Board 8 > First baby born in Canada without assigned gender.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Fucking ridiculous. Fuck those parents.
---

charmander6000 posted...

The father's occupation was once added to a child's birth certificate. Does it really matter if sex is listed?

By that logic, why not list the day's weather and what color shoes the doctor was wearing?

The government probably uses sex for some sort of demographic data analysis. I couldn't say what its used for or if it's necessary, tho
---

By that logic, why not list the day's weather and what color shoes the doctor was wearing?

Well the birth certificate (at least in BC) use to also list our religion

The government probably uses sex for some sort of demographic data analysis. I couldn't say what its used for or if it's necessary, tho

That's what the census does. The birth certificate is just a piece of ID.
---

DeepsPraw posted...

Well it's good that gender isn't on the birth certificate then. Just sex

Leftists: Gender and sex are two different things! We are not disputing that biological sex is a real thing that actually exists.

Also leftists: Take biological sex off the birth certificate! We can be whatever we want!
---

How are those two views in any way contradictory?

Leave it on or take it off, I don't care. All I know is that the parents in this case are stupid

also for someone who hates gov't so much, it's weird that you think a birth certificate is solid proof of identity
---

iiicon posted...

for the record, Spencer Chandra Herbert, a long-time MLA and member of the party now ready to form government in BC, will likely push for legislation on the matter of adding a non-binary/anonymous option for birth certificates, and similar legislation is happening in more conservative parts of Canada like Alberta, so, like, this is a non-issue, get used to it Americans?

Actually, the party in power in Alberta is democratic socialist, not conservative. I'm not sure what the advantage of adding a non-binary option is over just removing the sex part altogether.
---

Yeah, non-binary seems absolutely ridiculous, again, with the exception of intersex
---

GuessMyUserName posted...

The family's lawyer, barbara findlay, who chooses to spell her name without capital letters,

lmao
---

Conservatives: Leave it up to the parents!

Conservatives: Unless they want to leave their child's sex unidentified on their birth certificate. Can't let them do that!

Can I omit my child's date of birth too?
---

Why even name your child? They're far, far more likely to hate their name than their sex. Why not just give them a number until they choose their own name?
---

kori doty

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/07/02/14/41F6D6E800000578-0-image-a-37_1499003748900.jpg

I don't care about this but I ain't gonna say they don't look goofy

damn I misgendered, this is actually sorta tough
---

She looks pretty goofy
---

This is basically the beginnings of how to raise a serial killer
---

MenuWars posted...

Why even name your child? They're far, far more likely to hate their name than their sex. Why not just give them a number until they choose their own name?

don't give them citizenship either just let them be stateless until they decide where they want to live
---

ninkendo posted...

This is basically the beginnings of how to raise a serial killer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_DVS_303kQ
---

SmartMuffin posted...

Leftists: Gender and sex are two different things! We are not disputing that biological sex is a real thing that actually exists.

i feel like you're far more likely to get this from the center and right than the left

plenty of leftists recognize that sex is a social construct, or at least not a binary and fairly useless as a classification


MZero11 posted...

don't give them citizenship either just let them be stateless until they decide where they want to live

also this is legitimately an A+++ idea aside from the practical issues it would cause
---

Would you progressives be happier if the certificate said penis/vagina instead of male/female?
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Would you progressives be happier if the certificate said penis/vagina instead of male/female?

this is essentially what it already says (see all the "but it says sex, not gender!" people) so no, it doesn't change the fact that it's none of the government's business to track that
---

It's the medical field's business to track that in case of any health-related emergencies that could involve penises and vaginas. Unless you would like to be treated improperly. "Doesn't say male, no need to check for testicular cancer."

Kenri posted...

also this is legitimately an A+++ idea aside from the practical issues it would cause

The practical issues are why it exists in the first place. No one actually cares where you choose to live.
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

It's the medical field's business to track that in case of any health-related emergencies that could involve penises and vaginas.

So allergies and stuff like downs syndrome and such should go on the birth certificate also

Also I want to see the hospital that orders a testicular cancer check for someone without testicles, just because they didn't see their sex on the birth certificate.

Like just think about what you're saying for 1 or 2 seconds and you'll realize how dumb it is.
---

Do doctors really look at birth certificates? I don't remember ever bringing mine to my doctor ever.

foolm0r0n posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

It's the medical field's business to track that in case of any health-related emergencies that could involve penises and vaginas.

So allergies and stuff like downs syndrome and such should go on the birth certificate also

Also I want to see the hospital that orders a testicular cancer check for someone without testicles, just because they didn't see their sex on the birth certificate.

Like just think about what you're saying for 1 or 2 seconds and you'll realize how dumb it is.

Look at the user who posted it.
---

Stripperiffic posted...

Do doctors really look at birth certificates? I don't remember ever bringing mine to my doctor ever.

its in the computer they don't need a physical one >_>
---

End of civilization as we know it.

Also I want to see the hospital that orders a testicular cancer check for someone without testicles, just because they didn't see their sex on the birth certificate.

