RE: Wie viele Geschlechter gibt es eigentlich?
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Thanks for your thoughtful comment! You are right: categorization helps us navigate the world, but it can oversimplify complex realities. The idea of 'just human' on IDs is interesting. At least for me it doesn't matter to see my sex on my passport (actually, in terms of complete freedom I would not even need a passport, but that is another story).
0
0
0.000
True and agree regarding oversimplification.
Question is when we categorise humans in genders, should this just be on biological elements or does the mind also play a role? I know, the latter you didn't debate in our article. Anyways, the question on genderification administration starts with the why. Why do we want to classify humans in genders? I think those who drive gender recording shall have a close look towards this topic. Perhaps some form of public debates and decision making shall be made. In my country the concept of citizen council is used more often these days, especially for topics with the difficulty of this one. For now the results of such citizen council is an advise to politicians, but I think this should become less advisory, more decision. Under the condition that the citizen coucil works, ie also get exposed to right experts, when needed even from different areas and even with different view points.
No ID: that is another interesting topic. Also in the grey zone. Like all these type of topics are, every outcome and decision has its (objective) pro's and con's for the individual, the neighbourhood, the town/city and the larger society.
These are interesting and absolutely legitimate questions: Should 'mind' be considered when determining sex? And why do we categorize humans at all?
Regarding the mind's role, the problem is that biological markers are (mostly) objectively verifiable, while internal identity is subjective and hard to assess externally. That's not necessarily an argument against considering it – but it does raise practical questions, especially in contexts where verification matters (like competitive sports).
Perhaps the solution isn't "biology OR identity", but context-specific approaches? For example, medical or sports contexts may need biological data; social contexts may prioritize self-identification.
That is a great way of looking at things. Indeed, for sports, biological markers may need to be used. For other topics, self-identification may indeed be the way forward. You got me in thinking mode with some great perspectives. Thanks for that!
You are very welcome! If my post made some people think, that's the best I could hope for. :)