this post was submitted on 26 Feb 2026
785 points (98.8% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
15837 readers
818 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
From an objective viewpoint I know these laws are being passed in the name of hate, but I wonder of there is a medical reason to have such information. However, it would be more appropriate on a carried medical emergency information card rather than ID as this information is often enough not helpful in proof of identity.
If I ever have to get an ID in Kansas, I'll make sure to flash my genitals as proof. And I won't shower for the week prior.
From an objective standpoint, the driving license should have no indication of gender at all.
Don't try to justify bigots.
This interpretation of my comment is far from accurate. But I should not expect less in this world of divisive ignorance.
The "white moderate"* position is not always worth considering. Trans people should not have to justify their existence, this has nothing to do with medicine.
* This is an MLK reference. If you do not know it, read more.
Try to understand that that would be a subjective position I did not address. My only non-objective statement was the prod at their idiocy in my second part mocking their hate. There is no justification for hate of any kind.
The "white moderate" position you're demonstrating is what MLK warned about: someone who agrees injustice is wrong, but insists on finding neutral framings for it. You're more devoted to appearing objective than to justice.
Trans people do not owe anyone a medicalised justification for their existence on a government document, period. The DMV are not medical staff.
Searching for a "reasonable" angle on a law built on hate doesn't make you objective, it makes you an obstacle; and to paraphrase what MLK said: Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than outright hostility.
You completely mischaracterize my point.I'll try to be clearer. I never assume that a law or tradition is right, correct, fair, or just. I question everything. The presupposition that I would not change or challenge current, new, or past legislation is false. My position is far from neutral, it's just not based on opposing the percieved enemy as is so common these days. My position is intellectual and caring.
The position you continue to think I took would be not be intellectual. It presupposes that I believe in conserving the status quo. That is as far from correct as possible. I question everything. The position you continue to think I took would not be caring. It presupposes that I am not considering the harm to individuals. Also, far from correct.
I question everything, even solutions, because it often happens that by making a change based on one harm has potential to do harm to another. I want to thank dandelion for the amazing post that helps explore the harm than is done by the new law. With the understanding that hate is the only reason such a law would pass, we see that this is only doubling down on harm. That alone would convince me to push for removal of gender from all IDs because they are relics of fundamentalists in power.
I took a moment to reflect on the possible need for gender as a qualifier for many niche social programs. My conclusion is that it could be a separate form if necessary. Further, these programs are a sad reminder that we do not take care of each other on the grander scale of things which is what would make such qualifiers necssary. But that's a much bigger tangent to this conversation.
You've missed the point, again.
So is your point that you are angry and fed up? Me too. Credibility matters in the long run. Feelings are fleeting. Both have great value. Acting only on feelings will have divisive outcomes and result in more bad feelings. Acting only on intellect only will unintentionally not account for some factor and result in more bad feelings. Holding dogmatic to either method only perpetuates conflict. What point am I missing?
The point isn't my feelings, it's not your fucking feelings either. It's that you keep treating trans people's right to exist as an intellectual exercise requiring balance. It's isn't. Honestly, what on earth is wrong with you?
It's worth noting you thanked the person who educated you patiently and spent four replies defending yourself to the person who named what you were doing. That's a very white moderate response to being told you're doing white moderate things. Trans people should not need to justify themselves this way. Jesus Christ.
Nothing in my comment has anything to do woth someone's right to exist. My comments have been about how they are treated. Nothing in my comments has been about trans people needing to justify themselves. Your perception of this is way off from reality. That is because of feelings overwhelming your communication. I'm sorry you are so hurt. Please try to stop seeing the world as dichotomous. It is far from it.
Ah, and there it is. You have proven my point, yet again, better than I ever could.
You just told me my anger is the problem and that my feelings are "overwhelming my communication." That I should stop seeing the world as dichotomous. In other words: the person naming the injustice is responsible for the discomfort caused by naming it. You tone police the objection so you never have to address the objection itself, and your response to being told you were handling it badly was to diagnose my emotional state.
https://letterfromjail.com/
You continue to add context that I did not give. Try going back and reading carefully to see how incorrect you are. That is why I say feelings cannot work alone. They fill in blanks with biases rather than asking why. For example, why do you believe I think anger is a problem? In all the context I have said feelings are important. The only feelings I have mentioned is hurt. How can you not be by the state of the world? I am. Also, your writing has tone that would appear as such. This is called empathy.
