A reasonable persons understands you are: XX (Female), XY (Male), or one of many extraordinarily rare edge cases such as (not inclusive): XXY, XYY, XYY, XXX, etc. The fact this under debate shows the level of disillusionment and detachment from science among the individuals arguing for it.
This is the opinion section of my comment: I think LQBTQ individuals desire to have their sexual preferences reinforced by society. I imagine the thought process is something like "If I can only prove it's biological, I no longer have to constantly justify my choices to others and there will be acceptance." This is sad in my opinion, as we should not be lecturing others unless they ask for your opinion. You certainly aren't required to support anyone's decisions, but treating them less than human isn't acceptable. Unfortunately, I see LQBTQ communities are further distancing themselves by pushing this agenda of redefining science.
Like another commentor said, I don't think it's any government's business who I am. And while that's a great theory, the real world doesn't work out this way. Marking your passport this way will more than likely cause issues at international borders and it would be good to stick to scientific identification to avoid unjust arrest.
A reasonable person is also not applying a chromosomal test to determine gender. Instead, the reasonable person identifies gender by appearance, incorporating anatomical features, grooming choices, and social paraphernalia like wardrobe.
In most people, chromosomal, hormonal, anatomical, and social genders conform. The "reasonable person" heuristic is therefore correct in the majority of cases. However, the risks are borne disproportionately by those for whom there is nonconformance.
A gender-neutral option on identification provides at minimum a signal that the a binary (social) gender marker is not helpful for identification of the bearer. That's rights-enhancing, with no cost to the gender-conforming majority.
That's a very regressive approach, based on cultural stereotyping and expectations related to restrictive ideals of masculinity and femininity. A woman who chooses to shave her hair short is still a woman. A man who chooses to wear a dress is still a man.
Let's not discriminate against gender non-conforming people by denying or questioning their sex due to their reluctance to adhere to stereotypes. It's not really a reasonable position to take.
So don't think there is a coherent agenda, just look at it as trolling and try not to hold it against normal people who just want to live their lives.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ
I think protection, respect, dignity, rights for LGBTQ people is great! But as you note, there is something extra here. It seems like the entire population, which is mostly cis and hetero, is being asked... well, not asked, really. It's not a request anymore, is it? Strongly urged, to deconstruct and overhaul how we think and speak about sex and gender in all contexts and at all times. And this is a bit difficult to square with the goodness of protecting LGBTQ people. It's a little extra.
I was going to write that the growth of this movement consists of cishet people ("allies!"), since it's not a recruitment drive to turn people. But then I realized that's not strictly true either. While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen, there is some fuzziness in the [TQ] part. I could, with high sincerity, choose to identify as agender, possibly a bit genderfluid, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify as non-binary, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify myself as transgender. I don't do that. I don't see it as being in my interest, but that could change. I could join up in the future.
In closing, I wish that there was the same level of zeal for protecting the very poor, homeless, mentally and chronically ill!
Very much agreed. I suspect that a lot of these identity issues are being deliberately pushed as a distraction from these more fundamental and wider societal concerns of material wellbeing that successive governments have largely failed at addressing.
> While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen
The leap of logic with gender dysphoria in recent years seems to be that if a person has dysphoria, then they actually are the alternate gender (in terms of a replacement to the concept of sex) that they desire to be. So, we're told, people identify into the role of a man or a woman, rather than simply existing as such in material biological reality. Personally I find that assertion rather questionable, but it seems it's no longer acceptable to question this.
The really awful thing is, there are paedophiles (or "minor-attracted persons", as they prefer to rebrand themselves nowadays) and their advocates making this exact argument in earnest. Including some in academia trying to influence from a position of supposed research. It's sickening.
Which other issues? Which issues would be getting addressed now, but for attention consumed by "the LGBTQ agenda?"
I'm not sure I agree with him but there definitely are more important issues and attention isn't an unlimited resource. The time spent changing this definitely took time away from something else.
Are you serious? Is this just a way of getting out of admitting you don't really care about LGBTQ issues? Because the idea that we'd otherwise be making any kind of meaningful progress on any those issues is stupendously naive.
I wouldn't call the LGBTQ population a tiny percentage when ~14% of people in the US don't identify as straight.
I have seen pretty much nothing from the US that appears to be “pushing the LQBTQ agenda”.