I was reading a friend's facebook group profile and saw this discussion about not having the sex listed on the birth certificate.
Here is one particular post that got me:
"There is an argument that sex and gender shouldn't be separated into physical and psychological as that is another modern day Cartesian dualism (it's not universally accepted even amongst progressives, but one that I am inclined to support). I'm going to park that one for now though and address the physical as if they are separate.
It's assumption of sex that goes on the birth certificate, not just assumption of gender identity but assumption of the physical components of sex based on the one visible attribute of genitalia. This means babies who are intersex or have differences in sexual development whose genitalia don't appear unusual will be assigned the wrong sex.
We don't routinely check what reproductive organs a baby has on the inside, which can be different to what is assumed. We also don't routinely run DNA tests to check each baby's chromosomes, which again can be different to what's assumed based on genitalia. Also, even if we knew a baby had XY chromosomes, they could 'appear female' if they have no SRY gene on the Y or have androgen insensitivity syndrome, which similarly changes the physical appearance. We also don't have any insight into what will happen to each baby physically when they reach puberty - their future sex hormonal levels are not yet known - plus hormones a baby is subjected to in the womb can cause changes to their genitals. These are just some examples of differences in sexual development that would not be evident at birth. So, even before considering trans people whose gender identity does not match what was assumed based on genitalia at birth, we are not seeing the full biological picture by assigning sex based on what a baby has between their legs.
As for differing medical needs, it should be clear from the above that a wrong assumption about someone sex could indeed lead to a misunderstanding of their physical needs and abilities and, if anything, should be a reason not to assume it for the birth certificate. Plus we wouldn't be refused treatment for sex-based conditions without it being on a birth certificate any more than someone is refused treatment for heart disease when family history is not on the birth certificate. We have medical records for this.
Estimates on the prevalence of people who are intersex or have DSD vary, precisely because it is not always obvious, but a widely touted stat is that it is about as common as having red hair. Estimates for trans people also vary, although I should say there is of course no threshold to cross to become 'important'. I merely raise it to note how strange it would be to put babies into a dark/light hair dichotomy or bring back the forcing of children to write with the right hand when some are left-handed. Why do that when we don't have to?"
I mean it sounds comprehensive but I still kick back inside and think but sex is sex! It's just there - when you dig up skeletons and in our DNA ... and everything! I appreciate there are medical backgrounds that are complicated for people regarding their reproductive capacity... but there is still the science!
Am I wrong? Is there anything that can be said here?