
US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science - laurex
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
======
epicureanideal
I highly recommend that anyone who believes the content of that editorial
watch the video series
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask)
which can be found online. The short version is, the people pushing the
"biological gender is not science" narrative are themselves more driven by
ideology than science, not the other way around.

If they really want a special case for people whose genitalia are misformed,
that's a different argument than saying we shouldn't classify people based on
genetics at all. Also, if people understand that the gender on a birth
certificate is genetics based, then they can choose for themselves to discuss
with their potential sexual partner why the gender on their birth certificate
should be interpreted a particular way due to special factors in their case.

~~~
tomlock
But, the idea that the classification is binary is inherently flawed if, as
you state, there are special cases.

~~~
epicureanideal
So define it as non-binary but still based on genetics, if that's your
argument. Or just M, F, and O for Other if you want to keep things simple.

You could literally list their chromosome combinations to make it clear. XX,
XY, XXY, whatever.

~~~
dragonwriter
But XY without a copy of sex determining region Y is (typically, there may be
some other variation) female in phenotype, not a male (conversely, XX with
SRY, resulting from the same crossover in sex cell formation, is male
phenotype, not female.) Biological sex isn't binary, and it's also not as
simple as chromosome combinations.

~~~
epicureanideal
In which case perhaps the proposed legislation is actually pretty good about
how to identify sex... look at the genitalia, and only follow up with the
genetics if that's ambiguous. The proposed legislation looks better in light
of this, not worse. It proposes to identify by phenotype rather than genotype
(although ultimately by genotype of specific genes that result in different
genitalia), which is a practical way of categorizing people by the genes (most
of) society actually cares about in this case.

------
hello_marmalade
Unfortunately, it is important for medical personnel to know whether you are
biologically male or female, which is yes, very real, and also very much
grounded in science. There are serious implications to avoiding reality here.
People could be mistreated and misdiagnosed.

I'm all for trans acceptance, but the people pushing for this stuff need to
also learn to accept reality.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Unfortunately, it is important for medical personnel to know whether you are
> biologically male or female

It's important for them to know if I'm, say, sensitive to iodine (in fact, the
latter is probably far more likely to be fatal quickly if they don't know in
an emergency).

What that has to do with legal gender, I don't know, and in any case the
aspect of biological sex medical personnel are _least_ likely to need to know
is the one this proposal makes deciding as to the immutable categorization of
gender—the shape of my genitals at birth.

So, no, “its for your own (medical) good” is not a tenable defense of the
proposal.

------
blattimwind
An US Certificate of Birth will also typically list the person's "race". Guess
there's more than one thing there that could use some reform.

~~~
danellis
I suppose that would have to start by identifying why it's necessary to record
someone's "race" in the first place. Does it need to change, or can it just be
removed altogether?

~~~
pureliquidhw
For similar reasons why biologically accurate gender is important. Those with
African genetics are more susceptible to sickle cell for instance. Apparently
Asians are more susceptible to liver cancer. Women are more likely to develop
breast cancer, a FTM Trans patient doesn't get a male's health risk profile.

~~~
blattimwind
FWIW in most of the civilized world (sans Americas) you'll get laughed out of
the room for thinking humans are divided into races.

~~~
AnaniasAnanas
I don't think that this is true. Race-based division is popular both in Europe
and in say Japan for example.

~~~
blattimwind
Racism is in practice a somewhat different idea ("I don't like brown people /
I don't like people from Africa / I don't like muslims or what I think are
muslims") from race-segregation ("DOB 4.5.1971, race hispanic"), which is
something found in legislation (but is also a racist concept, obviously). You
are of course correct that racism is at least somewhat widespread in most
countries. The latter concept on the other hand is pretty much exclusive to
the US at this point.

------
gweinberg
Why should there be a legal definition of gender in the first place?

~~~
epicureanideal
Just some ideas...

1\. Identification purposes. It eliminates about 50% of the population if your
sex is specified on your identification. Hair color and eye color are also
usually shown on a drivers license. 2\. Categorization for sports competitions
for fairness. 3\. Categorization for restroom usage, locker rooms, etc., given
that people still do on average have feelings of modesty such that they don't
want to be seen undressed by the opposite sex. 4\. Sexual partners may want
some proof of how you were born. People could argue whether it's their right
or not to have this, but overall I would guess that 90%+ of our society does
still care about this, so the law could validly provide for this interest of
the majority of society. 5\. Laws and other treat men and women differently.
Who gets drafted, for example. Retirement ages in some countries are sex-
based.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Identification purposes. It eliminates about 50% of the population if your
> sex is specified on your identification

Only to the point extent you assume external presentation matches the gender
on the ID, which is _less_ likely if that ascribed gender isn't aligned to
gender identity. (But not guaranteed in any case, so not a reliable basis for
elimination.)

If gender on ID is based immutably on genitals at birth, it only helps
eliminate people for identification purposes if those people are conveniently
displaying accurate pictures of their birth genitals, which is an exceedingly
rare circumstance.

------
epicureanideal
There are more modern and much more accurate ways dealing with this, as
discussed in the video series
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjernevask)
I've mentioned elsewhere.

From the article:

Furthermore, biology is not as straightforward as the proposal suggests. By
some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have differences or disorders of
sex development, such as hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical
ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia cannot clearly be
classified as male or female. For most of the twentieth century, doctors would
often surgically alter an infant’s ambiguous genitals to match whichever sex
was easier, and expect the child to adapt. Frequently, they were wrong. A 2004
study tracked 14 genetically male children given female genitalia; 8 ended up
identifying as male, and the surgical intervention caused them great distress
(W. G. Reiner and J. P. Gearhart N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 333–341; 2004).

------
crimsonalucard
If a person identifies as a male, this is gender. His genitalia regardless of
identification indicates sex. Am I correct?

~~~
InitialLastName
> His genitalia regardless of identification indicates sex.

More specifically, his biology regardless of identification. This is a
surprisingly complicated gray area, though; there is a pretty wide space for
biological sex to be ambiguous in different ways. For example, it is possible
for hormonal differences to cause a person with XX chromosomes to develop male
features, a person with XY chromosomes to develop female features, or for a
person (especially an infant) to have ambiguous or hybrid features.

~~~
hello_marmalade
This is _exceedingly_ rare.

Intersex individuals, or individuals with genetic deformities or mutations are
not that common, and none could appropriately labelled as a "third sex".

~~~
InitialLastName
I'm not labeling any of them as a third sex, or denying that it's a rare
issue. I'm just saying that there's a big enough gray area that one might want
to consider it before driving policy. It's probably more common than you think
too. From TFA:

> By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have > differences or
> disorders of sex development, such as > hormonal conditions, genetic changes
> or anatomical > ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia >
> cannot clearly be classified as male or female.