Man when you put the government in charge of medical care this is the EXACT thing we should expect to happen!
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

It's the medical field's business to track that in case of any health-related emergencies that could involve penises and vaginas. Unless you would like to be treated improperly. "Doesn't say male, no need to check for testicular cancer."

Kenri posted...

also this is legitimately an A+++ idea aside from the practical issues it would cause

The practical issues are why it exists in the first place. No one actually cares where you choose to live.

You can be treated improperly either way cuz sex isn't actually a binary like it says on ID. Might as well just force doctors to actually ask if you have a certain body part before ordering tests on it.

Also if you're seriously claiming that no one cares who lives in which country... uh, idk what to tell you other than that isn't, and never has been, true.
---

Might as well just force doctors to actually ask if you have a certain body part before ordering tests on it.

This is what "are you male or female" means for non-crazy people.
---

Unlike idiots on the internet, doctors are obviously aware of the vast variety in genital and other biological structure between people that goes way beyond XY and XX chromosomes. So they will ask actually relevant questions to get the information they need.
---

Why is sex non-binary?
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Why is sex non-binary?

Incorrect meiosis, defective genes, etc...
---

charmander6000 posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Why is sex non-binary?

Incorrect meiosis, defective genes, etc...

These sound like exceptions to the rule...doesn't mean there's not a rule.
---

foolm0r0n posted...

Unlike idiots on the internet, doctors are obviously aware of the vast variety in genital and other biological structure between people that goes way beyond XY and XX chromosomes. So they will ask actually relevant questions to get the information they need.

I'm glad that doctors aren't like you.
---

AdmittedFelon posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

scarletspeed7 posted...

It's the medical field's business to track that in case of any health-related emergencies that could involve penises and vaginas.

So allergies and stuff like downs syndrome and such should go on the birth certificate also

Also I want to see the hospital that orders a testicular cancer check for someone without testicles, just because they didn't see their sex on the birth certificate.

Like just think about what you're saying for 1 or 2 seconds and you'll realize how dumb it is.

Look at the user who posted it.

Who are you?
---

Like, foolmo could have left off the last sentence and I would have been like, "Ah, yeah, that's a fair point." I might have completely rethought my point of view. But instead, we have to constantly spout insults. I've always thought that foolmo and I were cordial, but maybe I should be disabused of the notion that one can be allowed to learn and grow on this board.
---

the jp is proof that you can grow on this board.
---

Kenri posted...

plenty of leftists recognize that sex is a social construct, or at least not a binary and fairly useless as a classification

Are you saying sex and gender are both social constructs?
---

I've never seen a chromosome, therefore they aren't real
---

scarletspeed7 posted...

Like, foolmo could have left off the last sentence and I would have been like, "Ah, yeah, that's a fair point." I might have completely rethought my point of view. But instead, we have to constantly spout insults. I've always thought that foolmo and I were cordial, but maybe I should be disabused of the notion that one can be allowed to learn and grow on this board.

Foolmo and I get along pretty well and he still calls some things I say stupid as hell.
---

EndOfDiscOne posted...

charmander6000 posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Why is sex non-binary?

Incorrect meiosis, defective genes, etc...

These sound like exceptions to the rule...doesn't mean there's not a rule.

If the exception is more common than the disease you're checking for, it seems like the rule might be less than useful.


StealThisSheen posted...

Kenri posted...

plenty of leftists recognize that sex is a social construct, or at least not a binary and fairly useless as a classification

Are you saying sex and gender are both social constructs?

Yep. In kinda different ways though. Obviously sexual characteristics exist, but the way we classify them and the implications we draw from that classification are social constructions.
---

Definitely disagree with that.
---

big load a 'who cares'

except with the thing where the lawyer wanted her name in all lowercase who tf she think she is, transience or something?
---

Kenri posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

charmander6000 posted...

EndOfDiscOne posted...

Why is sex non-binary?

Incorrect meiosis, defective genes, etc...

These sound like exceptions to the rule...doesn't mean there's not a rule.

If the exception is more common than the disease you're checking for, it seems like the rule might be less than useful.

You should probably provide statistics to back up that claim.

StealThisSheen posted...

Kenri posted...

plenty of leftists recognize that sex is a social construct, or at least not a binary and fairly useless as a classification

Are you saying sex and gender are both social constructs?

Yep. In kinda different ways though. Obviously sexual characteristics exist, but the way we classify them and the implications we draw from that classification are social constructions.

You literally just explained the difference between sex and gender and why sex is predetermined and gender is socially determined.
---

What I find odd is that the case where I'd understand it being relevant to record your sex.... is the piece of identification that this baby obtained under the parent's wishes.

Health card got the "U" for sex. Birth certificate is the ID that's being difficult. I understand health reasons to understand what's going on with a person physically... the case is less clear for birth certificates to me, but that's the one at issue.
---

ZaziGuado posted...

You literally just explained the difference between sex and gender and why sex is predetermined and gender is socially determined.

