transgender

And that's why, all the way back in the beginning of this, I said that I thought the best solution was to omit information about sex entirely.

Had anyone asked, I could've clarified that. But instead they just ignored it and jumped to the comforting for them but loathsome for me conclusion that I'm just some sort of bigot.

My position as far as that goes is that the fundamental problem is that governments demand and record, and thus effectively make official, a designation of sex. Not only is that rather obviously problematic - I don't see how it can ever be relevant to anything beneficial. I see no way in which it can be said to be necessary for a government to demand and record an individual's sex unless it's to determine that they are to be accorded some specific status or treatment based on it, which is axiomatically discriminatory. If, as the law dictates, the sexes are to be treated equally, then sex is not a relevant detail for a government to record.

And for what it's worth, if I had my way about it, birth certificates wouldn't include a name either. That's long been a personal grudge of mine, though admittedly for a reason some might find odd and/or trivial. I think the only good way to name a person (or a pet, which is actually what initially led me to this conclusion) meaningfully is to get to know them first, and let the name come over time. I think that requiring a name up front has led to an inherently problematic approach to the entire concept of naming.

As far as identification goes, I think the best way to handle it, by far, is to assign on the birth certificate whatever number the government uses for its own identification purposes, and record whatever neutrally and actually usefully identifying characteristic(s) technology allows. It's traditionally been a handprint or similar, but as the technology improves so that it becomes not only possible but trivial, I think it rather obviously should be a DNA profile.

And to again go all the way back to the beginning, as it stands, a birth certificate is a notably poor piece of identification - IMO, a thing that has been made to serve purposes it's simply not well-equipped to serve, and that is the real heart of the problem (which is exactly why the very first thing I said on this thread was that the whole problem addressed here is, to me, just another argument against using a birth certificate as a form of identification in the first place).

To me, and rather obviously, a birth certificate should serve the one and only purpose of recording the birth of some specific person at some specific point in time, and thus establish a record based on which whatever much more useful and up-to-date form of identification could later be issued as necessary.

I mean really - the whole idea of a birth certificate serving as identification in and of itself is farcical, and I've thought that since the very first time I used mine for that. What in the world are they supposedly checking to verify that that's me? "Yep - 17 inches long and 7 pounds, 2 ounces - that's right!"

Pshew. Sorry I threw all that at you, but I really needed that vent. This whole experience of desperately trying and failing to actually communicate my view instead of just being condemned for whatever other people self-servingly assumed my view to be has been extremely unpleasant, and hopefully this will serve as enough clarification to finally put that hurtful bullshit to rest.