All the examples I can find include people with conditions that are either male DSDs or female DSDs. Seems to me that this system of marking passports with an "X" is flawed by being overly broad, including people who are unambiguously male or female.
If you have specific examples to the contrary, I'd be interested to read about them.
There's a weird thing that occurs in Australia, civil servants tend to respect citizens right to privacy. Not always, of course, but by and large identities are preserved and hefty fines come into play when privacy is violated.
Hansards and Court transcripts, as you would have found, obfuscate identities in various contexts and reporters that attend are aware of guidelines to follow.
> Seems to me that this system of marking passports with an "X" is flawed by being overly broad, including people who are unambiguously male or female.
Do you or do you not accept as fact that people are born who are neither unambiguously male nor unambiguously female?
It's a very simple Yes or No.
Regardless of your personal belief here, expert testimony in multiple court cases adjudicated by various seperate judges, along with a federal department and a state tribunal all aligned together to agree that Yes was the case in the world in which we live.
> Do you or do you not accept as fact that people are born who are neither unambiguously male nor unambiguously female?
Yes, some people are born who have differences of sex development, and this might require further investigation as to what abnormal event has actually happened in their development, and the root cause. This is for clinicians and developmental biologists to understand and elucidate for the rest of us.
However my point is this "X" marker tells us nothing much useful about this at all, as it's being applied to individuals who are unambiguously of one sex or the other even with DSDs, as with the Klinefelter syndrome cases.
The "X" is even being given to people whose sex is unambiguous, who don't have any DSD condition, but for some reason have come to believe that they are neither a woman or a man. A wholly psychological condition.
defrost|1 year ago
There's a weird thing that occurs in Australia, civil servants tend to respect citizens right to privacy. Not always, of course, but by and large identities are preserved and hefty fines come into play when privacy is violated.
Hansards and Court transcripts, as you would have found, obfuscate identities in various contexts and reporters that attend are aware of guidelines to follow.
> Seems to me that this system of marking passports with an "X" is flawed by being overly broad, including people who are unambiguously male or female.
Do you or do you not accept as fact that people are born who are neither unambiguously male nor unambiguously female?
It's a very simple Yes or No.
Regardless of your personal belief here, expert testimony in multiple court cases adjudicated by various seperate judges, along with a federal department and a state tribunal all aligned together to agree that Yes was the case in the world in which we live.
blinkedup|1 year ago
Yes, some people are born who have differences of sex development, and this might require further investigation as to what abnormal event has actually happened in their development, and the root cause. This is for clinicians and developmental biologists to understand and elucidate for the rest of us.
However my point is this "X" marker tells us nothing much useful about this at all, as it's being applied to individuals who are unambiguously of one sex or the other even with DSDs, as with the Klinefelter syndrome cases.
The "X" is even being given to people whose sex is unambiguous, who don't have any DSD condition, but for some reason have come to believe that they are neither a woman or a man. A wholly psychological condition.