What? No 'This week in trans' thread about Passport X?

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no rational reason to consider these cases "disorders" any more than you would call blue eyes or freckles "disorders."

Freckles are a disorder, just a minor one. They mess with your skin's adaption to sun exposure.

If that's the case, then being a white person is a disorder!

No. Under normal conditions a white person doesn't burn so long as the sun exposure only changes slowly. Whiteness evolved in the first place to cope with a lack of enough sunshine for vitamin D synthesis.

Freckles are a disorder, though--the compensation mechanism doesn't work right. The skin doesn't protect itself properly against seasonal sun. There's no upside.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't pretend gender is sex.

I don't pretend gender is binary, and I don't pretend sex is either. That's where we differ.

The US State department is pretending gender and sex are interchangeable.

I have never pretended 'gender' is binary. I don't know how many times I can say gender can be anything, because a gender identity is a thought in your head.

Sex is binary in mammals and it cannot change after birth. That isn't a pretense--it's fact.

X = presentation != biology. It would be very useful for the TSA scanners that don't understand anatomical differences.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't pretend gender is sex.

I don't pretend gender is binary, and I don't pretend sex is either. That's where we differ.

The US State department is pretending gender and sex are interchangeable.

I have never pretended 'gender' is binary. I don't know how many times I can say gender can be anything, because a gender identity is a thought in your head.

Sex is binary in mammals and it cannot change after birth. That isn't a pretense--it's fact.

X = presentation != biology. It would be very useful for the TSA scanners that don't understand anatomical differences.

Are you are saying passports should have a 'gender presentation' field and not a sex field? That may well be, but it doesn't mean you should pretend a sex field is a gender presentation field.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A passport has a sex field because, presumably, it is (or was) one of the markers that helped identify people (along with their name and their picture and date of birth). It may be useful to add a 'gender' field to a passport, in cases where somebody's gender identity may lead to significant deviations in clothed appearance from what is expected given their sex.

I have not been overseas in many years, but I understand some body scanners are sexed, in that they are programmed to detect 'anomalies' based on the sex of the person being scanned. Here, the gender identity of the person seems to me completely irrelevant, and it is their sex that matters.

In the old days it was a reliable characteristic and thus got included on passports. Now it's not so reliable and really should be removed but that would cause problems with international standards. Hence the X option.

There are issues with the scanners but the X option won't help there--the people at the scanner never see your ID.

Originally the scanners returned an actual image--very low-grade nudity, but it upset some people that they could be seen that way. Hence the half-ass government solution--AI looking for anomalies. They did it the stupid way of the operator indicating gender rather than having the AI match against both male and female templates (and with separate templates for top and bottom.) Hence problems with trans people being repeatedly flagged and asshole operators who won't simply redo the scan with the other button pushed.

Personally, I prefer the old way. The images are little better than what you see on the Voyager plaques, I can't see why anyone would care. I never got patted down under the old system. The AI has a problem with me actually using my shirt pocket--it causes a bit of sag that frequently gets flagged. If they're determined not to show all the images at least show the operator the relevant part of the image when it flags something, let them apply whatever little bit of common sense they might have before patting people down.

 

[laughing dog]

My goodness. If using unapproved terminology makes a passport field "incoherent", the apocalypse must be on us.

Where do you get the idea that the problem is "unapproved terminology"?

What makes it incoherent is that the field is called 'sex', but it now may mean either sex or gender identity and there is no way to know which from looking at it.

What makes you think it uses gender identity?

Because the press release in the OP uses only the term 'gender' and does not use the term 'sex' a single time.

No, there's nothing wrong with the press release per se. The problem is the policy that the press release details.

Let's review. The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace. What gave you the impression there is a problem?

I consider incoherent use of language on official documents, for any reason but in this case motivated by pressure from trans ideologists, a problem. I'm not speaking about other people's subjective impressions of what they consider to be a problem. If you think it's not a problem, I believe you think that.

Ah, so the problem only is in your mind.

No. The problem is the State Department policy. That some people do not subjectively assess it to be a problem is a sign of their conformity to trans ideology, or their ignorance of it.

Moreover, the problem in your mind is based on your issues with parsing language and your belief on what prompted the State Department.

By 'my issues parsing language' you mean 'my disapproval of incoherent language, servicing ideological ends, on official documents.

