Re:US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science
by dragonwriter on Tuesday November 27, 2018 @08:34AM
(#18542120)
> I don't think drafting women, for example, is going to be a net win for society.
If having a draft is good for society, especially a limited, skills-based draft (one of the things that the selective service system in principle supports), then excluding women from registration for it an exposure is a net loss (even if you might also benefit from excluding or limiting exposure of people who might bear children in the future to the type of mass draft used for, e.g., the world wars.)
> But while we still have such laws there has to be a legal definition of gender
The question was “what is the harm of making legal gender optional?” Obsoleting distinctions in law that are not themselves beneficial is not a harm.
Re:US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science
by pandaman on Tuesday November 27, 2018 @10:20AM
(#18542927)
I am not sure this is how arguments work. Saying "if <something> then <something else>" works only if <something else> actually follows from <something>.
If having a draft is good for society, especially a limited, skills-based draft (one of the things that the selective service system in principle supports), then excluding women from registration for it an exposure is a net loss (even if you might also benefit from excluding or limiting exposure of people who might bear children in the future to the type of mass draft used for, e.g., the world wars.)
> But while we still have such laws there has to be a legal definition of gender
The question was “what is the harm of making legal gender optional?” Obsoleting distinctions in law that are not themselves beneficial is not a harm.