to object to MNHQ forcing a MALE/FEMALE gender binary on my account.

[HairyLittleCarrot]

I don't have any GENDER.

My MN account forces me to pick from two 'genders'.

I can't even opt out, it's a forced binary choice.

I'm not agender, pangender, cisgender, transgender, male gender, female gender or ANY GENDER.

If you want to know my sex, I am happy to provide that information. But you'll have to add that in as a field, because it doesn't exist currently.

Sex and gender are not the same thing. If you insist on collecting data by gender and making it a forced choice I would like an option as follows:

"Reject gender as a harmful, made up, bullshit concept".

Then when you analyse your account database you can say
X% identify as female gender
Y% identify as male gender
Z% reject gender as a bullshit concept.

AIBU to request MNHQ to alter my account details so that they do not misrepresent me?

Thank God Smilla
I thought it was just me.

To say "Oh, you're a female, you're at low risk of this disease" can be dangerous. There are loads of other factors.

No-one has said otherwise. The main point (I thought) was that gender is seemingly not one of those factors.

Missing the point, Ego.
What I have as a common category with other women medically, is my physiology, my biology, my reproductive system, my SEX.
I'm on HRT. If I replace oestrogen without progesterone, I am at higher risk of uterine cancer.
This only applies to the female Sex.
It does not apply to the male sex.
and 'gender' has zero implications, in fact, if referenced at all it would muddy outcomes badly.
It's very easy to define.

I think the similar case was in the US, regarding breastfeeding or expressing at work?

Yes, I think you might be right. If I can find a link later I will post it.

If you're trying to predict the likelihood of someone developing a particular medical problem, and there are loads of factors that might affect that likelihood, then it's be a bit stupid to leave out one of the factors (biological sex)

Less than 1% of breast cancer is in men (allegedly high in chimney sweeps) but I am not sure that MTF have a higher incidence? As far as I know no women have had prostate cancer (but it is very possible).

I can categorise into M/F/? on basis of:

Chromosomes
Appearance
Behaviour
Name
Stated gender

I am happy with papers showing sex differences in diseases (but look at lung cancer, about "behaviour" rather than the sex. Was men now women)

I totally agree we use sex/gender as stated in many papers which may or may not show a difference. But I really, really cannot give a medical definition of gender, sorry to copout.

That said - of course I am still at risk of prostate cancer. I'm not sure if that is taken out in "the op" - but that is still a risk. So having a male tick box somewhere on the system would make me come for screening. I can't get cervical cancer so no point making that an issue. But I am at far increased risk of breast cancer especially with HRT.

The reason I mention that is that they are sex related illnesses. Not gender. The medical system has a database that calls people in for screening and I would imagine it is geared up for M /F. Trans people confuse that system.

I think you are contradicting yourself - the medical database is set up for M/F sex not gender. Hence if your sex stays same on the database you will get called for prostate checks etc, and won't be called for smear tests. There is no confusion.

I imagine your increased risk of breast cancer etc will be flagged up by your medical history anyway, as you say, there are a mass of different factors involved, but on a population a M/F sex split make sense.

Maybe forms should have two sets of check boxes:

Biological sex M [ ] F[ ]
Gender Identity: Maleness - +
Femaleness - +
(Please mark where you lie on scale, alternatively tick box below)
Gender is bullshit [ ]

"...but I am not sure that MTF have a higher incidence?"

True but intellectual failure and crap thinking on my part. High dose oestrogen must cause increased risk of breast cancer in males in transition.

I'm on HRT. I'm at higher risk of breast cancer - especially given my family history.

I suspect the NHS systems don't recognise that.

If the NHS are aware of both of those factors, I am sure they are aware of your increased risk. Why don't you have a chat to your GP to make sure?

Actually, my records state female. I don't know it it's sex or gender. But my NHS records state female.

Ah, OK, I didn't realise that. May be worth getting them to put a flag on to note that you were born male? Would save any confusion if you needed emergency treatment and were not able to speak for yourself?

And it's not because the content of his first post was beyond me - I am better read than the average person on the topics of both historical and sociolinguistics, and language in general really

I think I am too. I interpreted the post as "sex" being the classification and "gender" (male/female/non-binary/genderqueer/agender/pangender etc etc etc) as being nomenclature, and a separate category. Classification being ideally being the basis for legal protections, not nomenclature which is woolly and personally defined by individuals and doesn't represent important biological realities, and is subjective rather than objective.

I am fully prepared to admit that I may have misunderstood the point being made, but I could see a distinction.

I can categorise into M/F/? on basis of:

Chromosomes
Appearance
Behaviour
Name
Stated gender

Words fail me. I only understand how one of those criteria has any relevance to you accurately ascertaining a person's sex.

Ego, sorry cross post. But on the plus side, treatment for prostate cancer is oestrogen so might be swings and roundabouts?

Already acknowledged, Ego, and I've asked that intersex conditions are left out of this since the enormous majority of the human race are either XX or XY, and many intersex conditions are also fairly clearcut too. Turners syndrome for example.

I think I am too. I interpreted the post as "sex" being the classification and "gender" (male/female/non-binary/genderqueer/agender/pangender etc etc etc) as being nomenclature, and a separate category. Classification being ideally being the basis for legal protections, not nomenclature which is woolly and personally defined by individuals and doesn't represent important biological realities, and is subjective rather than objective.

I am fully prepared to admit that I may have misunderstood the point being made, but I could see a distinction.

Hmm, yes, but there was too much talk of chromosomes and enzymes and hormones for my taste. I realise dratsea ended that bit with a reference to how it was less than ideal as a classification (and thus a waste of money to create such a classification system for gender), but there was still no real evidence of grasping what we're talking about here in terms of gender identity.

Thank you, dratsea and everyone. I thought you were trying to say something else and my head was becoming too full! Coupled with dh mansplaining something else at the same time I was reading/posting, it all got too much. I do understand, but the colour thing is helpful too.

Why don't you just suggest it in site stuff? That more effective to get it change if you feel this strongly about it - no need for this. Ask for it to be optional too!