frostbiker

They are fighting for that right because they are intersex or trans

Where did you get that? The article indicates that they are non-binary. That is neither intersex nor trans.

That’s the crux of the issue here: someone does feel the need to not fill out the field (i.e. filling it in with an “X”), and the health authority is forcing them to use either “M” or “F”

But the person in question is non-binary, which is a gender identity unrelated to their sex. It is perfectly possible that this person feels perfectly okay with a health card that indicates that their gender identity is non-binary while their sex is binary. In that case, separating gender from biological sex in their health card would address the issue at hand, particularly since nothing would prevent both fields to be left empty if they so choose.

As for why it makes sense to specify the biological sex in their health card, it is a medically useful piece of information that 99% of the patients would have no problem recording. Don't forget that patients are not always able to communicate at the time they are in need to health care. So, again, if it is useful and non-controversial for 99% of the patients there's no reason to remove it, just provide a way for patients to opt out of a simple M/F choice if they wish to.

I’m not sure you fully understand the issue. This isn’t merely about catering to a patient’s preference to be addressed in a certain way

...which is why I suggested differentiating between the way the patient would like to be addressed from their biological sex, and storing both in the health card.

What is the process for assigning gender at birth anyway? People look at the baby’s genitals and make a guess. For 99% of babies, that heuristic works. But it turns out that some people are trans or intersex, and that wrong guess causes nothing but trouble.

You appear to be conflating gender an sex. Sex is biological, while gender is a social construct. We assign sex at birth, and infer gender from that sex.

In trans people, the two do not match, which sometimes leads to disphoria. The sex assigned at birth is still accurate, but the gender that was inferred from it is not.

In intersex people, their biological sex is difficult to determine and often doesn't fit a simple binary (e.g. XXY chromosomes or androgen insensitivity).

The same solution is to trust that people are whatever gender they say they are

There is nothing to trust about their gender, we can respect their self-identity or we don't. As for their biological sex, it's a significant piece of medical information. If somebody feels uncomfortable stating it clearly on their health card, they can choose not to fill it out, but for the immense majority of us it is a non-issue.

That's because their zoning laws are different.

They allow building walkable neighborhoods with mixed-use buildings that have retail businesses on the ground floor and residential units on the 3-5 floors above. Their daily errands can easily be done by foot, so there is less traffic.

You can't achieve that in a car-dependent suburb where you need to drive to get to the nearest grocery store, school or cafe.

You know, you are right. Since pressing beg buttons is not such an inconvenience, why don't we make car drivers press them instead and let pedestrians continue unimpeded like cars do today?

Maybe there should be two entries: the gender they identify with, and the sex assigned at birth. One would be used to address the patient, the other would be useful for medical diagnosis and treatment.

And while we are at it, a few people are born with undifferentiated sexual organs, so it could make sense even for medical purposes to include a third option beyond male and female, rare as it might be.

Some people can't afford to leave their jobs for extended amounts of time. The sort of people who can't afford formula, for example.

Based on the way things are today, I can't make any assumptions that people in charge have any idea of what it takes to make a neighborhood ditch the car.

This is the key worry of governments with cryptocurrencies, and was the main selling point of them initially, before the whole crypto tech bro hype.

Yep. Arguably Bitcoin arose from the 2008 financial crisis and the following bailouts.

What I've never understood about it is that it seems so unlikely that it would ever replace a national currency, for two simple reasons. First, because taxes owed in a country can only be repaid in the national currency. Second, because government contracts will only ever pay in the national currency, from macroprojects, to maintenance contracts, to millions of civil servants. This creates both a ton of demand and a ton of supply for the national currency.

And that doesn't even take into account the role of the central bank and private banks in the money supply. Being highly regulated, there's zero chance that a private currency would ever be legally allowed to take hold there either.

Central bank digital currencies appear to have very little to do with crypto currencies like Bitcoin. Rather, they appear to be a mechanism to surgically induce economic stimulus when and where desired, like a more controlled version of the stimulus checks that we saw in many countries during COVID.

For example, they could directly credit your digital currency account with a certain amount of money that you are only allowed to spend on certain goods and services and for a limited amount of time. This would ensure that the money is spent and stimulates certain economic aress rather than being hoarded or invested.

Density without walkability means non-stop traffic.

Walkable neighborhoods need retail businesses. We need to be able to do everyday errands by foot if we want to keep traffic to reasonable levels.

The article does not justify why a carbon tax would not work, or at least be an important part of the solution. If we are missing our current targets, what measures can we take to do better? For example, how would increasing the carbon tax by 50% affect our emissions? Despair doesn't get us closer to our goals.