Kia Ora,

For those here who are unfamiliar with the UK's Gender Recognition Act...This link is better than the previous one I just posted, it's  a "in plain English" leaflet guide...

http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/guidance/courts-and-tribunals/tribunals/gender-recognition-panel/overseas-application-process/explanatory-leaflet-guide-for-users.pdf

It pays to know how the UK's Gender Recognition Panel screens potential applicants...

It doesn't cover "genderqueers" or those who choose a "genderless" lifestyle...
It's specifically for "Transsexual" people who wish to be legally "recognised" as their "psycho-sexual" gender identity and have taken the necessary steps to acquire this... "counselling" "HRT" or "Surgery"

Metta Zenda

Human society has one fundamental function, that no matter what is said and done.  Humanity has to procreate, basically no ifs and no butts.  If they do not procreate then we as a society will become extinct.  So no matter what, we will have "two sexes".

The system that allows 'transgendered' people to change their gender, is not perfect.  However, the current system is much better than it was 30, 40 or even 50 years ago and only over time will it get better.

I also offer myself as a target, because I also agree with what Sarah Louise says:

Quote from: Sarah Louise on June 01, 2011, 04:56:37 PM
I don't think society as a whole is ready for a third gender.

And I don't really want to do away with F or M markers on driver licenses or anything else.

I also don't think it should be "too" easy to change it, changing your gender marker is a serious thing and needs to be treated as such.  I also don't think we should be made to jump through "too" many hoops to have it done.

I might not be popular for thinking we need to have good and sufficient reasons to change our gender markers, but, I don't want it done on a whim or for people to go back and forth.  I do think it should be more consistent from state to state and there should be one clearing house that would take care of all your different forms of identification all at once.

Ok, go ahead, start shooting at me

For the simple reason as I mentioned above, having "two sexes" is fundamental to our society and also as Kay elaborated:

Quote from: Kay on June 01, 2011, 11:56:02 PM

Quote from: Mikah"The state is an institution distinguished from private associations of individuals by (1) a monopoly of force and (2) institutionalized theft"

While I dislike many actions that the government takes, that's a pretty extreme metaphor to use to describe law and taxes.  If any Joe/Jane cis-gendered individual were to peek in on this thread, I would not be at all surprised if they thought you were advocating anarchy and/or pulling down the current government.  (I'm not saying you are...but I am saying that if you're looking to maintain/start a constructive dialogue advocating for a certain change...as in gender markers...these sorts of extreme polarizing words aren't going to help your cause.)
..

Quote from: MikahRemoving sex from legal documents wouldn't bring chaos. It would really be rather minor in the change of day to day life for MOST people. For those for whom it would change, it would only mean the end of that aspect of their oppression.

Removing my name and every shred of personal information from my all of my personal documents wouldn't change much in my day to day life.  However their use in "day to day"  functions isn't the point of having such legal documents.
.
Let's take a step back and try to see this issue from a different perspective:
.
Social Security Card: M or F?
-Except for broad areas of human services planning,  the only reason I can think of for this one is to have a ready database should the necessity of a draft arise due to war/conflict.
.
Birth Certificate:  M or F?
- Reporting:  Just as the 10 year census can help the government with planning, so do such reports on the birth of children aid communities.   Not only in numbers, but in planning for the types of services (some sex specific) that will be needed for their community. 
.
-Children eventually will get sick, have an accident, or have to see the doctor for some reason or other.  Many medical procedures/treatments are either sex specific, or individuals may need to be treated differently based upon ones anatomy, so it's necessary to know "M or F?" for medical reasons.
.
While most institutions don't need to look at this form of identification more than once (generally at registration), the sex marker is used by many organizations. 
1.) to comply with federal law (anti-discrimination statues among others)
2.) to ensure that there are sex specfic resources available when needed
3.) to avoid legal complications (by leveraging either changes to their building or staffing choices) due to the appearance of impropriety/indecency...especially concerning children that are growing into their sexual maturity.
-Just because you can usually see something with your eyes, doesn't mean that the administration directing the organization can tell that "Chris Smith" is F or M.   Sometimes documentation isn't meant for you...or for those that know you.  Often it's meant for those that don't know you...and may never see you. 
.
Up until age 16 (at least here in the US) The above are the main forms of ID used.
.
Then we get:
(any age) Passport:  M or F?
This is your identification abroad.  I've never used one abroad, so I can't speak to how the "M or F" might be used in foreign jurisdictions.  I would assume it is likely similar to the below:

