Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 WarOne wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
By the X and Y chromosomes, except in cases where they do not conform to the usual standards.

But more to the point, people are assessing gender through gender identity or in short, what a person feels they are.

X and Y chromosomes genetically tell us who is male and female in our species, but it doesn't tell us psychologically and chemically who we are; that comes from a long process of discovery and self awareness.

So yes, you can be defined as man or woman genetically, but the identity is a whole 'nother subject.

So what happens if someone self identifies psychologically as Napoleon, there could even be a chemical reason for it, should we treat them as Napoleon and get the British to exile them to Alba?

 WarOne wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
By the X and Y chromosomes, except in cases where they do not conform to the usual standards.

But more to the point, people are assessing gender through gender identity or in short, what a person feels they are.

X and Y chromosomes genetically tell us who is male and female in our species, but it doesn't tell us psychologically and chemically who we are; that comes from a long process of discovery and self awareness.

So yes, you can be defined as man or woman genetically, but the identity is a whole 'nother subject.

X and Y do not tell us who is genetically male and female as not everyone is XX or XY. You can have XXX, XXY, XYY, or more. You can also have men with who are XX (see XX male syndrome) and women who are XY (see XY gonadal dysgenesis).

Realy there is not a clear black and white "This is Male. This is Female" in medicine. Most of us fit in to one of two extremes, but a large number fall somewhere in the middle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:

So what happens if someone self identifies psychologically as Napoleon, there could even be a chemical reason for it, should we treat them as Napoleon and get the British to exile them to Alba?

Not realy the same thing. You can definitely prove that the said person is not and never has been, by the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, Mediator of the Helvetic Confederation.

You cannot prove someones genetic, psycological and physical gender identity very easely.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 WarOne wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
By the X and Y chromosomes, except in cases where they do not conform to the usual standards.

But more to the point, people are assessing gender through gender identity or in short, what a person feels they are.

X and Y chromosomes genetically tell us who is male and female in our species, but it doesn't tell us psychologically and chemically who we are; that comes from a long process of discovery and self awareness.

So yes, you can be defined as man or woman genetically, but the identity is a whole 'nother subject.

X and Y do not tell us who is genetically male and female as not everyone is XX or XY. You can have XXX, XXY, XYY, or more. You can also have men with who are XX (see XX male syndrome) and women who are XY (see XY gonadal dysgenesis).

Realy there is not a clear black and white "This is Male. This is Female" in medicine. Most of us fit in to one of two extremes, but a large number fall somewhere in the middle.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:

So what happens if someone self identifies psychologically as Napoleon, there could even be a chemical reason for it, should we treat them as Napoleon and get the British to exile them to Alba?

Not realy the same thing. You can definitely prove that the said person is not and never has been, by the Grace of God and the Constitutions of the Republic, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, Mediator of the Helvetic Confederation.

You cannot prove someones genetic, psycological and physical gender identity very easely.

Yes, that was my hidden point.

Just having a Y chromosome doesn't always make you physically male.

Gender identity is of course largely a social construct.

Women should be arrested if they show their breasts in public because the USA has a puritan element in its culture and has sexualised breasts. Men have mammary glands too, but these are not sexualised.

Just the need alone that we MUST specify a gender for a driving license is silly enough.

How does that effect the ability to drive?

Does it help with ID of the person when they look like a female or confuse it?

It has a picture for goodness sake.

Question the system being enforced.

I figure the birth certificate would the more exciting document to change: but you were born that way then hence a "birth certificate".

I figure all other documents that insist on gender are fair game because if a citizen is uniquely identified it really does not matter what shape or colour they are.

A DL has all that crap because there is no national ID card, so your drivers license is basically your only standardized means of ID for all purposes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes, that was my hidden point.

If thats to me, don't worry, I got that. If it was to warone, ignore me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Women should be arrested if they show their breasts in public because the USA has a puritan element in its culture and has sexualised breasts. Men have mammary glands too, but these are not sexualised.

Ye, I think that will remain the case. I don't agree with the law and think it is silly, but this is not likely to change, and there are much more important things to worry about in the world.

 d-usa wrote:
A DL has all that crap because there is no national ID card, so your drivers license is basically your only standardized means of ID for all purposes.