In simple terms, the problem is with you.

No. The problem is the State Department policy.

To repeat - The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, you have offered no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace.
You resort to hyperbolic rhetoric and conformity to small-minded bigotry via your accusations of "conformity to trans ideology" instead of dispassionate discussion.

You are entitled to air your misbegotten complaints and embarrass yourself.

 

[Metaphor]

My goodness. If using unapproved terminology makes a passport field "incoherent", the apocalypse must be on us.

Where do you get the idea that the problem is "unapproved terminology"?

What makes it incoherent is that the field is called 'sex', but it now may mean either sex or gender identity and there is no way to know which from looking at it.

What makes you think it uses gender identity?

Because the press release in the OP uses only the term 'gender' and does not use the term 'sex' a single time.

No, there's nothing wrong with the press release per se. The problem is the policy that the press release details.

Let's review. The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace. What gave you the impression there is a problem?

I consider incoherent use of language on official documents, for any reason but in this case motivated by pressure from trans ideologists, a problem. I'm not speaking about other people's subjective impressions of what they consider to be a problem. If you think it's not a problem, I believe you think that.

Ah, so the problem only is in your mind.

No. The problem is the State Department policy. That some people do not subjectively assess it to be a problem is a sign of their conformity to trans ideology, or their ignorance of it.

Moreover, the problem in your mind is based on your issues with parsing language and your belief on what prompted the State Department.

By 'my issues parsing language' you mean 'my disapproval of incoherent language, servicing ideological ends, on official documents.

In simple terms, the problem is with you.

No. The problem is the State Department policy.

To repeat - The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, you have offered no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace.

If I had made any claim that the State Department or the President or the Congress had a problem with the policy, I'd offer evidence of that. But since I never made that claim, I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

You resort to hyperbolic rhetoric

Hyperbolic rhetoric?

and conformity to small-minded bigotry via your accusations of "conformity to trans ideology" instead of dispassionate discussion.

It is indeed conformity to trans ideology that would result in a policy where gender identity replaces sex, in a field marked 'sex', for trans and 'gender non-conforming' people.

I'd ask for evidence of my 'small minded bigotry' but I know none will be forthcoming.

You are entitled to air your misbegotten complaints and embarrass yourself.

I'm glad to know I have your blessing.

 

[laughing dog]

My goodness. If using unapproved terminology makes a passport field "incoherent", the apocalypse must be on us.

Where do you get the idea that the problem is "unapproved terminology"?

What makes it incoherent is that the field is called 'sex', but it now may mean either sex or gender identity and there is no way to know which from looking at it.

What makes you think it uses gender identity?

Because the press release in the OP uses only the term 'gender' and does not use the term 'sex' a single time.

No, there's nothing wrong with the press release per se. The problem is the policy that the press release details.

Let's review. The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace. What gave you the impression there is a problem?

I consider incoherent use of language on official documents, for any reason but in this case motivated by pressure from trans ideologists, a problem. I'm not speaking about other people's subjective impressions of what they consider to be a problem. If you think it's not a problem, I believe you think that.

Ah, so the problem only is in your mind.

No. The problem is the State Department policy. That some people do not subjectively assess it to be a problem is a sign of their conformity to trans ideology, or their ignorance of it.

Moreover, the problem in your mind is based on your issues with parsing language and your belief on what prompted the State Department.

By 'my issues parsing language' you mean 'my disapproval of incoherent language, servicing ideological ends, on official documents.

In simple terms, the problem is with you.

No. The problem is the State Department policy.

To repeat - The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, you have offered no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace.

If I had made any claim that the State Department or the President or the Congress had a problem with the policy, I'd offer evidence of that. But since I never made that claim, I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

My obvious point is that no one but you thinks there is a problem. Duh.

You resort to hyperbolic rhetoric

Hyperbolic rhetoric?

Which word don't you understand?

and conformity to small-minded bigotry via your accusations of "conformity to trans ideology" instead of dispassionate discussion.

It is indeed conformity to trans ideology that would result in a policy where gender identity replaces sex, in a field marked 'sex', for trans and 'gender non-conforming' people.

I'd ask for evidence of my 'small minded bigotry' but I know none will be forthcoming.