Driver's License or State ID Card:  M or F?
Who uses it? 
- Some organizations when their services are sex (generallly "F") specific.  Even moreso if they get any sort of goverment grants or assistance...in order to justify funding.
.
Some business use it as a checkmark for identification...especially for financial matters.  I've been carded many times while using my credit card, when a cashier looks at my name and asks "Are you sure that's you?"
.
Who uses it most often?...the police. 
-If someone is very androgynous, it gives them a legal document of reference which may effect:
- what sex the officer is that will deal with you  (especially during a domestic violence/abuse or similar complaint)
- who will frisk you
- what cell you're confined to and the company you will keep while incarcerated (again, the admin don't decide these things based on your looks...they do it based on your records...sometimes without ever laying eyes on you)
- in describing a suspect they are searching for...especially if they don't have a picture.
- what sort of questions they will ask you (especially regarding sexual matters of abuse, rape, etc...)
- There are sex specific laws regarding decency and access to certain facilities that the "F or M" will effect...that the police are charged with maintaining.
.
There are more I'm sure, but that's enough for now.
= = = = =
.
Personally, a lot of the time I don't think strangers know where to place me...especially when I relax when in male mode as I go home from work.  I get ma'amed...I get sirred...I get some really confused looks...all depending on how I act.  Since the police have to consider sensitive subjects that do involve differences in sex...should I expect them to grope my crotch if they can't tell whether I'm M or F?   Personally, I'd prefer they look at my license.   Often this form of ID is not completely for my benefit...it's for theirs...or someone else's too.
.
And yes...I understand that with most people, their sex is immediately discernable.  It isn't that way with everyone though.  I have a friend who is intersex.  She has a higher than normal level of testosterone in her system...always has...which has left her with very masculine features and prominent facial hair that she has to shave (leaving a shadow)...even though she was born "F" and still considers herself "F".   Public bathrooms are a nightmare for her.  Why should she have to give up her readily available legal proof of her sex?   (without it, the issues with police after bathroom confrontations would last a lot longer than they already do)
.
Another story:   I have a friend who is a pre-op MTF that has an "F" on her license.    Because the doctors assumed a female body, she was mis-diagnosed 3 times and missed a considerable amount of work before finally getting the treatment she needed for an infection in her prostate.  She told the doctors that she was a 'trans-woman,' but they didn't understand the terminology.  They looked at her, saw she looked female, had an "F" on her documents, so that's how they treated her.   
.
There are dangers in trying to use a physical sex marker as a "gender marker."  Both socially and medically.  Sex and gender are two different things.  When you conflate and confuse the two topics, all sorts of misunderstandings can happen.  And while I do realize that socially there is some overlap in the usage of the two terms, I think that there should be significant effort to change physically before conveying recognition of a change in sex upon someone.   (While, of course, compassionately considering the complexities of the topic as in my first post on this thread) To do otherwise is to remove and/or dilute any meaning in the sex designation. 
.
Honestly, instead of just seeing who can yell the loudest and longest for their views, or monopolize posting on a particular thread until no one else wants to bother with it, we need to be mindful of how the changes we propose effect others.  It's easy to say "me me me."  Let's remember "How about you?" as well.  Whether they be transexed, intersexed, transgendered, or cis-gendered.  Just because something doesn't effect our daily lives much...doesn't mean it wouldn't greatly effect someone else.  If we fail to look outside of our own viewpoint and consider others, we will fail to convince the majority (which is what is necessary for such a change) that such change is needed and appropriate...no matter how incremental that change may be.  (and removing sex markers...in a society very much immersed in their sexual/gender differences is not at all an incremental suggestion)
.
While some may think that removing all sex markers will improve things, and would have little impact, I disagree.  Physical sex differentiation is a big issue in our society.  It is a big issue medically.  Attempting to erase legal sex from documents does not erase the effect that it has in the real world.  (and it would complicate matters for goverment/police workers especially) To even somewhat erase it (at least in the social realm), you would have to first change the hearts and minds of those around you.  That isn't something we can do with extreme polarized words and proposals that ignore their point of view.  Constructive thoughtful respecful...and mutual...dialogue is a necessity.