>_> Passports now have the option of a fanciful nationalized ID card I've got both the book and the card

Though there was some issue in a South American country where they were looking for a man that escape prison. Turns out while on the run he got a sex change and had been living as a woman. So the gender information on his license would have been pointless.

 d-usa wrote:
A DL has all that crap because there is no national ID card, so your drivers license is basically your only standardized means of ID for all purposes.

So I stand by my prior statement that if it says "male" and the person looks female and is missing the more obvious parts... the card is helpful and accurate for identification?

Seems to be exceeding the scope of the document they are making even bearing in mind the extended use as universal identification.

Whom is it to help other than bouncers and bartenders?

Bah, I have tried to treat people as a "person" with the whole mixed up things that make them what they are.
The whole Star Trek IDIC viewpoint is more than a fantasy.

Life is not neat and compartmentalized, I just see all this boiling down to a card with our special ID coded with our DNA and a skin scraping taken every time someone wants to confirm who we are. This need for certainty is pointing us to the big brother state.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes, that was my hidden point.

If thats to me, don't worry, I got that. If it was to warone, ignore me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Women should be arrested if they show their breasts in public because the USA has a puritan element in its culture and has sexualised breasts. Men have mammary glands too, but these are not sexualised.

Ye, I think that will remain the case. I don't agree with the law and think it is silly, but this is not likely to change, and there are much more important things to worry about in the world.

Yes, and indeed the USA is not far away from most western countries in this respect. I think a bare-breasted woman would be arrested if walking around a town in Britain, though breast-feeding is not uncommon.

In Saudi Arabia they might arrest a woman for wearing a short sleeve shirt.

Well, if you want to get into the technicalities of Picture IDs, the only real tool to identify somebody is the picture.

So it doesn't matter of the ID says male/female, since the information is not what matches the ID to the person. The picture is what connects the information on the ID to the person carrying it. All the data on it (address, gender, licensing) is not there to identify me and is meaningless without the picture.

So as long as the picture looks like the woman carrying it, she is identified as the owner of all the information contained in it including her status as male in the eyes of the state.

Why am I not surprised reading how the BMV handled this
My only experience with them to date has been getting my permit. As a non-citizen I had to prove that I was eligible for a permit by providing documents from either State or Federal bodies. Knowing the run around we'd had with the SSA we over prepared, had more documents than we needed and brought in the list of what was acceptable. When I got called up to the desk I started handing over my documents to prove my identity and that I was allowed in the country. First I pulled out a letter from Homeland Security thinking its Federal and it says I'm here legally so it should help speed things along;

Desk Worker - "We can't accept that"
Me - "I thought that your list said that you accepted letters from Federal bodies" (hands over list)
Desk Worker calls for a supervisor
Supervisor - "I'm sorry but we don't accept anything from Homeland Security"
Me - "Aren't they a Federal body? I thought that the list you provide said that you accept letters from Federal bodies?"
Supervisor reads the list - "Yes we do accept forms from Federal bodies" (Supervisor points to the part on the list confirming that)
Me - "So is Homeland Security a Federal body?"
Supervisor now looking at me as if I'm stupid - "Of course it is"
Me - "Then can I use this letter as proof of ID because it comes from a Federal body?"
Supervisor - "No, we don't accept letters from Homeland Security"
Me - "I thought you said that you took letters from Federal bodies, and that Homeland Security was a federal body"
Supervisor - "We don't accept letters from Homeland Security"

At this point I just gave up and handed her the other paperwork we had to I could get on with it

Slightly related:

We had a transgender? patient on our floor last night. The chart and notes referred to the patient as male, but the report was that the patient is transitioning to female. Some of the staff were reading the notes to see how other staff addressed the issue in regards to "he or she".

I finally suggested to the nurse that it would probably a lot quicker to just go into the room, talk to the patient, and ask "how do you prefer to be addressed, he or she". The patient is probably used to people being a bit confused and that way you honor his wishes and the patient knows you are making an efford to be respectful.

 d-usa wrote:
I finally suggested to the nurse that it would probably a lot quicker to just go into the room, talk to the patient, and ask "how do you prefer to be addressed, he or she". The patient is probably used to people being a bit confused and that way you honor his wishes and the patient knows you are making an efford to be respectful.

