this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2026
316 points (92.5% liked)

No Stupid Questions

50264 readers
566 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] hungrycat@lemmy.world 58 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I’m not sure if OP meant sex or gender. I can’t think of a medically relevant reason to know an incapacitated person’s gender. Maybe someone with any experience or knowledge there can chime in.

My understanding of the legal discrimination argument is that whether someone holds a particular gender identity is irrelevant. If the perpetrator perceives someone to be of a particular gender, and acts with intent to discriminate against someone based on that belief, regardless of whether or not it’s true, that still constitutes gender discrimination. But IANAL.

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 21 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Gender, and other factors that aren't as "medically relevant", may help the staff pick between two treatment options. The patient's comfort and happiness can affect their overall wellbeing.

Say someone grows up in a culture where their gender (or some cultural group the person can belong to) usually has long hair. A particular treatment may have two options:

  • shave the head
  • something that doesn't involve shaving the head

Knowing what gender (or other group) the person belongs to might inform their decision.

Note, this is about why medical staff might want to know about gender identity and not the original question of how many legal genders we should have.

[–] Nibodhika@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago (2 children)

For your shaving the head example I would argue that if the person is incapacitated and needing urgent care the solution with the most chance of success should be preferred regardless of gender norms. If both are equally likely the one that doesn't remove hair should be preferred. You might be a man with attachment to your long hair even in a society where that's uncommon, gender does not dictate anything of the sort. So I still don't see a reason why gender is relevant medically.

[–] Ghoelian@piefed.social 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

As a guy with long hair i can tell you i would be pissed if they shaved my head while an alternative was available.

[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 days ago

The alternative: Death

[–] otter@lemmy.ca 5 points 4 days ago

That's fair, and it was a poor example on my part.

If one treatment is much better, then yes that one would be preferred. Generally when there are two treatments being weighed, both will have consequences (else one would obviously be better).

My point was that knowing things about a person, outside of their physical biology, can get better outcomes. It should never be REQUIRED for the patient to share it, but we should educate medical staff about their community so that they can use that information when it is helpful.

Some other examples, that aren't specific to gender

  • knowing what pronouns to use would make the patient trust the provider more and feel more comfortable
  • if you know the patients literacy level or knowledge of medical terminology, you can adjust your explanations
  • if the patient belongs to a group that might have an aversion to a particular treatment, you know to either spend more time explaining it or to let them know another option is available
  • if you know the patient is poor, then you might take that into account when recommending treatments. Even in publicly funded health systems, the lifestyle recommendations might not apply to every person

At the same time, the person shouldn't be making assumptions based on someone falling into a particular group, and they should confirm whatever it is they are checking for.

IMO, knowing about gender is less important in places where it doesn't carry as much cultural weight. As another example, if someone identifies as a woman in a culture where they don't want to be alone with a male figure, knowing their identity might remind the staff to bring someone else who identifies as a woman into the exam room.

We need to finish naming all 12,000 mushroom genders before we can make laws about them

[–] gastroglizzy@piefed.social 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

regardless of whether or not it’s true, that still constitutes gender discrimination.

Pretty sure you're right about that. A person's state of mind (or "mens rea" if you're in the profession) is an often crucial component of criminal acts. If someone assaults someone because they think they're Muslim, the fact that they're actually Mexican doesn't make it ok.

BUT, the other side to that is, say for example someone's gender is male and their sex is female, but they present masculine. If they reveal their sex to someone, and that person discriminates against them for being a woman, how is the victim supposed to claim their protected status? If it's not apparent and it's not documented, it will be difficult to claim those protections in court.

I am also not a lawyer 🤷‍♀️

[–] AskewLord@piefed.social 2 points 3 days ago

discriminatory law is not about individuals actions, it's about institutional ones.

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 0 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Just spitballing here, but:

If they reveal their sex to someone, and that person discriminates against them for being a woman, how is the victim supposed to claim their protected status?

Maybe we need to turn this around, maybe we should consider defaulting to the assumption that people should not be able to discriminate against other people for any reason instead of just being protected against "certain" kinds of discrimination. If we are going to allow discrimination for certain reasons, maybe we should make those allowed forms of discrimination the ones that need to be spelled out explicitly. If you don't have a good reason to discriminate against someone about something, maybe don't discriminate them? Maybe that's a bit outlandish, maybe I'm not thinking it through, I don't know, but it seems reasonable enough to me.

[–] AskewLord@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

because that's not how people work. you are arguing form an impossible ideal.

you yourself incessantly discriminate people based on their appearances. the point is to prevent people from those discriminations institutionally.

every single day you are dismissing or admiring people based on how they look, they speak, etc. and your 'reasonable' for these things is wildly different than somebody else's. human beings are not capable individually of the levels of self-awarenesss you are presuming exist, even in yourself.

the laws are largely to prevent systematic and institutional discrimination, individual human beings will always be discriminatory. A individual person hiring at a large org can still discriminate, but the institution itself can't because legally if there is a pattern of multiple discriminatory practices that can be actioned against.

[–] Ghoelian@piefed.social 3 points 4 days ago

You're getting into limiting free speech area there, im sure a lot of people would be very against something like that, however good the intentions may be.