Which bring us back to the original post made by Zenda and the first item on the poll was, "Yes they should be eligible providing they meet the set out criteria", something similar to the UK gender recognition act 2004, but also those who have had appropriate surgery, should also be allowed to change the gender on their birth certificate.  This satisfies both 'camps' and again as Sarah Louise said "Changing your gender' should not be easy, because changing your gender is a serious thing to do".

My kindest regards to one and all
Sarah B

Please do not quote large bodies of text just to add a simple paragraph at the end. It really sucks up unnessesary screen space.

As for the need for two sex's on paper....yeah no.

People will breed and multiply regardless of what is printed on birth certifictes.

All I said was people would breed regardless of what is printed on a paper.

I took no actual position.

I think this is just going around in circles now. I'll keep the thread open for a bit longer but I really hope it doesn't degrade into attacks on each other. Please try to keep it civil and constructive.

Thank you.

My sister is a SFC in the US Army. She has served in Iraq and Afganistan. She has seen hell on earth and she is a woman I am proud to call my sister.

I see no issue with conscripting women. The idea that women get to stay on the homefront while the men go to war is an old outdated sexist system.

I served 2 years in the US Army. Don't tell me what I don't know.

Now you are just getting mean. I am sorry I do not agree with your position. I think it is not constructive for you to tell me I subscribe to violence for women.

Conscription for any other reason than defending your own homeland from invasion is abhorrent, for anyone, male or female.

And that's my final comment on this or any thread on Susans. When your dominance war is over, you may just find that there isn't anyone else left to argue. So I hope that you enjoy each others company.

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 02, 2011, 09:59:43 AM
If any of you can honestly say that women should be exposed and made instruments of war and violence, made to use weapons to harm others, that is a terrible, terrible thing. Again, those holding that view should be ashamed of themselves.

No one should, regardless of gender.

But that's a totally different subject and drifting away from the purpose of this thread. Please keep it on the topic the thread was made for, and once again, I ask that everyone debate the subject of the thread rather than attacking people for views they may or may not hold.

I won't ask again.

Thank you.

Fine.....
Personaly I think any woman who would use her gender as an excuse to avoid civic duty is no woman I would want in my family.

Women are just as capable and often just as willing to join the military as men. Many women, including the women of my family are happy to stand with the men in uniform and fight for the freedoms we all enjoy.

Your position is untenable.

edit: I wrote this as others were posting....

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 02, 2011, 09:30:23 AM
However popular it may be here and however pleased you all feel about your poll, the need for sex designation is real.

If any of you can say that the women in your lives should serve in the military, you are no community of mine. You should be ashamed of yourselves if you do.

This is really heading down a tangent, because I don't think you need sex designations on certain identification documents as a way of keeping track of data anyway.

But I am very curious about your attitude about military roles and sex. It obviously comes from a particular cultural perspective. I am as opposed to mandatory conscription of men as I am for women, and if there IS going to be mandatory conscription, I see no reason to exempt women. I have significant family that lives in a country that has mandatory conscription for both MEN and WOMEN, and both men and women serve with honor and distinction.