Read your posts.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, I find it interesting that anyone on the right thinks this is about conformity except that minimal conformation that allows the maximum amount of non-conformity within the population.

They are trying to reverse a script here, failing as they do to recognize that not conforming around the idea that all people ought be free to express themselves in ways that you allow any people to do so, given similar contexts of behavior, is demanding conformity to your own form of expression, puts greater chains on humanity than just accepting others as you see them and treating any exposure of bad faith as an immediate indicator that someone needs to be removed from normal society until they get their shit together.

 

[Elixir]

People on the right have a continuous problem identifying the cause of their bunched-up panties. If they are unable to employ their usual simplistic dualism in a given situation, it has to be someone else’s fault.

 

[TomC]

People on the right have a continuous problem identifying the cause of their bunched-up panties. If they are unable to employ their usual simplistic dualism in a given situation, it has to be someone else’s fault.

But it isn't just "people on the right". "People on the left" commonly do the same thing.

It's extremists, which exist on both ends of the socio-political spectrum. Those of us in the center get obnoxed by all the extremists, regardless of what they're extreme about.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

My goodness. If using unapproved terminology makes a passport field "incoherent", the apocalypse must be on us.

Where do you get the idea that the problem is "unapproved terminology"?

What makes it incoherent is that the field is called 'sex', but it now may mean either sex or gender identity and there is no way to know which from looking at it.

What makes you think it uses gender identity?

Because the press release in the OP uses only the term 'gender' and does not use the term 'sex' a single time.

No, there's nothing wrong with the press release per se. The problem is the policy that the press release details.

Let's review. The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace. What gave you the impression there is a problem?

I consider incoherent use of language on official documents, for any reason but in this case motivated by pressure from trans ideologists, a problem. I'm not speaking about other people's subjective impressions of what they consider to be a problem. If you think it's not a problem, I believe you think that.

Ah, so the problem only is in your mind.

No. The problem is the State Department policy. That some people do not subjectively assess it to be a problem is a sign of their conformity to trans ideology, or their ignorance of it.

Moreover, the problem in your mind is based on your issues with parsing language and your belief on what prompted the State Department.

By 'my issues parsing language' you mean 'my disapproval of incoherent language, servicing ideological ends, on official documents.

In simple terms, the problem is with you.

No. The problem is the State Department policy.

To repeat - The State Department has no problem with its policy. Apparently, neither our President nor our Congress has a problem with that policy. To date, you have offered no evidence that other countries have a publicly complained nor has the US populace.

If I had made any claim that the State Department or the President or the Congress had a problem with the policy, I'd offer evidence of that. But since I never made that claim, I have no idea why you keep bringing it up.

My obvious point is that no one but you thinks there is a problem. Duh.

How special for you to have your finger on the pulse of every person on the planet.

You resort to hyperbolic rhetoric

Hyperbolic rhetoric?

Which word don't you understand?

Your accusation.

and conformity to small-minded bigotry via your accusations of "conformity to trans ideology" instead of dispassionate discussion.

It is indeed conformity to trans ideology that would result in a policy where gender identity replaces sex, in a field marked 'sex', for trans and 'gender non-conforming' people.

I'd ask for evidence of my 'small minded bigotry' but I know none will be forthcoming.

Read your posts.

As I said: none will be forthcoming.

 

[Emily Lake]

Dana Zzyym's sex is neither male nor female.

Nah, Dana is either male or female. It just might not be unambiguous from primary or secondary sex characteristics. All mammals are either male or female at the end of the day. There is not third sex. And while it's possible for a person of either sex to be sterile, their bodies are still formed around the production of one gamete or the other.

An intersex person may have ambiguous genitals, and I don't think parents or doctors should make any surgical decisions unless there is direct risk to the infant. But at the end of the day, they're still male or female.

On this topic, however, I don't actually care about passports having an "X". I think it's unnecessary but it doesn't confer any special privileges or treatments, it doesn't infringe on anyone's existing rights or protections. It's going to make some special person feel good, and the worst it's going to do is confuse some customs officer.

 

[Emily Lake]

It only looks incoherent to you because you refuse to acknowledge that some folks have the biological sex traits of both males and females, or have secondary sex characteristics of one sex while having the chromosome pattern of the other, or have a chromosome pattern that cannot be categorized as either male or female.

