Self-diagnosis, Not a good thing IMHO *shudders*

I can't see any other way to diagnose this that would not be at least as reliable as self diagnosis. The only exception is those who repress their gender identity to the point they don't realize their gender identity.

Having a doctor make the decision can go badly if the decision is wrong. See the case of David Reimer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

(Also, why is my first post on this page "low rated"? If you are one of those who downvoted that post, please explain why it is harmful to the discussion? (Simple disagreement is not a good enough reason.))

I don't understand. You're saying we ourselves determine our sex? Not gender identity, but sex; ie the act of being male or female based on physical characteristics? Is for us to decide? Its really confusing just so you know; with you seemingly differing in opinion every time someone asks.

No good reason at all. I upvote all posts in this thread to try to mitigate but people just use disagreement as an excuse. Its a tradition in this thread. Look at the first posts.

I had a 4 paragraph response to this current jabber that was on point (and hilarious), but I deleted it. It's really not worth the brain cells.

I think part of the problem here is that Dtgreene doesn't actually engage in meaningful human dialogue. He/she prefers to spit out random and incoherent 'theories' in modern science like some kind of file clerk reading off the instructions on the guide to the Dewey decimal system. It would be one thing if the science was firm in one direction or another, but it's not. That's why we have many scientific fields loaded with 'working theories'. So what we have here is a subjective being telling you they're offended because you're not currently defending their position, which turns out to change on a dime. That's the way scientific evolution happens. One day we're burning someone at the stake for their view, the next day we've codified it in universities and are making it mandatory for everyone to learn. That door swings both ways.

And notice the preoccupation with word-themes like 'reality' and 'subjective views'. Some lab nerds in white coats are confusing their biology and instead need to take some extra classes in psychology. Maybe a refresher course in philosophy wouldn't hurt either.

So we are to ignore physical biology and based on what one feel alone?

If we go down that path, what if someday you ask someone you are a man or a women, you are answered "I am a bull / mare / tom cat / table". Will you able to accept that and treat the person as a bull / mare / tom cat / table?

Appeal to nature... slippery slope... false equivalence.

Please don't post personal attacks on other users. It really does not help the discussion, and it is not nice to the person targeted.

(Also, my username starts with a lowercase letter, not a capital one.)

I actually know one of those for some years and he's a really awesome sensitive guy and extremely creative although massively troubled in several ways (paranoia beeing one of the worst things).
He actually thinks, that he is a spiritual being from another world trapped inside a human host for a certain period of time and he doesn't mean it as a joke as I thought at first.
At least now and then he seems to sense, that he's completely bonkers and he doesn't try to force others to refer to him a certain way or share his opinion.

To be fair, I don't know any either online or in real life. but he sounds like a good guy - especially the "no forcing his pov on others".

There is no "incomplete" information the only thing that the doctor/nurse do is register the biological sex of the baby. Yes there are some exceptions/anomalies (e.g. hermaphrodites, peoples born with the wrong chromosomes) that can lead to "errors" but that only concern a small minority of cases.

If the baby in question decide in X years in the future that he/she is born in the wrong body and what to change his/her gender that's another story altogether; but it's not the doctor responsibility to care about that and has absolutely nothing to do with what is written in the birth certificate.

The equivalence is true. For the otherkin community and the transgender......

Sorry, for a portion of the otherkin community and a portion of transgender who think like Dtgreene, they choose to disregard physical biology and rely on what one feel he / she / it is.

You cannot use an argument only on a specific issue and choose to ignore the same argument in other issues.

So if you are to accept male and female are interchangeable on the basis of their feelings only and ignore the physical biology, you have to accept humans and animals are interchangeable.

That's not how it works.

There is documented scientific evidence that transgender identities exist, and that being unable to express them can cause significant mental harm (including suicide).

I am not aware of any such evidence about otherkin.

Also, as I mentioned before, my username starts with a lowercase letter, not a capital one.
The problem with this approach is twofold: 1. if the gender on the birth certificate is not changed, it can out the person later, possibly exposing the person to violence. 2, Changing the gender marker is not always practical; it may involve invasive surgeries that are expensive and not every trans person needs or wants, and in some places it's outright impossible.

It would really be better if birth certificates didn't have a spot for sex in the first place; this would solve the problems that transgender and intersex people experience with birth certificates.

Edit: Another thing to think about: Transgender people are human and therefore deserve human rights; otherkin, it could be argued, are not human and therefore don't deserve human rights. Think about that.

I went to a Halloween party with 12people where the host had a psychic show up for fun. To my surprise everyone (including the host who 1st claimed it was for fun) believed the psychic as serious and had powers. Ironically, 2 of the psychic believers find it weird that I play video games - one who believes *most* video games make people violent. Nevertheless, I didn't make them feel bad for their beliefs.

I knew a Christian couple who believed dancing (all kinds) was pure evil (the guy immediately went into a different room & closed the door as even mentioning the mere topic of dancing was too disturbing for him). I know people who told me they believe in auras (of course only they can see them & when they meet someone else who also claims to see auras they don't see the same colors) and each aura does something magically different - so it's not the unique medical eye condition thing. I know a lady who believes in fairies (mythology) and 2 people who believe they have invisible colored dragons following them around like guardian angels. And they are dead serious... or there are lots of real-life trolls acting out some great scenes for me who are always ready to go in character?

Sometimes others will manipulate people to believe things that aren't true for their own purpose(s). Obviously, children are even easier to manipulate/influence.

That aside, the people I find the most bonkers (IMO) are those who get extremely angry over little things, like someone being 5minutes late when that 5minutes isn't crucial at all. At first, you think ok there is something else they are really upset about, but when you dig dipper there's nothing there and everyone (family, co-workers, friends, etc) is walking on thin ice the whole time around them.

1) So? people as a whole are exposed to violence anyways (regardless of sex/gender)- this sounds to me like you're advocating for a protected class of people. 2. well, we can't get everything we want can we.

Do you think think I wanted to be considered misogynistic, literally Hitler & oh so much worse than ISIS for thinking video games should be for everyone? (not the individual games)
--
I honestly don't see how not marking the sex would actually improve things & potentially crucial data could be lost.

edit: regardless of the issues someone has (trans or other) they are human & should have their rights intact. as a US citizen I have the right to bear arms (provided I don't abuse the right) that does not mean I am required to be armed though. what I'm saying is that they should decide for themselves individually