ACLU sues Alaska DMV over transgender's driver's license
Jill Burke | Jul 18, 2011
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/aclu-sues-alaska-dmv-over-transgenders-drivers-license (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/aclu-sues-alaska-dmv-over-transgenders-drivers-license)
The Alaska Civil Liberties Union is squaring off in court with Alaska's Division of Motor Vehicles over what it calls an outdated internal policy at DMV regarding how and when someone can change the sex listed on their driver's license.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in Alaska Superior Court, is the result of the DMV's cancellation earlier this year of a woman's driver's license because she failed to provide proof of a surgical sex change. The woman, a pilot, was born male but for the last two years has fully lived her life as a female.
--------
State sued for denying transgender woman a driver's license
PROOF OF SURGERY: ACLU calls action unconstitutional.
By BECKY BOHRER
The Associated Press
Published: July 18th, 2011 08:19 PM
http://www.adn.com/2011/07/18/1973705/state-sued-for-denying-transgender.html (http://www.adn.com/2011/07/18/1973705/state-sued-for-denying-transgender.html)
JUNEAU -- The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the state of Alaska on behalf of a transgender woman, alleging that the state denied her a driver's license listing her gender as female unless she provided proof that she'd undergone a sex change operation.
The lawsuit, which ACLU said was filed in state court in Anchorage Monday, states it is unconstitutional to deny the woman a license accurately reflecting her gender identity simply because she hasn't undergone surgery.
After 30 years in the Police Force here, I can't see why your gender needs to be on the licence at all. It makes no sense.
All that is required is sufficient identification to tell whether the driver is the person shown on the licence. If there is a photo that should be enough. Apart from that, whether it is current, and right for the vehicle being driven is all that is required .
If there is going to be further investigation, gender will show up on the Police database anyway.
Beauracratic BS I reckon.
Karen.
Quote from: justmeinoz on July 19, 2011, 08:26:28 AM
After 30 years in the Police Force here, I can't see why your gender needs to be on the licence at all. It makes no sense.
All that is required is sufficient identification to tell whether the driver is the person shown on the licence. If there is a photo that should be enough. Apart from that, whether it is current, and right for the vehicle being driven is all that is required .
If there is going to be further investigation, gender will show up on the Police database anyway.
Beauracratic BS I reckon.
Cannot speak to other countries, but in the States, many agencies will NOT permit a male officer to perform the pat search of a woman. There are also often additional guidelines that agencies have in place related to transportation of a female suspect/offender. And no, the CCH is NOT always available PRIOR to the need to search someone...which means that the DL on one's person becomes the most valuable information the officer has relative to the persons ID.
Additionally, the DL does not associate one with a vehicle but rather confers that one has the legal ability to drive. It would be a real pain in teh ass if I had to update TxDPS every time I got a new vehicle (I have multiple vehicles) or if I had to update the FAA if I decided I was going to fly a different plane. Even with the FAA, all they care about is that I HAVE the certificate on my person if they decided to ramp-check me somewhere (never has happened to me yet)...
Quote from: Ann Onymous on July 19, 2011, 09:37:49 AM
Cannot speak to other countries, but in the States, many agencies will NOT permit a male officer to perform the pat search of a woman. There are also often additional guidelines that agencies have in place related to transportation of a female suspect/offender. And no, the CCH is NOT always available PRIOR to the need to search someone...which means that the DL on one's person becomes the most valuable information the officer has relative to the persons ID.
Which IMHO is more reason to not require surgery etc before they change "sex" on your ID. I don't want male officers patting me down etc etc. I'm not sure what the answer is but I am glad to see this being challenged.
Quote from: Valeriedances on July 19, 2011, 04:40:50 PM
If there is no proof of sex on identification how are the police supposed to segregate people they detain? I dont want to be detained in the same detention areas as men. Are they supposed to make snap, on the spot decisions of who is to go where or is legal identification a better protection for people? I vote for legal documentation.
OK, so please explain who you define as "men"? It -sounds- like you are saying anyone pre-op is a man? That is what the current situation creates. Any trans person who isn't post op IS thrown in with the men right now. The other thing is the VAST majority of the public will NEVER be sent to jail, so this is more about having a gender marker that fits them rather than "which jail cell do they go it" argument.
