mumblethrax
Species traitor
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4,994
I've already made that explicit. But no, it's not really about what's useful to me, but what's useful to us (ideally). Legal definitions are, ultimately, just constituent to rules. The rule is what matters, not the definition.That rather depends what you consider to be a bad outcome. I suspect your views differ considerably from mine. You wish to be able to define sex as whatever happens to be useful to you.
Did you notice that you're talking about a difference in outcomes?My passport records my sex is male, so does my birth certificate. If the basis for those records is my biological sex then I would have incontrovertible evidence that the record was incorrect if either stated otherwise so it could be changed - and so would you.
And 'incontrovertible'? Lol.
(Also, I'm in America. We don't have passports.)
No. I'm saying that the law is different from science. Like I already said, I want the law to be informed by science.It seems you consider the law to be entirely based on the overall wishes of society with absolutely no reference to scientific fact. Bizarre.
The people who want the biological definition to be the legal definition are making exactly the mistake they accuse others of--confusing gender with sex.
Last edited:
