Why don't we introduce legal gender?

I've had the same thought myself, but I kind of think we're in so deep that a lot of people won't accept anything less than the legal fiction of their preferred sex with no reference to their real one, also since 2012 tumblr seems to be deciding real life policy I think the "gender identity" box would have to include a whole lot of other nonsense and made up identities.

It would be useful for passports to have both in terms of crimes etc. If a person went missing abroad, their DNA would show their sex but their outward appearance may look like a stereotypical gender. If it’s based on gender, it hampers forensics.

Other way round but a bit like a few years back when the police (Dorset I think?) put a call out to be careful as they were looking for a woman who had committed a crime and was on the run. What they should have said is a man who is dressed as a woman. Because if I saw a man dressed as a woman I would not think that was the person they were looking for.

I agree.

Pisses me off no end when people talk about changing their 'legal gender'
What the fuck does that even mean?
What is gender and how can you legally change it if it isn't legally defined?
To say it can be changed implies that everyone has one already. I don't.

Gender isn't sex. So even if they do come up with a definition of 'gender', what the fuck does that have to do with SEX segregated anything?
The only way gender would make sense in this way is if ALL women behaved and dressed in the same stereotypical way, which is nonsense.

A man can change his imaginary 'legal gender' but not his sex.

No one should be allowed to falsify the information on their birth certificate. This should remain a document of fact, not fiction.
Why should people be able to change their birth certificate just because of poor mental health?

I also think that GRC are bullshit. It's a certificate of lies, that should hold no weight whatsoever in relation to sex segregation.

I think there’s something in this idea. I’m increasingly of the view that being able to change legal sex is madness for well-rehearsed reasons. But gender id clearly really matters to some people. So is there a middle way, where the state recognises gender id for those for whom it is important, and in contexts where sex doesn’t matter (while allowing those of us who think gender is another prison to have nothing to do with the whole bloody idea)?

It's about clarity, we won't have evidence or real discussions about needs unless there is a recognised definition. I can see that there are needs though, ignoring that doesn't help anyone.

It is scientifically untrue that women are made from a man's rib. However, we have to recognise that for some people that is an important belief. We don't let them near the biology textbooks, we don't have to pretend it's true but we do let them have places of worship, for example.

Trans people would be able to advertise for roles within the trans community, as for people with a GRC. That's why it matters, the way we should be able to advertise posts as women only.

I have given examples where it is useful. If we are going to have TW compete with men, then they should be able to dress differently. It would be cruel to expect a male swimmer with breast implants to wear trunks.

Appearing cruel isn't going to help this move forward. It's possible to be compassionate without being self sacrificing (current meaning or "be kind").

btw it's actually dangerous for people to have gender ID listed on passports. The best they can expect to happen is be deported upon arrival from some places.

If it's not listed, they can have a chance to travel wherever and not be discriminated against - of course turning up to Egypt wearing a rainbow/pastel flag in fake boobs and a wig isn't going to get you further than a detention cell, but there's at least a choice to hide your gender ID. Once it's on a passport they cannot travel anywhere without it being the first thing a country sees of them.

Might as well put "Fursona" on passports. It's about as meaningful.

The way I see it is that the law should treat everyone equally and should not put people into categories unless there is good reason backed up by sound evidence

There is good reason to distinguish between the sexes as males have a very different crime pattern to women. There is a huge body of of evidence to back this up.

On practical terms it is also simple as biological sex is binary albeit with some rare intersex conditions, which are all definable bybscience.

I do not see what purpose it would serve for the state to distinguish between people who are registering different states of mind or how it would go about this.

I see where you're coming from, but unless gender is infinite - including people who want to be called "womin" or "wymin" and every alternate spelling of normal words, then it exclusionary to some gender or other. Plus you'd need to include pronouns.

We actually have a system that works perfectly now. We have two sexes and that's how people are categorised. Individuals of either sex can refer to themselves as anything they want, but they're categorised by sex. The number of people for who this is genuinely a problem (as in not in any way related to a fetish or sexual thrills) are so infinitesimally small, that if we stopped with identity nonsense, they could receive proper funding to help them navigate the world.