ALL this lawsuit is saying is having to provide "legal documentation" to prove you have had surgery isn't constitutional. They are NOT saying that gender markers should be removed from ID's. Unless of course you don't think anyone pre-op is actually a woman, which might be what you are saying here?
Quote from: Stephe on July 20, 2011, 08:24:24 AM
The other thing is the VAST majority of the public will NEVER be sent to jail, so this is more about having a gender marker that fits them rather than "which jail cell do they go it" argument.
Certain regulations exist in part because of a minority, not what the majority might or might not do. And it isn't about 'what jail cell' someone might go in. A significant majority of law enforcement interactions that occur on a daily basis do not result in arrest and incarceration. Further, there are other instances where having the marker serves a legitimate interest. However, I see no need to rehash everything again since in all of the other threads, it has turned out to be a pissing match where the post-ops get taken to task for flauting 'privilege.'
QuoteALL this lawsuit is saying is having to provide "legal documentation" to prove you have had surgery isn't constitutional.
Expect the State's response to be along the lines of 'asking someone to provide proof of identity is consistent with what is asked of every applicant for a license...nothing is more constitutional than THAT.'
By trying to force an agency to create a special set of rules is asking for SPECIAL treatment...and THAT will be argued to the court to be an improper remedy for the court to have the agency put into place.
Before I pulled anyone over I would be asking for all the driver's details as well as vehicle reg and if stolen, so that I would know what I was dealing with. Bit late when you are standing next to the car.
Karen.
Quote from: justmeinoz on July 21, 2011, 08:19:12 AM
Before I pulled anyone over I would be asking for all the driver's details as well as vehicle reg and if stolen, so that I would know what I was dealing with. Bit late when you are standing next to the car.
Karen.
And when the 27-28 (or the 27-29 on the DL itself since driver details would not be associated with the plate that was radioed in to dispatch or pulled through in the in-car network) came back, I am guessing that you EXPECTED to see an ID that matched the return. And absent that, I am guessing there was a process in place by which the prospect of calling for assistance existed. I know MANY agencies here that have very distinct processes in place for instances where a male officer has an encounter with a female that can escalate beyond a simple citation.
Actually I would be prepared for an ID mismatch. Bit like a car on the side of the road with someone working under the bonnet. Civilian respose is '"broken down". Police response is, "car thief?" We also had a fairly high percentage of female staff.
Here, the control room can access Drivers's records, Criminal records, Interstate records easily, and also flags anything particularly noteworthy about the offender and associates, eg,goes armed, known member of.... etc. One advantage of not having fragmented jurisdictions, one State-one Police Force, and fairly good interstate contact. The situation in Europe would be even more integrated I would think, with National Police Forces.
I worked in the area developing the comm's systems for a while, and we had to push hard to get a system that allowed everyone in the District to hear both sides of all calls. That way other units could provide their own input on the offender, time they would take to back-up etc if needed.
Karen
Quote from: Ann Onymous on July 21, 2011, 08:14:44 AM
Certain regulations exist in part because of a minority, not what the majority might or might not do. And it isn't about 'what jail cell' someone might go in. A significant majority of law enforcement interactions that occur on a daily basis do not result in arrest and incarceration. Further, there are other instances where having the marker serves a legitimate interest. However, I see no need to rehash everything again since in all of the other threads, it has turned out to be a pissing match where the post-ops get taken to task for flauting 'privilege.'
Expect the State's response to be along the lines of 'asking someone to provide proof of identity is consistent with what is asked of every applicant for a license...nothing is more constitutional than THAT.'
By trying to force an agency to create a special set of rules is asking for SPECIAL treatment...and THAT will be argued to the court to be an improper remedy for the court to have the agency put into place.
I have a feeling you would feel a bit different if this was like years ago when they didn't allow for a post-op to change the gender marker on her ID either.. Oh yeah -THAT- special treatment is different and good since it applies to me.
This is another case of someone fighting AGAINST forward progress and AGAINST things that will help someone besides themselves..
Quote from: Stephe on July 22, 2011, 09:25:41 AM
I have a feeling you would feel a bit different if this was like years ago when they didn't allow for a post-op to change the gender marker on her ID either.. Oh yeah -THAT- special treatment is different and good since it applies to me.
I'm going to guess you have missed the multiple posts that date my status as having been prior to damned near all of the legal challenges regarding documentation...and BTW, I never went through the courts to get my paperwork changed.
