I mean the most accurate but unsatisfying answer to that is whenever a picture wouldn’t be satisfactory. There are multiple hypotheticals you could come up with. The simplest I can think of is a general description is more important in searching in a crowd than a picture is, but you could certainly come up with more than enough examples to justify m/f identification to be necessary.
If you were looking to ID someone in a crowd, then skin color/heritage (I hate the word ‘race’) would be an important one, yet that isnt listed on a licence, but is shown in the picture.
That would be a good reason to include race on IDs then, not a counter factual to why gender being listed is necessary. This is also just one example like I said previously.
I have no clue as it would obviously be beneficial. I feel like you’re hyper fixated on this either way. Like I said in my previous reply, this is one example. Even if I granted that this someone disproved my example (I’m not entirely sure how that would work) it wouldn’t actually have any bearing on my original statement.
Trust me, I do get your point, but the reason we don’t have race on our ID’s is because its arbitrary. Black Irish exist for example.
So why would my skin color be listed on my ID if my picture is there?
Anyone who is cross referencing the picture could simply just say what the skin color or ethnicity is.
In any case, I think your argument is moot. If police are trying to identify someone in a crowd, why would having their gender on their licence help?
If police know who they’re looking for, they will look up the person on their computer, and could see gender there. That doesn’t mean it needs to be on a licence.
Race is certainly not arbitrary, as your previous comment proved and common sense would substantiate.
I’m not sure why you’re looking at edge cases and making sweeping statements on effectiveness based on those examples. That seems misguided at best. No one claimed these are perfect data points for officers, only that they can help and are therefore warranted.
The information on IDs is the information officers have access to in their computers, it’s also the information dispatch has access to while giving a description. That is why having them on an ID in this particular example is important.
If you want to look at specifically why gender could be useful information in this one example, you can simply envision someone with a beard who identifies as female. The fact that their gender is female could inform an officer what they’d be wearing, where implying looking at the picture would guide the officer to assume the opposite.
This, again, is one example. As a general rule, more identifiers on an ID= a more effective ID, asking for specific examples and trying to reason them separately won’t change that, though we can do that if you’d like.
Race is certainly not arbitrary, as your previous comment proved and common sense would substantiate.
Which part of my comment proved race is not arbitrary?
Black Irish?
Do you expect my drivers licence to list “black Irish” as a race?
If you want to look at specifically why gender could be useful information in this one example, you can simply envision someone with a beard who identifies as female. The fact that their gender is female could inform an officer what they’d be wearing, where implying looking at the picture would guide the officer to assume the opposite.
I’m not sure why you’re looking at edge cases and making sweeping statements on effectiveness based on those examples.
This example is so extreme.
Even in this example I still dont understand why gender needs to be on the licence
If police know they’re looking for a trans woman, why would having the gender on the licence help?
I’ve also tried to steer us off this subject and into the realm of a debate centered on theory multiple times. If you’re unhappy with the example, please join me in not continuing to bring it up.
Do you have any thoughts on anything else I’ve said?
I mean the most accurate but unsatisfying answer to that is whenever a picture wouldn’t be satisfactory. There are multiple hypotheticals you could come up with. The simplest I can think of is a general description is more important in searching in a crowd than a picture is, but you could certainly come up with more than enough examples to justify m/f identification to be necessary.
If you were looking to ID someone in a crowd, then skin color/heritage (I hate the word ‘race’) would be an important one, yet that isnt listed on a licence, but is shown in the picture.
That would be a good reason to include race on IDs then, not a counter factual to why gender being listed is necessary. This is also just one example like I said previously.
So why isnt race included on IDs?
I have no clue as it would obviously be beneficial. I feel like you’re hyper fixated on this either way. Like I said in my previous reply, this is one example. Even if I granted that this someone disproved my example (I’m not entirely sure how that would work) it wouldn’t actually have any bearing on my original statement.
Trust me, I do get your point, but the reason we don’t have race on our ID’s is because its arbitrary. Black Irish exist for example.
So why would my skin color be listed on my ID if my picture is there?
Anyone who is cross referencing the picture could simply just say what the skin color or ethnicity is.
In any case, I think your argument is moot. If police are trying to identify someone in a crowd, why would having their gender on their licence help?
If police know who they’re looking for, they will look up the person on their computer, and could see gender there. That doesn’t mean it needs to be on a licence.
Race is certainly not arbitrary, as your previous comment proved and common sense would substantiate.
I’m not sure why you’re looking at edge cases and making sweeping statements on effectiveness based on those examples. That seems misguided at best. No one claimed these are perfect data points for officers, only that they can help and are therefore warranted.
The information on IDs is the information officers have access to in their computers, it’s also the information dispatch has access to while giving a description. That is why having them on an ID in this particular example is important.
If you want to look at specifically why gender could be useful information in this one example, you can simply envision someone with a beard who identifies as female. The fact that their gender is female could inform an officer what they’d be wearing, where implying looking at the picture would guide the officer to assume the opposite.
This, again, is one example. As a general rule, more identifiers on an ID= a more effective ID, asking for specific examples and trying to reason them separately won’t change that, though we can do that if you’d like.
Which part of my comment proved race is not arbitrary?
Black Irish?
Do you expect my drivers licence to list “black Irish” as a race?
This example is so extreme.
Even in this example I still dont understand why gender needs to be on the licence
If police know they’re looking for a trans woman, why would having the gender on the licence help?
I clarified that in my previous comment.
I’ve also tried to steer us off this subject and into the realm of a debate centered on theory multiple times. If you’re unhappy with the example, please join me in not continuing to bring it up.
Do you have any thoughts on anything else I’ve said?