Interestingly, on the U.S. Form 1040 income tax return, when describing the relationship to you of your offspring that you are claiming as dependent(s), the only choices are "son" or "daughter".
As stated elsewhere, yes the instructions do specify the descriptors used for dependents. Interestingly, "grandchild" "stepchild", and "foster child" is allowed.
"A qualifying child is a child who is your... Son, daughter, stepchild, foster child, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, half-brother, half sister, or a descendant of any of them (for example, your grandchild, niece, or nephew)"
https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-26-internal-revenue-code/...
> (2) Relationship. --For purposes of paragraph (1)(A), an individual bears a relationship to the taxpayer described in this paragraph if such individual is--
> (A) a child of the taxpayer or a descendant of such a child,
Neither the words 'son' nor 'daughter' appear in it at all. The words 'dependent' and 'child' are present.
edit: even going back to 1950 we get "other dependent relative" https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040--1950.pdf
going back to 1930 we get "person (other than husband or wife) under eighteen years old" https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/f1040--1930.pdf
No, its not.
> Neither the words ‘son’ nor ‘daughter’ appear in it at all.
No, what appears on the form is the column heading “Relation to you” with a free text field in that column for each line for a dependent claimed. But that is not the issue.
What appears on the instructions [0] determining when you can use the line (and what is therefore likely replicated in tooling which supports completing the form in line with the instructions) is this “A qualifying child is a child who is your… Son, daughter, stepchild, foster child, brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister, or a descendant of any of them (for example, your grandchild, niece, or nephew).” [1]
Which, read strictly, says that a first-generation biological descendant of yours must have binary gender (“son, daughter”), as must a biological- or step-sibling (“brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister”), though binary gender is not important if they are your foster or adopted child (“stepchild, foster child”), nor is it important for a qualifying descendant child (but still required for the first ancestor through which their qualification is traced) of any of the others (“or a descendant of any of them”.)
I think it is pretty clear that the use of words specifying binary gender is overspecific drafting of either the instructions or the source legislation/regulation, not that there is really an intent to apply limitations by binary gender at select, but not all, levels of this qualification. But the limitation is there in the text.
[0] https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf
[1] p. 17
In the meantime, Form 1040 itself does not and has never mandated a description of "son" or "daughter."
Good luck with the present Congress, and particularly House of Reps.
No, the instructions give a specific list of qualifying relations. They only give examples for the last one, which is a descendant of any of the earlier-listed ones. Except for that last one, “foster child” and “stepchild”, they all use gender paired terms (“brother, sister”, “half brother, half sister”, “son, daughter”, etc.)
Legal sex (which is really ascribed gender, and starts out as assigned gender at birth) has the exact same problem as gender identity here. As does assigned gender at birth itself (since there are people for whom that is neither male nor female as legally recorded.)
But given the mix of gendered and non-gendered terms in the instruction, its just a product of the fact that both law, and even more the bureaucratic processes and documents supporting its application, is very much not DRY, so “we recognize the existence of non-binary gender” isn’t a point change to the “gender” module of the legal system, rather it requires changes throughout a “code base” that is giant, and has no version control or test suite.
Are you sure you are not committing an is-ought fallacy?
Male/female is determined by chromosomes, either XX or XY.
Seriously however, any link to where this is specified in the way you claim it to be? How does it see SRY gene disorders? If your child is a daughter to you but technically has XY, will the law mandate you to declare her as a son? etc.
This isn’t true legally (where “sex” is really an ascribed gender assigned at birth and possibly updated later for a variety of reasons) or medically (since an individual with a 46,XX karyotype can be male or female medically, as can an individual with a 46,XY karyotype.)