QuoteThis is another case of someone fighting AGAINST forward progress and AGAINST things that will help someone besides themselves..
Your slanted personal attack aside, I don't view it as fighting against 'forward progress.' I simply do not find it unreasonable for the State to expect certain procedures to have been attained in order to modify certain documents. As others have noted in previous threads, the pre- and non-ops are rapidly moving this country to the point to where the transsexual is going to become an asterisk or other and, quite frankly, I find THAT to be unacceptable as an option even if it would not affect me at this juncture in my life (since, well, good luck finding any information about my earlier documents since the paper trail does not exist in the traditional sense).
Quote from: Ann Onymous on July 22, 2011, 01:05:40 PM
Your slanted personal attack aside, I don't view it as fighting against 'forward progress.' I simply do not find it unreasonable for the State to expect certain procedures to have been attained in order to modify certain documents. As others have noted in previous threads, the pre- and non-ops are rapidly moving this country to the point to where the transsexual is going to become an asterisk or other and, quite frankly, I find THAT to be unacceptable as an option even if it would not affect me at this juncture in my life (since, well, good luck finding any information about my earlier documents since the paper trail does not exist in the traditional sense).
Step back and try to read what you just wrote objectively if that's possible. Yes it's you fighting against other peoples rights that will in no way affect you. And who said anything about "other"? NO ONE is talking about changing YOUR status or whatever this straw man is you created to argue against..
I just fail to see why people are -forced- to have genital surgery to have the gender marker on their ID match the gender they live now. It's SUPPOSED to be for identification and unless someone pulls off my pants, I look nothing like a male. And maybe you're also OK with pre-op/non-ops being tossed into jail cells with men? Wouldn't affect you so maybe you would argue that should be continued as well? Yes hon you -are- preaching from privilege.
Quote from: justmeinoz on July 19, 2011, 08:26:28 AM
After 30 years in the Police Force here, I can't see why your gender needs to be on the licence at all. It makes no sense.
It doesn't.
I live in NSW, Australia. Our licenses have a magnetic stripe on them that I don't know what's on them, so it could be on that. However on the actual print on the card, it has nothing about gender on it.
I'll just get my coat.
I was just trying to make the point that for a driving offence, gender is not really relevant, (you normally don't search a driver for a traffic offence only).
It should be readily available as part of criminal history check. If that sort of info isn't available immediately, then the Gov't needs to lift it's game and provide the Police with the tools to do their job safely.
Karen.
Quote from: justmeinoz on July 23, 2011, 02:10:41 AM
I'll just get my coat.
I was just trying to make the point that for a driving offence, gender is not really relevant, (you normally don't search a driver for a traffic offence only).
There are A LOT of searches incident to a traffic stop in the States...MANY of my clients have offenses that originated from a routine traffic stop and morphed into drug or alcohol arrests. With the advent of the forfeiture provisions, MANY agencies now HOPE a traffic stop turns into something else.
As to another individual's comments and attacks in this thread, to respond would take the thread far beyond the original scope. My thoughts on some of the other issues they raise have been make known in other threads. The marker serves a legitimate purpose and the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that certain standards are in place that are consistent with what EVERY citizen has to produce prior to getting a license.
Quote from: Stephe on July 22, 2011, 08:59:11 PM
Step back and try to read what you just wrote objectively if that's possible. Yes it's you fighting against other peoples rights that will in no way affect you. And who said anything about "other"? NO ONE is talking about changing YOUR status or whatever this straw man is you created to argue against..
I just fail to see why people are -forced- to have genital surgery to have the gender marker on their ID match the gender they live now. It's SUPPOSED to be for identification and unless someone pulls off my pants, I look nothing like a male. And maybe you're also OK with pre-op/non-ops being tossed into jail cells with men? Wouldn't affect you so maybe you would argue that should be continued as well? Yes hon you -are- preaching from privilege.
Stephe, why do many of your posts have to be demeaning and immature against people you disagree with? It is possible to debate openly, maturely and responsibly without resorting to personal attacks.
Just an observation.
Quote from: Annah on July 23, 2011, 09:19:51 AM
Stephe, why do many of your posts have to be demeaning and immature against people you disagree with? It is possible to debate openly, maturely and responsibly without resorting to personal attacks.
Just an observation.