That's probably the best way to deal with it as it reduces the chances of offending the patient, and it also stops staff having to tip-toe around the issue. In that instance to you update the patient's chart saying what their preference is?

I would. It would be easy to just add an information note stating "patient identifies as female" to help people be aware.

And a separate event to muddy up some of the "born a man, always a man" argument:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/health/child-sex-surgery-suit/index.html?c=mobile-homepage-t

 d-usa wrote:
I would. It would be easy to just add an information note stating "patient identifies as female" to help people be aware.

And a separate event to muddy up some of the "born a man, always a man" argument:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/health/child-sex-surgery-suit/index.html?c=mobile-homepage-t

That's a fething shame :-\ Poor kid,

This story is just as much of a shameful tale

 d-usa wrote:
I would. It would be easy to just add an information note stating "patient identifies as female" to help people be aware.

And a separate event to muddy up some of the "born a man, always a man" argument:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/15/health/child-sex-surgery-suit/index.html?c=mobile-homepage-t

Good on you, that helps assure the patient that their needs are being taken care of and that people respect their wishes

That link is just mind boggling. I think that it could get nasty and I really want to hear the justification for the gender reassignment if there was no legitimate medical reason.
In my opinion the surgery should not have been performed, and instead it should have been left to the child to make a decision concerning gender when the child came of age.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes, and indeed the USA is not far away from most western countries in this respect. I think a bare-breasted woman would be arrested if walking around a town in Britain, though breast-feeding is not uncommon.

In Saudi Arabia they might arrest a woman for wearing a short sleeve shirt.

Ye, its all over the world. The UK would be much the same. Although, as I said, I don't think men should not be wondering around shopping topless. There is a time and a place. Don't ware shorts and a t-shirt to work, don't ware a suit to the beach. It is more a hope for gender blindness rather than something I would go out and campain for (and its not about seeing more tittys, as most would probably be... not worth looking at as it were. On the same level as me and my pasty white gut).

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Born a man, you are a man. Period. Slapping some boobs on won't change that.

Congratulations, you win the "most ignorant and offensive comment of the day" award. Possibly for the entire week even.

No you are ignorant and offensive to me.

This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.

It's hardly political correctness.
It's not being a dick.
If you find it odd that's okay, I don't particularly understand it but it's not gong to hurt me if someone wants to have their gender reassigned.

 SickSix wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Born a man, you are a man. Period. Slapping some boobs on won't change that.

Congratulations, you win the "most ignorant and offensive comment of the day" award. Possibly for the entire week even.

No you are ignorant and offensive to me.

This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.

I don't see kowtowing in this article. We have the DMV denying Miss Jones the change in gender on her driver's license. Since her driver's license, as has been stated in this thread, is one of the only valid forms of ID we have here in the states, Miss Jones is legally recognized as a man due to her government issued State ID. So since men may walk around topless in public, such a thing is therefore technically legal in the state of TN because her government issue State ID, Miss Jones had every legal backing to walk around shirtless. Fun Fact, your signature is only your legal signature when it matches the signature on your driver's license/government issued ID. So, if your name is George and you sign your name with a little smiley face in the G, then that is part of your legal signature (I actually know a guy that did that with his name thus my example). So it would be fairly safe for Miss Jones to assume that if her legal signature was on her Driver's License, then her legal gender could be on the Driver's License.

This begs the question of what documentation was Miss Jones missing. According to Transequality.org, she simply needed to provide the following: Applicant needs medical documentation stating that SRS has been completed and if name change is desired an amended birth certificate or a court order is needed. Which she would have already had since to change your gender with the Social Security Administration you need medical records showing the completion of your surgery.

 SickSix wrote:
This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.

And this is the root of how gay-bashing happens.

 SickSix wrote:

This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.

Freak?

That's homophobia, buddy. You're about 1 post away from my ignore list.


I'll give you a chance to take it back, though.

Transgender people are not, by default, "freaks". Nor are lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and other non-heteronormative people such as interracial couples, straight couples that subvert gender norms by have a working mom and stay at home dad, etc.