I deal with all kinds of people all the time. It is more common than not for bias to get in the way of communication. Feelings are a major player here. I'd like to recommmend reading some neuroscience. I am a fan of Jonathan Haidt. His books have helped me understand a lot of this. The Righteous Mind is a great start. Also, understanding how falacies work is very helpful.
King's letters from jail are great pieces of history but do not connect here. It doesn't feel like you have been reading what I have written and are even fabricating meaning. So again, I have no idea what your point is or if it has anything to do with mine?
You just recommended Jonathan Haidt, a man whose entire thesis is that we should empathise with the moral intuitions of people who oppose civil rights, as a corrective to my reading of MLK. I don't think you've understood either of them. He has been extensively criticised for false equivalence on exactly these kinds of questions.
https://behavioralscientist.org/whats-wrong-with-moral-foundations-theory-and-how-to-get-moral-psychology-right/
Moral psychology and civil rights protesters: Exemplary, different, and mad -> https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12915 This one specifically talks about MLK and Haidt's pet theory.
Criticism is a good thing! That is where I am coming from. And no, it is not a correction to your reading. I did not see any connection from the letters to our conversation. I reference Haidt because he has helped me to begin understanding how so many people around me are thinking. As I said earlier, I care. I care about everyone and want the best for them. This does not mean I think they have good intentions or that they should not be corrected. It just gives a place to start. I did make a joke in my original comment that I see as similar to King's "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." The law is obsurd, so should be the moral people.
You are claiming empathy while using a framework that pathologises the people you claim to care about.
even worse, the neutral framing is just wrong, there isn't a medical reason to treat trans people as their assigned sex rather than their actual sex, and in fact there are medical reasons to view trans patients as their actual sex and not their assigned sex (as I get into in my comment above).
There might still be other neutral framings that can be used to undermine trans rights, I think the trans athletic bans are a good example (though, the more evidence we get on that, the more it is looking to be the case that trans women on average are like cis women in their physical fitness and ability, not like cis men).
💯💯💯
Hi!
Trans person here.
The answer to your question is no, there is no medical reason for the sex marker on the driver's license. (Nor would it make sense to carry a medical card with your assigned sex marker on it.)
Assigned sex at birth is rarely relevant in medical contexts, and in fact is probably misleading (causing doctors to inappropriately treat the patient based on their assigned sex rather than their actual biological characteristics).
A trans woman is truly more like a cis woman than a cis man when it comes to medical needs, e.g. she will need mammograms like cis women, and (assuming here that trans women are on estrogen) they metabolize drugs like cis women and almost all of their biology is not different from a cis woman who lacks a uterus and ovaries.
A study from Oct 2025 found that within 12 months of taking HRT, trans people have a heart mass that matches their gender:
Another recent study published in Oct 2025 found that on the molecular level hormones change the protein biomarkers in cells:
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/study-finds-trans-womens-blood-proteins
The more evidence that is collected the more we realize that biological sex is not fixed but instead the human body is plastic and the sex really does change, so it's not really an exaggeration to say that trans women are biologically female in most medically relevant contexts.
The only exceptions I can think of are due to organs developing a certain way, e.g. trans men with a uterus still might technically have a rare chance of becoming pregnant or developing cervical cancers.
On the flip side, in rare cases, a trans woman (esp. one who transitions late and has a family history of prostate cancer) might develop a prostate cancer (fun fact: cis women have an organ similar to a prostate called the Skene's gland that, like the prostate, produces ejaculate; it's not a male-only organ), so that is one difference - trans women might need prostate exams that cis women wouldn't need.
But for almost all medical contexts, trans people should be treated as their gender and not their assigned sex at birth. For trans folks who have been on HRT for >6 - 12 months, it is genuinely a risk to their health to view them as their assigned sex at birth.
EDIT: for what it's worth, my doctor basically told me not to out myself to other doctors and this advice is not uncommonly given; he said the only thing I need to figure out in the future is possibly getting prostate exams when I'm much older - but even that is not clearly indicated given the treatment for prostate cancer is anti-androgens and estrogen, which I'll have been on for decades before the screening would start for prostate cancers; the needs vary, a woman who transitions later in life and has a family history of prostate cancer will have a different need for prostate cancer screening than a trans woman who transitioned before puberty and has no family history of prostate cancers, for example.
Thank you for an amazing response! Perspective and sources. You're awesome.
Yeah I'm capable of telling my doctor I'm trans, and if I feel like my country isn't safe enough that should be my decision, not my governments.