I don't mean focus on medical situations as a wildcard to just practice any sort of (pseudo) medicine on people. It's about rights being given, not taken away.

The reason I mentioned this, is that the erasure of gender from official status might have as a side effect that rights related to gender (for example pregnancy leave) have to be defined in a way that doesn't link it to gender. By no means do I want some sort of medical laws or such that force things upon people, it's more about rights linked to a person's medical conditions.

In that sense, I see having a penis, or a uterus, or something else as just one of the medical characteristics of a person, just as for example their blood sugar, eyesight or mental state. Rights and care should be based on that, and not on a F/M on an official document.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 2 days ago

All logical and fair... but you can already see the POTUS calling it a "lunacy". That defines it as a state of mental impairment, which leads to restricted personal liberties, and is just a step away from forced "therapies".

Gender agnosticism should've been codified a long time ago, but it wasn't, and now they're planning on codifying the opposite.