I was originally going to ask how many legal genders there should be, but I fail to see a compelling argument against 0.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 10 hours ago (10 children)

Only in-so-far as medical regulation would require. Like if the hospital failed to check this crucial information and made a mistake because of it they should be held liable. Having it on your ID might also be important if you list yourself as an organ donor; not sure if that would matter but it might.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 5 points 9 hours ago (9 children)

    I can think of a handful of ways of confirming someone's biology without checking official documentation. After all, hospitals still check blood types and tissue types

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 hours ago (6 children)

    That takes time. You don't want to get the wrong dose of fentanyl, but you'll definitely want fentanyl if you've been hit by a car and broke some ribs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

    Okay but that argument kind of falls apart when you know that emergency medicine won't, for example, give a patient a dose of fentanyl without having naloxone immediately on hand. I am not a paramedic but I have known a few and a few ER nurses and they are almost always working with more unknowns than knowns.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 8 hours ago (1 child)

    And why would you want to add an additional unknown factor again? Because that's what you'd be doing by removing sex from the basic information card.

    Don't see how increasing the amount of times naloxone is given is beneficial here.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 hours ago*

    I mean it's not, what I'm saying is that the only time a patient's gender being unknown is a risk is in emergency situations. Otherwise the doctor and the patient are going to have a conversation before the doctor does anything and it should come up then. Although I should hope that it's not a doorknob comment.

    With the only situation when a person's gender is undermined is when the doctor and/nurses are already working with less than ideal information. Having a person's sex/gender on their identification isn't really answering the questions that need answering then. The only reason it's so important is because the protocols are built with the assumption that the person is one of two genders. Which lets not even begin to get into the atypical sex's (XXX, XXy, Xyy, ect). It's an outdated standard but it's so engrained into everything.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 child)

    I think the same for the donor marker in general. Can't the hospital system keep that info? Why does it need to be on my ID?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 0 points 9 hours ago

    Yup, that's my point. I don't think a government (should) need this.

    On that note, I learned from another commenter that in Germany you can have your gender deleted from their database.

  • source
  • parent