American Medical Association: Remove Sex from Public Birth Certificates
webmd.com
webmd.com
I don't see any real reason why this is still required, or why it matter that the sex of a person be present on an ID document. The purpose of the ID is to identify the bearer. Most ID are now biometric, meaning the identification relies on unchanged physical features, like geometric relationships of the face.
A simple photo should be enough to confirm the ID of the bearer.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/06/23/us/trans-women-incarcerat...
If only there were other ways of knowing how to differentiate people when it's really necessary, you know, for medical or justified legal reasons.
A piece of paper strikes me as a less accurate method at this point in time.
The more interesting question is why do people think they need to turn social systems on their heads to suit their little ideologies?
I can definitely understand somehow wanting to help those who might have issues with gender, but these movements go far beyond that.
Yet shortly after.
> only 10 states allow for a gender-neutral designation, usually "X," on birth certificates
So now sex and gender are the same?
> "Assigning sex using binary variables in the public portion of the birth certificate fails to recognize the medical spectrum of gender identity," Underwood said, and can be used to discriminate.
It looks like.
I'm skeptical about gender theory (or rather, wary of the identity politics that seem to come along with it), so bear with me if I misunderstand something.
Assigning sex assigns sex, not gender. It's a birth certificate, not a "birth fact sheet that needs to be amended in the future with things that can't be known at birth" certificate.
I see sometimes (this article included) the argument that when birth certificates are required, it will force trans/queers to "out" themselves in situations where it's not safe for them, but that's disingenuous because, at least in the countries I'm familiar with, you can't change your name in your birth certificate to begin with, and when you can there's the original + amendment. So you're still gonna have John in it even if you're Jane, which raises more questions than an M/F field.
You generally obtain a name/sex recognition certificate and with those you can go and obtain updated duplicates of your driving license, ID, passport, diplomas (outing yourself every single time in the process).
Personally I see no particular reason to require birth certificates for any purpose when any other government produced document is available, except, maybe, when acquiring citizenships. Maybe that's the way to go, rather than removing sex (or gender) from the birth certificate itself.
"I think there is a physical aspect because chess exhausts a lot of energy, especially when games last 6-7 hours, and here women could be more disadvantaged."
Why deny differences in biology to further a false reality?
https://www.chess.com/article/view/hou-yifan-interview-chess
It is unclear why, this requires further research - the Chess world decided to just roll with it and have separate tournaments.
There is research from 2007 ( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ejsp.440 ) which shows that if is via Internet and women thinks their opponent are men - they show worse results. If gender is not known to both sides - results are mostly same.
It's not currently clear if M2F transgenders should be allowed to play in women competitions.
> It was the last Olympic skeet competition open to both men and women, and the only mixed shooting competition at the Olympics ever won by a woman: Zhang Shan.
For non physically demanding sports most of the work is in training prior to this competition: being able to find good coach, stick to regime, balance life vs sport, emotional control, managing finances and sponsorships, chances of getting into the sport in the first place etc. These aspects are quite different for men and women, so they naturally have separated tournaments.
Is this meant to be a medical document, or a legal one? If medical, then it shouldn't be allowed to be required for identification for privacy reasons. If legal, then why does it contain medical information at all?
I suggest the vast, vast majority of the population is fine with the system the way it is, and that there isn't really evidence removing gender will help.
This gives further credence that many of our institutions have been radicalized.
If someone from the AMA were to have 'made a point' or hinted at a study, that would be find, but making such recommendations is beyond pale.
> A person's sex designation at birth would still be submitted to the U.S. Standard Certificate of Live Birth for medical, public health, and statistical use only, report authors note.
If they expect this to be fluid over someone's life, the government doesn't need to collect stats at birth.
Issue 2 - You are suggesting an objective and emotionally (fairly) neutral fix for a hot-button culture war issue. While admirable, this is much like hoping that pacifists will win a shooting war.
The less data collected on IDs the better.
Take for example the state of lebanon today. You can draw a straight line from data on IDs, to the collapse of government of 2021.
The lebanese govt was collecting religion data in their IDs back in the 20th century.
On the run up to the 1970s civil war and during the war , people were stopped, harrassed and later murdered based on their stated religion.
After the civil war concluded this was taken off official documentation but the damage was already done: sectarianism had taken root in society and laws passed designating that the PM must be from X sect, the president from Y sect, etc.
This took cronysm and sale of offices to new heights, culminating with the bloodsucking of the state via revolving door between the major sects that had granted themselves permanent state powers.
Now the country is bankrupt, with massive brain drain, and sectarian strife.
The less groups the govt can create, the healthier we are as a a society