California state senate just passed a bill which would allow Californian citizens applying for public identification to choose a third option for their gender. This would most commonly be applied to state driver’s licenses. Instead of having “M” or “F” appear on their identification, people who do not identify with the typical binary genders could choose to have “X” appear. The bill also allows the parents of these citizens to officially change their gender on their birth certificates.
As a citizen of California and an ally of the LGBTQ+ community, I am extremely proud to hear that this bill has passed through our senate. I think bills such as this that promote equality and inclusion are especially important in these extremely heated political times. No person should be forced to be labeled as a gender they do not identify with. This bill will not only validates everyone who currently does not identify as male or female, but also tells the youth in our state and our coming generations that it is okay to be yourself and identify how you choose.
The bill has been passed through state senate but is still waiting to be signed by our governor, Jerry Brown. If the bill is signed, California will follow Oregon as the second state in the US to allow citizens to choose to have an X appear on their identification.
6 comments:
I, too, am glad to hear that the bill has passed through the state senate. Although California tends to be at the front-line of liberal legislation, I do believe that once a few states begin to build the momentum towards legally acknowledging and accepting those who identify themselves as neither female nor male, other states will follow suit. While it may take years for mindsets to evolve, legislation has also illustrated the tendency to influence opposing mentalities, like during the Civil Rights Movement.
I have been following this bill since I first heard of it, and as a nonbinary person, I'm really hoping it gets passed in the Assembly. The option for a nonbinary gender isn't only helpful for people who identify outside of the gender spectrum. For binary trans people, it may be helpful in that airports and other such institutions won't look at them with as much suspicion. For example, trans men tend to look younger, and it's not uncommon for their ID's to be dismissed as fake because they don't look as old as the ID says they are. It would also be helpful for intersex people, those whose biological sex is not completely aligned with male or female. At the moment, doctors have to assign babies to either "male" or "female," and if the infant is somewhere in between, the doctors have to just pick one. Sometimes, intersex people even have to undergo traumatic sex-change surgeries as children so that they fit their assigned sex better.
I am also proud to hear that California is following Oregon's lead in legally recognizing nonbinary people. Although other states may reject the idea of multiple genders, if the bill is signed, the Full Faith and Credit Clause will validate nonbinary people not just in California but in other states as well. This can encourage acceptance of other genders and inspire change in other states.
I am disappointed in the decision by the California Senate to add a third gender option for driver's licenses because all it is going to do is confuse law enforcement and make the process of obtaining a passport harder. I truly believe that a birth certificate should serve as a reference as to how people were born, either male or female. In extremely rare cases, deciding on a gender may be a controversial decision if the baby is born with both female and male body parts, but a gender has to be assigned at some point. However, this ability should not serve as an opportunity for everyone else who was born with normal body parts to alter their gender because they feel like they don't fit in their body. Therefore, neither a birth certificate nor a driver's license should be living documents when it comes to gender.
It's fair to draw similarities between men/women identifying as gender-neutral and teenagers identifying as over 21.
Both are irresponsible decisions.
A have to disagree with Nick's comments. When it comes to confusion of law enforcement, having gender strictly based on ones birth certificate can actually be more confusing. Consider a person who has "Male" on their birth certificate but both identifies as female and has undergone reassignment surgery. Do you believe that the police are better informed to see what gender was assigned at birth, or what gender said person identifies as?
Comparing age and gender implies that both are absolute. You appear to be operating by the common misconception that gender is biological, however, definitionally is, "considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones" (Oxford Dictionaries). Thus, gender is more a reflection of one's adherence (or lack thereof) to cultural norms than it is scientific fact.
Michael, I respectfully disagree with your stance on this issue, more explicitly the definition of gender. A dictionary definition does not negate the existence of scientifically established facts of the existence of chromosomes, more specifically "X" and "Y" chromosomes. Your definition listed isn't the complete one listed on Oxford, either, as it negates the portion before which reads "Either of the two sexes (male and female)". How do you rectify this?
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender
I am also aware that there are other chromosomal expressions than "XX" and "XY" that are the result of genetic mutation or inheritable disease. For such persons, I believe (as argued below) that chromosomal identification is even more important.
To address your question on what police are better off knowing, my answer is biological sex because it is verifiable via DNA evidence. Changing your genitalia does not change your sex chromosomes, so any DNA evidence gathered will show results in align with birth sex. If my gender is defined as "X" or "F" on my license, as my primary form of identification, and the scientists in the lab come back with my cheek swab and say "his chromosomes are XY," is gender then all of a sudden biological? Or do I walk free because the DNA clearly can't be mine because I believe that I'm not what my DNA says I am?
I have no problem with someone calling themselves what they like in their own private lives. If calling yourself something other than what biology says you are makes you happy, by all means go for it. However, when public policy deviates away from a verifiable identity and towards self-naming, I have to respectfully disagree.
Post a Comment