Although I think this is a good idea, I also agree that we need to bin off the idea that people's thoughts need to be validated. However, I don't see this as mutually exclusive.

I don't validate religious beliefs, but for people it's important to, they can jump through the hoops their religion dictates.

If we had tried to change the meaning of Christian to accommodate all other beliefs, we wouldn't have the peaceful multicultural society we have today. Instead the other religions get to have their places of worship, dress codes, holidays... and those of us without religion aren't bothered by it.

That's the model we need to aim for, life and let live in both directions. A trans person should no more expect to be validated than a Jehovah's Witness.

I think this kind of formalising of gender should be resisted on a very fundamental principle: that it’s okay, and perfectly normal, for men and women to dress and behave outside of artificial stereotypes, without needing a piece of paper to say they are allowed to. Any legal recognition of gender implies that we expect people to take on societally-accepted gender roles, unless they have been formally excused from them. What a massively retrograde step!

Yes I agree it is pretty meaningless at the moment but them we could start introducing a gendered category to things, like changing rooms and prisons. It would not replace sex as it is doing now.

Yeah, but at point does it stop? It's not a third category as a whole set of categories. With all the different genders, at some point there's going to be a split or people are going to be more demanding (I am gender neutral, I don't want to sharing with a x gender or y gender or z gender). It's not sustainable.

Excellent post, sums it up 👏

I think the purpose this idea would serve might be as a kind of public education service. I would expect it to ultimately fail, which would be ok, obviously, because innermost thoughts really don't need to be included on official paperwork. Because the concept of gender identity, by design, is slippery. One moment there are apparently over a hundred genders - how beautifully diverse! - the next moment there's 2 genders and Big Bertha is adamant "she" isn't a man and is allowed to compete on your team and watch you getting changed.

But would you accept that I was adopting a particular set of racial stereotypes and should therefore be able to identify as that race because those stereotypes were "important" to me? Surely not?

Things that are "important" to people can be wrong or harmful or erroneous to themselves and/or others, particularly if stamped into law. Legal categories exist for identification not for validation.

I think it's useful to work through it, because it's the necessary "let's back up and think about this again".

The whole original stated point of "legal recognition" was to falsify sex, and falsifying sex makes sense when that's the point. The whole claimed reason was not to casually "out" the undercover transsexual in day-to-day interactions with the state. That was the entirety of it.

But the moment you have "gender souls" then they're clearly a different thing from sex, so your original "falsify sex" plan isn't making sense any more.

You could conceivably run the two in parallel...

The old-school heavily-gatekept "falsify sex" scheme for people who are deemed to pass, be gender dysphoric etc.

And the "gender badge" scheme for everyone.

(Personally I think both are bad ideas, but they're at least better ideas than the mind-bogglingly illogical and nonsensical idea of replacing sex with "gender". A bad idea is better than an incoherent one).

@Boiledbeetle I think the concept that people should (need to be) validated is a big part of the problem.

People exist. They should be treated with basic dignity and respect.

But they should not need to be validated. They’re already valid. And having the world conform to whatever story they’re telling themselves is unnecessary.

If people had actual confidence they really were the ‘gender’ they claim, they wouldn’t need validation from everyone around them. And they wouldn’t feel they needed to control everyone else’s thoughts and actions to fit the story they want to be true about themselves.

I don’t need the world to validate me as a woman or a person of average height or a person with blue eyes. None of that requires other people’s confirmation to be true.

I do need the universities I attended to validate my educational experiences and achievements. And I do need that validation to prove that I’m qualified for particular job roles. Or as evidence that I might have a much better informed opinion in particular subjects than many other people.

I do need a birth certificate and passport to validate that I am a British citizen - and to demonstrate that to various authorities for various purposes.

I don’t need anyone to validate me on the basis that my favourite colour is green or that I don’t like house music or that I prefer wearing skirts to trousers of any other trivial aspect of my personality or preferences that simply doesn’t matter for any practical purpose.

