Hacker News Reader

Comment by shevy-java | Hacker News Reader

> why is gender even listed on a passport in the first place?

That is a very valid question. We already have face-scans and fingerprint IDs so we are all treated as criminals. There is indeed zero point to have a binary-toggle field where one has to identify as either male or female. I'd like to add here that I don't care about this field; or I would want to check that I am an epic supergender, the very best - 'A' for awesome. But they don't allow this, so I don't want to have to care about this weird grouping I disagree with.

View on HN

It's pretty universal across all societies to allocate different rights, and obligations according to physical characteristics, and sex is probably the most important one. Though humans are very good at determining other humans' sexes in immediate communication there plenty of cases which are handled indirectly. Therefore documented sex is reasonably important bit of information

Someone asserted that a thing is done which has no rational purpose.

You have observed that a thing is done, which was already observed. You have not explained in what way it has a rational purpose, or added to the conversation.

It's not important. It's merely treated as important, which we already knew, because that was the setting for the question in the first place.

In the United States of America, the "draft" has historically applied to those categorized as "male". Today, the "Selective Service System" asserts that "Federal law requires nearly all male U.S. citizens and male immigrants to register at age 18". Likewise, many countries still enforce selective conscription by gender.

You may not like or approve of these things, but they are part of the "purpose" you seek.

That's just another example of the thing, not a why. The bullets don't care who fires them or who they hit.

Field military service is predominantly hard physical labor, so it's exactly an example "why"

Bullets might not care but you would if you had been a woman and made to unload a truck of 40 lbs ammo crates. Also carrying 90 lbs of load out (some of which are also bullets) feels very different. You also seem to overlook demographic implications of sending 18 y.o. women to war or just keeping them from starting family. Especially during war time, when you already lose population.

Unless you are an elite athlete I assure you that there are many women out there who can lift more, with better endurance, than you or I.

If I had to choose to be in a foxhole with a fit 20 year old woman or a flabby 35 year old man, I'm choosing the woman every time. (Even the new, stricter, US military fitness standards are not that hard to meet for either gender)

Statistically there are very few women out there that can lift even same as an average man. Even a 55 y.o. overweight man is statistically stronger and has more endurance than an average 20 years old woman.

The US combat fitness standard is a 155lb 3-rep max deadlift. That's trivial for every woman I know who lifts.

Perhaps we should amend the law and make every woman you know who lifts to register for SSS.

If you're going to keep conscription around, that would be my opinion.

I don't understand what any of that has to do with passports.

No, my claim that it's rational when an administrative procedure follows established norms is perfectly valid. You apparently believe that established norm is not good, and there could be discussion about it. Except you brought no arguments at all so far.

"established norm" is not an answer to "why is this norm?".

Yes we established that this is the norm in the opening question. You're answering "we do that because we do that"

It really feels like you answering without reading cause you essentially repeated what I wrote to you

Reply on news.ycombinator.com