oregon court rules that 'nonbinary' is a legal gender

[Alcon]

Why exactly does the government care about your gender in the first place? I can understand why they'd care about your sex, but why would they care about which norms/mores/whatever-gender-means-now-days you identify with enough to have a "legal gender identification?"

I dunno, it seems like a lot of things (like gender anti-discrimination laws) -- whether you like them or oppose them -- relate more toward visible/presented gender than they do biological sex, no?

Why

Because Transgenderism and gender dysphoria are real things, and people shouldn't be forced to choose between male and female on any govt. Document that asks for their gender.

I'm all for being inclusive, but chuck in an "Other" option, or this list is going to get mighty long.

This is very reminiscent of the "I'm okay with gay people, I just don't want them to get married. Call it a 'domestic partnership' instead" argument.

I don't really think that analogy works.  Including a gender as "Other" doesn't imply it's somehow less of a gender than male or female, or intentionally create a lesser class than "gender."  It says, "this is just as much of a gender but doesn't happen to be on our list."

I'm all for the idea that there can be a mismatch between biological sex and how people feel/act, but at the same time, I don't think people should demand, say, that paperwork list their very specific gender identity descriptor for the sake of affirming them.  It's one thing to recognize that biological sex and "gender" (however defined) can vary and that's not an issue.  It's another to assert that someone's specific gender identity must be specifically recognized and positively affirmed at every opportunity.  Sometimes recognition is just descriptive and neutral, and detail is unnecessary if it's not useful for information-gathering purposes.  In those cases, failing to recognize/list someone's specific gender identity isn't a slight.

[they don't love you like i love you]

I think this is insanely f[inks]ing stupid and I still wouldn't vote Republican if I lived in Oregon. So there.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Rome

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Doesn't "gender" refer to the norms associated with sex? So there could literally be a million genders. The question would be as to whether there ought to be more than two.

[Democratic Hawk]

Often wondered what the 'Q' was in LGBTQ. I guess 'Queer' ain't necessarily a derogatory term after all

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Doesn't "gender" refer to the norms associated with sex? So there could literally be a million genders. The question would be as to whether there ought to be more than two.

And the obvious answer is no.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Often wondered what the 'Q' was in LGBTQ. I guess 'Queer' ain't necessarily a derogatory term after all

It's controversial.  Some people are all too happy to run around labeling themselves "queer" (it's very important that you don't put an article in front of it or their 'taking it back' charade crumbles quickly).

I'm gay.  Not queer.

Part of being able to take back a word is not having to suffer from it being used against you in a derogatory way.  I grew up being called a "queer".  I imagine the 19 year olds on elite college campuses probably didn't.

[publicunofficial]

"If it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket..."

[Ban my account ffs!]

"If it neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket..."

Except when you're deep in the closet hoping nobody will know you're gay because you're terrified of what they will think.  Then every word is carefully considered.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

[Figueira]

Why

Because Transgenderism and gender dysphoria are real things, and people shouldn't be forced to choose between male and female on any govt. Document that asks for their gender.

I'm all for being inclusive, but chuck in an "Other" option, or this list is going to get mighty long.

Why do we need a "list" of all the genders? Can't we just let everyone write in what they say their gender is, and leave it at that?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Why

Because Transgenderism and gender dysphoria are real things, and people shouldn't be forced to choose between male and female on any govt. Document that asks for their gender.

I'm all for being inclusive, but chuck in an "Other" option, or this list is going to get mighty long.

Why do we need a "list" of all the genders? Can't we just let everyone write in what they say their gender is, and leave it at that?

rather: why do we need a gender field at all?

[Alcon]

rather: why do we need a gender field at all?

You can't think of situations where a reasonable person would find it useful to refer to a category set descriptor that applies to like 99.5%+ of the population, and has near-perfect correlates to a range of physical features, and significant correlates to a huge range of secondary features?

Like, idk, if you're describing what someone looks like, and removed all things that are constructs, you'd be skipping a lot of helpful descriptors.  "Black guy" is a little better than "darker-complected, flat-chested human with above-average upper-body musculature."

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

rather: why do we need a gender field at all?

You can't think of situations where a reasonable person would find it useful to refer to a category set descriptor that applies to like 99.5%+ of the population, and has near-perfect correlates to a range of physical features, and significant correlates to a huge range of secondary features?

Like, idk, if you're describing what someone looks like, and removed all things that are constructs, you'd be skipping a lot of helpful descriptors.  "Black guy" is a little better than "darker-complected, flat-chested human with above-average upper-body musculature."

passports have photographs in them

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

rather: why do we need a gender field at all?

You can't think of situations where a reasonable person would find it useful to refer to a category set descriptor that applies to like 99.5%+ of the population, and has near-perfect correlates to a range of physical features, and significant correlates to a huge range of secondary features?

Like, idk, if you're describing what someone looks like, and removed all things that are constructs, you'd be skipping a lot of helpful descriptors.  "Black guy" is a little better than "darker-complected, flat-chested human with above-average upper-body musculature."

passports have photographs in them

Yes, but according to the transgender lobby, we're not supposed to "assume" gender from photographs or looking at someone's physical features.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

rather: why do we need a gender field at all?

You can't think of situations where a reasonable person would find it useful to refer to a category set descriptor that applies to like 99.5%+ of the population, and has near-perfect correlates to a range of physical features, and significant correlates to a huge range of secondary features?

Like, idk, if you're describing what someone looks like, and removed all things that are constructs, you'd be skipping a lot of helpful descriptors.  "Black guy" is a little better than "darker-complected, flat-chested human with above-average upper-body musculature."

passports have photographs in them

Yes, but according to the transgender lobby, we're not supposed to "assume" gender from photographs or looking at someone's physical features.

your point?