• Poggervania@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Only reason I could see this being logical in the first place is if being a biological male/female would impact the medical treatment of anything in a major capacity. Otherwise, fuck this law, it’s stupid.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sure, but when is the last time your birth certificate mattered in a medical setting? Nobody asks for that to give care. And it makes no difference to care anyway, the patient will just give their medical history to their doctor.

    • EtherWhack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That I could see, though the hormones (or other meds) that they would take and report should highlight the transition. Though cmiiw, I think the only real difference, aside from anatomical, will be metabolic which the referenced hormones would alter, making the case unique in and of itself. (eg. A F>M taking testosterone would have a metabolism that is a closer approximation to male than female and vice versa)