People who are different from you are not inherently bad just for being different. Meh. I don't really want to start posting in off topic again, but this is seriously offensive.

Per the topless women.

There are plenty of locales around the country where a woman being topless in public is not a crime. None of the laws are state wide as far as I know, but are more like here in Oregon.

http://gotopless.org/topless-laws

Lane county recognizes a woman may be topless as long as she is on county property of a water way.

Eugene and Portland Oregon, the entire township it is acceptable to walk about topless.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes, that was my hidden point.

If thats to me, don't worry, I got that. If it was to warone, ignore me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Women should be arrested if they show their breasts in public because the USA has a puritan element in its culture and has sexualised breasts. Men have mammary glands too, but these are not sexualised.

Ye, I think that will remain the case. I don't agree with the law and think it is silly, but this is not likely to change, and there are much more important things to worry about in the world.

Actually in Texas it is otherwise legal to do that here.

SickSix wrote:This kowtowing to every single freak out there and then guilting the majority with political correctness bull crap is going to destroy western civilization.

if this article were about a black man, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a n***** "? If it were about a homosexual, would you have used the phrase "kowtowing to a f***** "?

Please refrain from using slurs and derogatory, judgement-laded terms when describing transgendered people.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Why am I not surprised reading how the BMV handled this
My only experience with them to date has been getting my permit. As a non-citizen I had to prove that I was eligible for a permit by providing documents from either State or Federal bodies. Knowing the run around we'd had with the SSA we over prepared, had more documents than we needed and brought in the list of what was acceptable. When I got called up to the desk I started handing over my documents to prove my identity and that I was allowed in the country. First I pulled out a letter from Homeland Security thinking its Federal and it says I'm here legally so it should help speed things along;

Desk Worker - "We can't accept that"
Me - "I thought that your list said that you accepted letters from Federal bodies" (hands over list)
Desk Worker calls for a supervisor
Supervisor - "I'm sorry but we don't accept anything from Homeland Security"
Me - "Aren't they a Federal body? I thought that the list you provide said that you accept letters from Federal bodies?"
Supervisor reads the list - "Yes we do accept forms from Federal bodies" (Supervisor points to the part on the list confirming that)
Me - "So is Homeland Security a Federal body?"
Supervisor now looking at me as if I'm stupid - "Of course it is"
Me - "Then can I use this letter as proof of ID because it comes from a Federal body?"
Supervisor - "No, we don't accept letters from Homeland Security"
Me - "I thought you said that you took letters from Federal bodies, and that Homeland Security was a federal body"
Supervisor - "We don't accept letters from Homeland Security"

At this point I just gave up and handed her the other paperwork we had to I could get on with it

I think before you are permitted to vote you should be required to have to deal with the local tax office or the DMV in the last 6 months, just as a refresher.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Slightly related:

We had a transgender? patient on our floor last night. The chart and notes referred to the patient as male, but the report was that the patient is transitioning to female. Some of the staff were reading the notes to see how other staff addressed the issue in regards to "he or she".

I finally suggested to the nurse that it would probably a lot quicker to just go into the room, talk to the patient, and ask "how do you prefer to be addressed, he or she". The patient is probably used to people being a bit confused and that way you honor his wishes and the patient knows you are making an efford to be respectful.

No no, the standard Frazzled approach is to just address everyone as "hey dickbag."

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually in Texas it is otherwise legal to do that here.

Keep in mind Fraz, the average Texan would probably just ask "do you call yourself a man or woman?" and just use the answer to that instead, even while the government tries to be an arsehole about it. Our state is a bit contradictory at times-- Texans are generally nice people, but at the same time, our government is known for its vicious politicking.

I hate the DMV, they are anal to a degree, I go over a curb, I fail, god do you know how many times i see experianced drivers do that?

 Frazzled wrote:
I think before you are permitted to vote you should be required to have to deal with the local tax office or the DMV in the last 6 months, just as a refresher.

Lucky me then. In the past six months I've had the DMV, filed our taxes (first time ever having to do that) and had to deal with Homeland Security Seems that no matter where you live dealing with bureaucrats has the same charm.....

 Frazzled wrote:
No no, the standard Frazzled approach is to just address everyone as "hey dickbag."