@SpikeTalon You still have not managed to convince me of a compelling state interest to legally differentiate between and label genders. Of what business/interest is it of the government or state to do so? We are all supposed to be equal under the law, so why differentiate legally?

@SpikeTalon You may have noticed I used the words "compelling state interest" above. That is a phrase I lifted form court rulings about determining restrictions on human rights or th elifttign of such restrictions. It is a standard which has been used to ease discrimination amon gvarious minorities.

I happen to have several acquaintances that fall in the "ambiatory" area of gender. I've heard many stories aobut persons born with ambiguous genitals, where doctors made determination of which was more prominent, or the parenst made a choice on which gender child they wanted and the child was surgically altered soon after birth. However, the child would "feel wrong" and "different" their entire childhood, and when tnhey hit puberty, things really "went wrong". Someone else decided to try to make them something they were not.

Because of my knowing quite a few such persons, my views of gender are that each person should be ble to identify as whatever gender they feel they are. And, I extend that not to just to those with ambiguous genitalia, but also to transgendered persons as well. A transgender person is born witht eh gender of one person, but the menatlity or psychology of the other4 gender hard wired into their brains.

Gettign back to "compeling stae interest". There is no compellign state interest to force gender assignment at birth. It woudl make much more sense to wait for the brain to mature and see if it is hard wired for one gender or another and leave th eultimate decision up to the person whose gender is involved.

As humans wnho are supposedly equal under the law, I am reluctant to let teh state categorize people and put them into various pigeon holes. For purposes of identity some identifying feature probably will be needed for identification purposes, but I am greatly resistant to the idea of categorization, because it holds too much potential for discrimination.

As far as categorization goes, we are al lhumah, and all shoudl have equal opportunities and if we must be judged, we shoudl be judged on oru actual abilities and merits, not by our gender, skin color or sexual orientation or identity.

The bottom line is that there are enough groups out there who are anxious and very willing to discriminate. I don't think the situation is helped by the government stepping in to categorize and label people, providing easy tools to be used for discrimination. Especially looking at how history has shown how extremist governments used such information.

Your extending government over reach to "what weapons we own" is faulty uinder the "compelling state interest" principles of which I was arguing. Teh government doe shave a compellign interest to insure societal safety and stability. I think Australia has enacted some very common sense gun laws, which have effectively stopped all mass shooting in that country. However ion the U.S. we seem to do what is most profitable rather than what actually makes the most sense, so i doubt we will see similar legislation in the U.S.

Valid response