How I want to view myself in relation to a rainbow of gender stereotypes is simply not something that requires validation of any sort. I can decide it for myself. And I don’t get to tell everyone else how to treat me because I feel that way.

Be kind is an excellent shield for what is effectively ‘think and do as I tell you’

Woah, loads of responses! Thank you! Great points, all of them

I have no idea how it would work legally.

A lot of people mention, quite rightly that gender is just a bunch of stereotypes. But the fact is, for a lot of gender questioning/trans people those stereotypes are incredibly important. In fact they shape their whole identity. Also those stereotypes are what's used in the 'assessment' for a grc certificate. Aren't their (stereotypical) 8 criteria which in which makes someone 'trans'?

I think the gender box wouldn't exist on the majority of people's paperwork. Only if you want s one would you have one.

Yes I agree it is pretty meaningless at the moment but them we could start introducing a gendered category to things, like changing rooms and prisons. It would not replace sex as it is doing now.

I admire your attempt to find a way forward OP, but I'm really surprised how many people think that's a good compromise.

Gender is largely a bunch of regressive stereotypes. Why would anyone want to enshrine those in a legal document? That would just be being complicit in your own pigeonholing and subordination.

The clear fact is: man isn't a woman in ANY sense. He's not a woman biologically and he can't, in any accurate or meaningful way, "identify" as a woman because he doesn't know what he's identifying with other than the stereotypes.

Gender identity is either the same thing as personality, because of its infinite and subjective interpretation of categories, or it's a synonym for sex. Those are the only two logical possibilities.

What's the point? Sex is the factor on which female safety and dignity is protected in law (or it should be!). So in what scenarios do we actually need to officially have, or record a person's, "gender identity"?! To the outside world it's as meaningless as their zodiac sign, and validating it in legal documents is just a way of appeasing a tiny and extremely vocal, self-absorbed minority. No thanks.

If it was clear, the point would become obvious. We can't see it just now because you are not allowed to talk about trans people as their own separate group.

For example, Hindu men had to argue for the right to wear turbans in certain occupations, GRC holders might need similar laws around uniform or wearing a female swim costume in a male race.

It would be useful on the medical notes, as that is not the time to misgender someone and have them refuse to talk to you.

They could be put on the TW wing of the male prison.

It would be a pointless addition though, because gender doesn’t mean anything or inform anyone.

Well, yes, but a pointless addition is better than re-using the extremely useful "sex" record for something pointless, isn't it?

If someone is insisting on replacing their sex with their favourite colour, giving them a place to record their favourite colour is a potential way of short-circuiting that demand. And short-circuiting that demand is far from pointless.

And, obviously, gender should be left blank until someone decides to have one. You certainly wouldn't "assign gender at birth" (or favourite colour).

Part of the problem is that people are insisting that the "sex" field is really a "favourite colour" field and claiming that people are being "assigned favourite colours at birth".

I would strongly object if there was any "default assumption" that people who are of the female sex must have a female gender identity unless they declare otherwise, and likewise for males.

That's the whole point of gender, it's assumptions about someone based solely on their sex. I'd be really uncomfortable giving any legal credence to a belief system based on damaging stereotypes.

This is the solution I would like to see, although I'd want it to be "gender identity" rather than handing over the word gender and all the places it's used to mean sex.

It would be as useful as a baptism certificate, with the people who need one deciding on when it's required (much like any belief or religion). Religions like the paperwork for weddings, schools and maybe to reinforce discrimination on grounds of dress.

A GRC could be used to access the LGBT shelters, support and health care they are going to fund. They might allow someone to dress differently at work or be excused from certain tasks - that's for them to decide and justify.

They don't get to touch sex, that is clearly and separately defined.

GRC holders can do what they like and we can carry on giving it as much thought as we do Scientology or Mormonism. Live and let live.

The problem is that they don't just want to be addressed in a certain way. They want you to believe they are the other sex. That's what's impossible.