't variation.

  • Robert||

    But while "correction" can make life better for individual trans people, it does nothing to address the underlying stigma we put on those who transgress sex boundaries and gender norms, and it does nothing to diminish the collectivizing hold that gender has on all of our lives....

    Rather than trying "to assimilate and accommodate transgender individuals into existing sex-classification policies," he asks, "why not tackle the genesis of 'transgender discrimination'—sex-classification, itself?"


    This is what women's lib (& mens' lib) was about 50 yrs. ago. How did it manage to turn around & chase its tail in recent decades?

  • Robert||

    The whole concept of "feeling like" a certain sex is silly. How can anyone know what it's supposed to feel like? Except of course for literally feeling the body parts.

  • Vernon Depner||

    The idea that some feelings are appropriate only for one sex is sexism itself.

  • BYODB||

    What feelings are considered appropriate for only one sex? I would like to see a diagram of these allowed gender-related feelings that historically have changed every few decades for all of history that differ drastically between cultures and geographic locations.

    Are these men claiming to be women because, for example, they like to cry? Interesting. Are these not the most sexist members of the patriarchy attempting the most heinous of gender-related appropriation?

  • ||

    As I point out below. Even more heinously, we are talking about women who really wanted daughters and men who really wanted sons the unequivocal right to fully do so and leave the rest of us to handle/support any/all consequences.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Even more heinously than that, there are now loony parents who watch their children for signs that they might be "transgender" and encourage any such perceived tendency because a transgender child is now a coveted fashion accessory in some circles.

  • ||

    The whole concept of "feeling like" a certain sex is silly.

    Especially given that certain aspects of both sex and gender (as distinct from gender roles) are fixed at, before, and/or shortly after birth.

    It doesn't exactly matter how opposite sex the person feels, the only way to definitively get them on a/the appropriate 'gender route' would effectively amount to forcible sex selection. Things like their shoulder-to-hip ratio and spacial awareness and tracking are decided/fixed/biased well before they can effectively articulate their sex/gender desires.

  • Ron||

    most things are not sex determinent however if its the military and it needs to account for supplies it will need to know how many men and women are there since they have different needs fact of life no matter how you non-gender a person wants to be. Hospitals and doctors need to know. And yes many people still want sex segregation of restrooms its not homo/transphobic sometimes it just is what it is.

  • Half-Virtue, Half-Vice||

    Damn this has a lot of well said back and forth.

    Personally, I have too many of my own problems to be concerned with other peoples.

  • Vernon Depner||

    When other people want to tell me what to think and say, and enlist the power of government to coerce me, I consider that a problem for me.

  • Cloudbuster||

    I'm all for the federal government stopping all racial and gender-based accounting and legislating, with the caveat that they also stop all welfare, entitlement programs, public education and education subsidies, enforcement of the Civil Rights Act on private individuals and corporations, interference in the healthcare and insurance markets, and probably a few other things I haven't thought of yet.

  • BYODB||

    If there is one thing I learned from Darth Vader, it's always reserve the right to further alter any deal.

  • JeremyR||

    The reality is, some people have a penis, some have a vagina. Some have XX chromosomes, some have XY chromosomes.

    Are there a small number who have both? People who are XXY? Yes. But those are very, very rare.

    Saying that people can be whatever wrong is just silly. It's catering to mental illness. But there are solid reasons for differentiating people into two different sexes and pretending there aren't is just silly.

  • OM Nullum gratuitum prandium||

    Davis does not call himself a libertarian


    Ah, that's a problem.

    I call myself a libertarian. I don't understand what would the problem be.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What would that mean in practice? Davis suggests that organizations of all kinds should scrutinize whether sex classification in any given arena is rationally related to a legitimate policy goal.

    So I guess that's the out. Because I've been all for dumping the classification in every aspect of government life. But unfortunately, if you really really for reals drop the classification for all government identification purposes, then protected classes no longer have any meaning. And I strongly suspect that would be a bridge too far for some people.

    So like Noam Chomsky's anarchism, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Let's keep those few government institutions and their requisite domestic enforcement armies that we really, really need, but you know, only for the good stuff.

  • Vernon Depner||

    Dropping the classification would obviously put an end to Title 9 McCarthyism. I doubt the gender identity activists have thought of that.

  • Rockabilly||

    Man, I'm glad I went to college in the 1980s when I didn't have to ask permission to touch some boobies and could even tell who was a chick or not (well kinda tell, there was a tranny in SF that had me fooled for a while but we never did get to 1st base)..

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    well kinda tell, there was a tranny in SF that had me fooled for a while but we never did get to 1st base)..

    I remember you.

  • cc2||

    Gender anarchy and lack of legal identification make basic functioning of society much harder. Sure the bus doesn't need to know, but if you get arrested (as tens of thousands do every year) you need to be put in the right jail cells. Do you want, if a female (XX) to be put in with the men? Many medicines have risks if you are pregnant or nursing, so a doctor or pharmacist need to know your sex. If you are going to put out an alert for a criminal, sex is a pretty important identifier ["be on the lookout for a person of unknown sex"]. And I hat to tell you but many women are still not ok with men using their showers and restrooms. Yeah yeah I'm a cave man.

  • arm||

    step 1: get employers out of the business of offering insurance to employees... aka a free market where any individual can purchase any plan they so choose, and you are free to spend that extra 15k you cost your company for insurance any way you want.

    until step 1 happens, employers most definitely have a need to know gender

  • Tionico||

    There might be something to this concept... for one thing, the less gummint know and can report about each of us, the better. For another, it would necessarily end any excuse for claiming or excusing discrimination (positive or negative) on basis of sex/gender/feeling/appearance, or whatever. Affirmative action and pay increases for females (as traditionally defined) would necessarily end, because that piece of paper or collections of bits on the screen before the hiring individual would bear no indication of the basis from which to discriminate.

    Of course, when the thugpunk walks into the Convenience Market, draws a handgun, demands ALL the money in the till from the "person" there, and all the customers regardless of outward appearance, the witnesses, assuming the perp does not permanently eliminate any possibilty they provide any details, will have some difficulty in describing the perp without recourse to at least some gender-identifying characteristics. A two foot scraggly beard and four foot dredlocks might be a clue the coppers would write down.

  • mysmartstuffs||

    The author of the article stated this somewhat poorly; removing gender status from the ID removes the already existing message that government is sending -- i.e. that gender is relevant to transit ridership.
    My recent post: One Stop SEO Review
    My recent post: Video Kedavra Review

  • patskelley||

    Minorities are made, not born. Bureaucrats love to stuff our little round bodies into tight-fitting square boxes. Resist

  • Queen Screwup||

    "Overall, Davis wants to remove sex- or gender-identifying markers from virtually all government-issued IDs and documents. This step "would help to bring about substantial cultural reform, as it would send a strong message to all of us that a person's sex classification is irrelevant to most public transactions."" This is idiotic at best. So what happens when a woman who looks more like a man gets arrested and she gets locked up with other males? Does she get to sue when she gets sexually assaulted? I wish these idiots would learn to follow the bouncing ball of logic.

  • Girl Commenter||

    Little quibble:

    From the article: "To be clear on terms, sex refers to your biological status as male, female, or intersex; it's the category that's determined by chromosomes and hormones. Gender incorporates the external fixings we attach to these biological categories—the bits governing our social expectations for how a man or woman should dress, look, talk, think, and act."

    But then it also says this: "...from the gender category they were assigned at birth."

    Clearly doctors aren't talking about how the baby dresses or other external bits that gender incorporates, but what his or her biology is. No one is assigned a gender at birth. Their actual sex, that this article says is real, is noted. Not assigned.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online