1) no i didn't

but 2) the common-use conflation of sex and gender is a big part of why i say sex is a social construct even if you believe in it as a useful system of classification
---

I'm confused by this sex is a social construct thing too

Yep. In kinda different ways though. Obviously sexual characteristics exist, but the way we classify them and the implications we draw from that classification are social constructions.

what's the difference between the "way we classify them and the implications we draw" regarding sexual characteristics and the concept of gender?
---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G541OW-fA4
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

what's the difference between the "way we classify them and the implications we draw" regarding sexual characteristics and the concept of gender?

A lot. The way we classify sex is a super simplified way of doing it that doesn't capture nature's complexity. We, as humans, created this two-sex model and said "this is the genitalia of this sex, these are the chromosomes of this sex, etc". That model doesn't exist in nature; it was created by humans to reflect, however simplistically, what we saw. But because it's a human-created thing, not every possibility really fits into it. It's sort of like the species model. What is a species? Who knows, really. We've got a model that sort of works and then occasionally an animal will break the rules, or we'll realize that a thing we thought was a separate species isn't, or whatever. The idea of "species" as a way of classification is a human invention, even though you could say that obviously different species do exist. "Sex" as a method of classification is a human invention. Nature doesn't sort stuff that way.

So that's one part. The implications are more about how sex is just Gender Episode 2. The evidence for this is in language (you could say you're a "firefighter who is a woman" or a "female firefighter" and these are seen as synonymous even though one uses gender language and the other uses sex language). You can see it in, yes, forms of ID like this topic is about -- if someone checks your driver's license and sees an M, they're going to assume they can politely refer to you as "sir", or in other words that sex implies gender. Then there's the whole issue regarding trans people of some sort of "true" or "inner" sex, where even after someone's sexual characteristics have changed (i.e. their genitalia is different, their hormones are different, etc) a good portion of the populace will still try to insist that their "real" sex is whatever they were born as. That's absolutely socially constructed; it's not like you can cut someone open and remove their "real sex". And then there's the chromosome issue, which people like to fall back on because it's largely immutable, ignoring that 99.9% of people don't REALLY know their own chromosomes, much less anyone else's, so how could it possibly inform gender? Or even sex, as in sex how it's listed on birth certificates, which is apparently detached from chromosomal sex because of this very issue?

(The average person, incidentally, doesn't go that far with any of this. They just say "dick is boy, vag is girl" and assume that works for sex and gender both. So even before all of this, to the average person sex is already gender which is already a social construction.)

I'm not the best person to explain all of this (there are much better explanations out there that go into biology and stuff more because they have more expertise there than I do), but I think that's a good starting point? Hopefully.
---

A lot. The way we classify sex is a super simplified way of doing it that doesn't capture nature's complexity. We, as humans, created this two-sex model and said "this is the genitalia of this sex, these are the chromosomes of this sex, etc". That model doesn't exist in nature; it was created by humans to reflect, however simplistically, what we saw. But because it's a human-created thing, not every possibility really fits into it. It's sort of like the species model. What is a species? Who knows, really. We've got a model that sort of works and then occasionally an animal will break the rules, or we'll realize that a thing we thought was a separate species isn't, or whatever. The idea of "species" as a way of classification is a human invention, even though you could say that obviously different species do exist. "Sex" as a method of classification is a human invention. Nature doesn't sort stuff that way.

This argument is unbelievably silly. Yes, you can argue every single classification system (time, mathematics, sex, whatever) is a human invention and thus arbitrary. But this doesn't mean it's not useful. We don't have eleven billion sexes because such precise distinction misses the point of a classification system, which is to sort by similarity, as opposed to exactitude. Fundamentally, classifying human beings by sex is effective, because we can create discern (correct) patterns off this classification system - for example, that certain diseases afflict members of one sex more severely than the other, more commonly, or not at all. Trying to differentiate sexes further into many more categories until we actually find a statistically significant deviation (for example, a third sex that is three feet smaller than the average human female on average, possesses reproductive capabilities through contact, considerably tougher skin, whatever you want to go with) is entirely useless because classification systems help create rules you can use to simplify and automate procedures. A rule system constructed entirely out of exceptions is both the height of pedantry and singularly useless.

Or, to reduce the above monster of a paragraph to a single, pointed question: Medically speaking, dividing human beings into two sexes has provided us with efficient diagnosis methods. What benefit does separating into more specific categories provide over the two-category system? Because rule systems exist because they work, and if not they get replaced. Why would binary sexual classification merit replacement at this point in time?
---

That's absolutely socially constructed; it's not like you can cut someone open and remove their "real sex"

Also this is wrong

You should read up on retroviral engineering. It's something that will eventually be possible - we just can't do it yet. Incidentally, the point at which retroviral engineering becomes practical and properly understood is probably the exact point where we can actually discuss the scientific (as opposed to social) advantages of reevaluating the binary sex system, because it will be actually possible for more than two sexes to exist.
---