Zzyym's biological sex is both male and female; to call them either male or female is inaccurate.

Unless Zzyym produces BOTH functional eggs and functional sperm, they are either male or female, not both. They may very well have ambiguous or mixed sexual characteristics, but sex is still actually binary.

Also, nobody refuses to acknowledge that some people have DSDs. The question, however, is what do people with rare and deleterious medical conditions have to do with transgender ideology?

 

[Emily Lake]

"X" indicates intersex, which is sex but not M or F.

How is this even a question given all the information that has been hashed out here about how human beings are not always fully female or male in reproductive organs? When it's not clearly male or clearly female, it's called intersex. This is not always apparent at birth, which is not even a point in the sex organ process. It begins early after conception and continues for most of gestation and not much of significance until puberty. The process can be described as "ongoing," but birth is not a change point or "milestone" in that process.

There is no rational reason to consider these cases "disorders" any more than you would call blue eyes or freckles "disorders."

Whether the people who know their own sex to be intersex want that to be known is their business. When they do, there are now more places where they can indicate X. This is not a "gender identity" although that is of course related in not only personal experience but obviously in social dynamics throughout life.

As for why a passport would have gender identity, I have no idea, but if they do that, I would also be interested in their rationale for it. Trump administration aside, government agencies don't tend to make such changes flippantly. Right or wrong, they do get legal and scientific input, especially for shit they are aware is going to hit the fan given the large chunk of bigoted right wing morons we have in our population.

The military started adapting to this reality decades ago in a lot if not all of the many and varying DoD databases within the DoD and in agencies whose databases the DoD can access.

Floof, they're called disorders because they have deleterious effects. At a minimum, most people with DSDs are sterile, which is considered a disorder when it isn't voluntarily undertaken.

Generally, we considered deleterious conditions to be disorders.

 

[Emily Lake]

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Passports are intended to prove ones identity to other people, not to advertise to other people what one believes about oneself. Otherwise, my passport would list me as six inches taller and 30 pounds lighter, with red hair and no wrinkles. That's what I'd like to have other people think I am. Reality, however, is quite different... and my passport reflects attributes that an unbiased outsider can verify.

 

[Emily Lake]

If it included both, for example, my sex marker would be 'M' and my gender marker would be 'N/A'

Similar. My sex marker would be 'F' and my gender marker would be 'Atheist'.

 

[Emily Lake]

You have no gender??? And everyone's appearance changes over time.

I do not subscribe to the church of gender. I reject sex-based stereotypes, sex-based social and economic roles, and sex-based expectations of behavior. Those are the elements that go into "gender" and I think they're all made up hogwash. I don't believe in any of them, in exactly the same way that I don't believe in the existence of god(s).

I do, however, have a sex. That is an inarguable fact of my existence.

 

[Emily Lake]

You keep repeating this like a mantra.

It's true that reproduction in mammals requires a male and a female. That doesn't mean every mammal is either a male or a female.

I realize you have a lot invested in categorizing people into one of two sexes but the only way you can do it is to ignore reality.

Please present me with a mammal of a third sex. I will wait.

 

[ZiprHead]

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Passports are intended to prove ones identity to other people, not to advertise to other people what one believes about oneself. Otherwise, my passport would list me as six inches taller and 30 pounds lighter, with red hair and no wrinkles. That's what I'd like to have other people think I am. Reality, however, is quite different... and my passport reflects attributes that an unbiased outsider can verify.

No, the reality is that a woman who walks up to the desk and presents a passport that says she's a male is going to raise red flags needlessly.

 

[TomC]

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Passports are intended to prove ones identity to other people, not to advertise to other people what one believes about oneself. Otherwise, my passport would list me as six inches taller and 30 pounds lighter, with red hair and no wrinkles. That's what I'd like to have other people think I am. Reality, however, is quite different... and my passport reflects attributes that an unbiased outsider can verify.

No, the reality is that a woman who walks up to the desk and presents a passport that says she's a male is going to raise red flags needlessly.

If a 6' plus person, with broad shoulders and red hair, walked up to the desk presenting an ID document describing a 14y/o black female, is it needlessly "raising red flags"?

Or are the red flags an indication that some fraud might be going on and should be investigated?
Tom