That’s pretty much my stance as well. And it’s what current law in California seems to be.
So then what exactly are you and Bill Maher melting down about? What is the “extreme” woke position that Patton Oswald and the rest are pushing that you enlightened centrists are saving us from?
I don’t know about today, but in Virginia, 18 years ago, I sure did have to prove it to get the F on my driver’s license as well as federally on my Social Security file. I had the misfortune to be born in Ohio, which refuses to update sex on birth certificates for trans people, but fortunately I wasn’t held to that. Ugh!
I agree with you, I think that gets closer to the core of what this is about. And I think that in a way, it actually goes back to what Bill Maher was saying right before the bit that Andy found objectionable enough to resurrect this pit thread for; before he gave the example of gender, he was talking about how the left goes “too far” in trying to get rid of the default.
Having your sex assigned at birth be on the birth certificate as the default option does work for the vast majority of people, and it benefits society to act accordingly. But there does exist the view that simply having a default is inherently harmful to anyone who isn’t of that default.
I think that’s a fair argument to make when it comes to the default being, for example, male. When 51% of the population is female, that doesn’t make a lot of sense and clearly stems from historical bias rather than any actual benefit to society.
But in other situations, it makes more sense to have a default, and then make accomodations for people for whom the default doesn’t work.
The one argument I can see for removing the default is that just having a default “others” anyone who doesn’t fit the default. But that’s not an argument that anyone here seems to have made so far.
Seriously, what are you smoking and where can I get some??? I don’t think that Patton Oswald is pushing an “extreme woke position”.