> Meanwhile, clinics are scratching their heads trying to figure out how to map rates of ovarian cancer to "demisexuals", or how a local rise in "non-binary asexuals" might affect rates of testicular cancer, and what should be done about funding for screenings.
This is a great case in point! Simply classing people as male or female already loses data that's therapeutically relevant. The important thing in determining whether someone's at risk of ovarian or testicular cancer isn't whether they're male or female - it's whether they have ovaries or testes. Some people have both, some people have neither and some people do not have the set you'd expect from their gender. Assuming that "Male" or "Female" accurately describes this is exactly the kind of "forgetting" discussed in the article, and people lose out on appropriate healthcare as a result.
This is a great case in point! Simply classing people as male or female already loses data that's therapeutically relevant. The important thing in determining whether someone's at risk of ovarian or testicular cancer isn't whether they're male or female - it's whether they have ovaries or testes. Some people have both, some people have neither and some people do not have the set you'd expect from their gender. Assuming that "Male" or "Female" accurately describes this is exactly the kind of "forgetting" discussed in the article, and people lose out on appropriate healthcare as a result.