Most of the time we really DON'T need to know what sex someone else is, do we?

[solidgoldbrass]

You don't need to know what's in people's underwear to pour them a pint, buy a used car from them, arrange a mortgage for them, share a table with them in a crowded cafe, have your letters delivered by them, etc etc etc.
Apart from when you're contemplating sex (or TTC) with someone, or you are a medical professional needing to treat an ailment, are there many other occasions when it actually matters what sex/gender another person is?

Personally, no. I think it would be great to get to a point where people could just be free to be people without having to conform to gender stereotypical looks or behaviour.

We are not at that place now.

In an ideal world, no. In the current world I think there is a lot of benefit to knowing someone's sex if they could be a role model. So more women are more likely to enter a male dominated profession if they see other women have already been successful in it.

When I'm out on the pull I like to know

"So more women are more likely to enter a male dominated profession if they see other women have already been successful in it."

I see the point you're making, but at the same time I wonder whether it's a good thing to point out a role model's sex?

I'm trying to make sure that my daughters learn plenty about successful women, but I'm trying to avoid pointing out they're women, as if that made it more special. Because I just want them not to find it remarkable that a woman is successful in her field any more than that a man is successful. I want them to find it normal.

The OP never mentioned 'underwear contents.' You're mentioned it twice. Neither gender nor sex = underwear contents and I think its pretty offensive to keep referring to it in that way.

Sorry, that was entirely my fault Kim and I apologise. I didn't realise the OP had said that. I will redirect that question to SGB.

SGB, why are you equating underwear contents with sex and gender?

If I am pouring a pint, no.

But if I am having a conversation with someone then every bit of information about their life, who they are, who they consider themselves to be, how they may have been treated differently by the world at large, all of that will affect how I interpret what they say.

I said 'underwear contents' as the majority of people consider 'sex'(the state of being rather than the activity) as being to do with your genitalia. VB: would you have preferred 'chromosomes'?

Trills: I find that really depressing. One of the things I have always liked about the Internet (and all the forerunners, perhaps not so much CB but Loot 900 and BBS) was that you didn't have to say whether you were male, female, black, white, rich, poor, deaf, blind, wheelchair user, whatever.

religious women like to know. And their identity and feelinfs are important too.

I agree that it's irrelevant in most situations - and the point about role models is moot, because if sex/gender wasn't disclosed in the first place, there would be no such thing as a male/female dominated profession, in any way other than, perhaps, some professions carry a stereotype for being more likely to attract gay or straight people.

I don't know about the religious argument, though, that has thrown me a bit.

Given that all religion is harmful to women, they'd be better off binning it altogether than worrying about other people's sex/gender. If it wasn't for idiot superstitions, they wouldn't have to worry.

I was just saying to dh tonight that most (all) men in the UK have more in common with me than about 3 and a half billion men around the world.

Age is another thing that we are programmed to judge. I want to break free from the shackles of judgement.

I don't give a damn about it if I am about to 'pour them a pint, buy a used car from them, arrange a mortgage for them, share a table with them in a crowded cafe, have your letters delivered by them, etc etc etc'

I care if I believe I'm in a woman only place. I care if I'm receiving medical treatment or a massage - it's my choice to only have women doctors for anything that requires physical contact. I care if I'm getting counselling - I choose to only see women.

your opion SGB. Nothing like negating othersfeelings though

It's true though, isn't it? You interpret what people such differently based on what you know about them. One person saying "I am skint" might mean they have to leave it longer than usual between haircuts, another might mean they can't feed the electricity meter. With no extra info you'd probably assume something in between. With more info the way that you react to the statement would be different.

I don't need to know what's in someone's underwear to talk to them, but if they are looking for advice or expecting me to sympathise with them or anything else that requires understanding (rather than simply having a discussion about an abstract or non-personal subject) it could be relevant information.

KalSkirata: Other people's feelings (especially when it comes to their imaginary friends) are their problem, not mine. Religious women would invariably be better off binning the superstition, though - all religions are big on controlling women and insisting that Great Pumpkin regards then as subhuman and men's property.

NarkedPuffin: have you ever been in a position where you've had to ask someone if they really are a woman? Do you think you would do so?

Going back to what I supposed was your point, SGB: No. Except in certain situations. Regardless of the contents of one's underwear or even if one is wearing any, it's 100% unnecessary to know the gender identity of a stranger in 90% of circumstances. Wherever possible I call myself "G. Fanjo" omitting the title. I nearly always get subsequent mail addressed to "Mr G Fanjo". Why? Just why? G Fanjo was good enough for me, why do they need to assign me a gender?

(I like that. Might change my last name to Fanjo )

if they are looking for advice or expecting me to sympathise with them or anything else that requires understanding ... it could be relevant information.

I tend to disagree with that. I find folks human before male/female/other. Talking to a fellow human about emotional issues, work issues, DIY, eyeliner, money, politics, whatever ... is uncoloured by gender as far as I'm concerned. With the above exceptions for gender-determined issue. None of the topics I've mentioned are.

I agree about internet discussions! Though I do find some geeks like pointing out that I must be female because of the way I use language. 'Tis true; I speak 'female' but it doesn't generally interfere with my communications. If it does I can speak 'male' or 'machine', no skin off anyone's nose.

SGB, no I don't think I would prefer chromosones. I just think we assume, almost always correctly what sex somebody is (if they are an adult) by looking at the sexually dimorphic features that are visible. The vast majority of people don't realistically go around looking at the vast majority of other people and not know what their sex is. It just strikes me as odd, as it summons up images of everybody having the same body but just with different genitalia.

I think the actual question if very difficult to answer because we treat people differently for all manner of psychological and social reasons, and we base that on a vast number of different things they want to let us know about them, and of course our own stereotypes.

When it comes to gender, people may give us cues if they want us to talk to them about some aspect that could be considered to be part of a gender role or gender stereotype they are involved with, and I don't have an issue with that on their individual level because a vast amount of culture falls under one gender role or the other, so if an individual woman makes it obvious she's into reading Barbara Pym books or whatever, I'm happy to participate in that gendered activity. But if a man wants to talk about the same thing, I'm happy to do that also.

When it comes to internal gender identity, I don't need to know that about a person as it is a meaningless concept to me personally. But then experiencing God is a meaningless concept to me personally, and I can still show some level of basic politeness and listen to the person talking about it, there's probably just not much I can bring to the conversation other than listening as I haven't experienced that myself.