If you are against a draft or mandatory military force, that should not be dependent on sex. And if you believe that at some point a mandatory conscription is necessary, I don't understand why you think women shouldn't have to serve.

Do you believe that women in a voluntary military belong there and are able to serve, as we have now?
Do you believe that women are capable of providing law enforcement domestically?
If so, what's the difference? If it is about choice, then why shouldn't men have the same choice?

Quote from: Valeriedances on June 02, 2011, 02:16:05 PM
In an effort to repair the hard feelings I have caused some people by my opinions, I have deleted my posts in this thread. My view is unpopular in any event and does not serve your agenda.

I apologize for causing anyone distress.

peace,

Valerie

Kia Ora Valerie,

It's sad that you have done this, you have every right to voice your opinions...It just saddens me that some people take what's been said to heart and see it as a personal attack...I could see from your posts that you were not attacking others, just stating how you felt about things...

I'm "responsible" for starting this thread, but am "not" responsible for how others choose to behave...The topic itself was not "controversial"...

I wish you all well and that you all have time to contemplate what each other have said...Perhaps some good will come out of this after all... "Empathy"

Metta Zenda

Quote from: Mikah on June 02, 2011, 12:33:26 AM
I'm not using it as a metaphor, it's very literal. And I am a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist with queer anarchy influences, with my basis in my ideology in the non-aggression axiom, the property corollary, the right to free-association, free contract, and self-determination in action and identity as long as it does not infringe upon the other principles. But that's not the point of this thread...

I took what you said to heart, and I don't want to be that guy over-posting and monopolizing the thread. It really was never my intent. I am the kind of person that gets sucked into discussions like these. I really love discussion, debate and writing: it's what I do, and it's not always appropriate, especially since the focus of this forum is support not debate. I don't want to cross that line here. My first reaction was to start writing a reply in rebuttal to the examples you cited, because I do have an opinion, but I want to make sure it's appropriate, and also give others a chance to respond. Perhaps I'll wait until tomorrow? Does that sound fair?

Hi Mikah,
.
Speak as and when you wish, I'm not trying to infringe upon that. I'm just trying to nudge people to thinking about being more courteous to others. I just think a lot of these sort of discussions tend to get overrun by strong personalities.  My apologies if it sounded like I was directing that at you solely and specifically, I wasn't.  While I may consider you a strong/vocal personality, I also think that you handle it better than most in keeping it intellectual and away from attack-mode.   Personally, I left my reply at "preview" for a couple of hours, simply because I wasn't really sure I wanted to get involved in the rather caustic downward spiral that these threads often become.  I'm still not sure if I should have.
.
You certainly have a very interesting philosophical foundation.  I don't think most people could describe their foundational philosophy so specifically and succinctly.  Hell...I know I couldn't.    I do think though, that the wide difference in philosophy that you have with others will have a large effect on debate/discussion for/with you.  In discussion/debate there are often unspoken assumptions of concensus.   When two people with completely different assumptions/philosophies get together, the discussion can often turn out being more about the foundational assumption/philosphy than the topic at hand.  ie. The question of legal recognition can turn into a question about the need for any recognition/markers at all, or about the failings of society/government in general...when an unspoken assumption of the question asked is often "in the current environment."   
.
(original question)

Quote from: Zenda on May 26, 2011, 12:17:08 AM
Should legal recognition be stopped-if ones private parts haven't been chopped?   

.
I suppose I should chide myself for getting caught up in that too.  My apologies.  I've deleted my post due to its largely tangential off-topic nature.  I think a discussion on those topics could prove very interesting...especially with someone as articulate as you...but this is probably not an appropriate thread for it. 
.
Shutting up now...
.
Kaitlyn (Kay)
.
PS:  Zenda, thanks for the links to the gender recognition act. 

Kia Ora,

Happy Mindfulness people!

After all..."Happiness is just a state of mind"

Metta Zenda

PS You're welcome Kay....