*Holds up a mirror*
Quote from: Valeriedances on July 23, 2011, 05:47:46 AM
Below is a trans blog article discussing identification in NSW, Australia where the author directly advocates for an 'Other' category. This is a very dangerous position. Once you have an 'Other' designation, can it be guaranteed that a person can ever have it removed? Trans folks could forever be designated as 'Other', even after transition.
I would never have transitioned if that was the case. As a binary-identified person I will never allow myself to be 'othered' like the author suggests. An intersex option or 'I' option on the surface sounds reasonable, but that is a case for intersex people to make, to advocate for, not the general trans community.
http://destrantalk.blogspot.com/2010/03/australian-transgender-trailblazer.html (http://destrantalk.blogspot.com/2010/03/australian-transgender-trailblazer.html)
Where did this "other" come from? That is not what this case is about.. I'm not interested in an "other" either and that isn't what this case even suggests.
I do find it odd you stating you wouldn't have transitioned if that was the case. While I would rather have a gender marker on my ID that correctly matches my identity, but it isn't the reason nor the goal of the changes I have made in my life. And if they -did- make me sign on as "other", that wouldn't change my actions either. I might not like it but it wouldn't change my decision. I also would not have surgery only to get a F on my ID either.
Quote from: Stephe on July 23, 2011, 11:17:47 AM
*Holds up a mirror*
*sigh, you just proved my point.
I hope that the woman will be able to get her licence :) Has there been any update as to how the case is progressing?
Quote from: Valeriedances on July 23, 2011, 11:39:55 AM
Before beginning medical transition I was male bodied, I was physically male with as much testoserone in my system as any other male. My body slowly began to change through hormones. I was a male to female individual. I became female bodied on completing SRS.
If a person has not undergone medical intervention to change their sex, they are still physically their birth sex. If the person has a penis they are male bodied, if vagina then female bodied. If hrt only somewhere in between. That seems pretty commonly understood whether it is unpleasant to hear or not.
I would object to being detained with male bodied people.
Commonly understood is irreverent. Male and female are words with varying definitions. And considering this is a transgender forum with so many conflicting definitions, maybe you should keep yours to yourself.
You perhaps are under some misguided notion that by conforming to some of societies standards you will be accepted by them. Make no mistake, there are a lot of people out there who's personal definitions consider you, and me, nothing short of abominations.
Fact of the matter is, under most inmate housing policies, in cases of indeterminate gender, detainees are to be kept isolated from others until appropriate (another word with differing definitions) housing can be determined. Usually determines on a case by case basis according to individual needs and safety.
The other thing is the VAST majority of the public will NEVER be sent to jail
The United States has more people in jail (either in raw numbers, or as a percentage of the entire population) than any other nation. About one in every 100 people is in jail, and 1 out of every 32 Americans is under some form of correctional supervision, meaning they've no doubt been in jail before. Not as rare as you think.
Quote from: tekla on July 24, 2011, 01:12:49 AM
The other thing is the VAST majority of the public will NEVER be sent to jail
The United States has more people in jail (either in raw numbers, or as a percentage of the entire population) than any other nation. About one in every 100 people is in jail, and 1 out of every 32 Americans is under some form of correctional supervision, meaning they've no doubt been in jail before. Not as rare as you think.
kinda close:
In the US, 1 in 136 people have been to jail at one point in their lives.
Currently, 3.9% of the United States is in jail, on probation, or on parole and from those numbers:
4.2 million people are on probation
1.6 million people are in prison
900K are on parole
900K are in local and county jails (misdemeanors)
That's still a lot of people tho!
Source: US Bureau of Statistics
Those seem to be 2002 numbers, the 2008 numbers are closer to the ones I had. That's prisons and jails (jails tend to hold people for less than a year, prisons are for a year plus one day) And those numbers seem to be one or the other depending on wether you take the total population (1 in 140something) or just the adult population (1 in a 100).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/28/ST2008022803016.html)
http://babyboomeradvisorclub.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/1-out-of-100-americans-are-jail-birdsincarceratedis-there-justice/ (http://babyboomeradvisorclub.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/1-out-of-100-americans-are-jail-birdsincarceratedis-there-justice/)
Which also has these fun facts:
In 2007, according to the National Association of State Budgeting Officers, states spent $44 billion in tax dollars on corrections. That is up from $10.6 billion in 1987, a 127 increase once adjusted for inflation.
It cost an average of $23,876 dollars to imprison someone in 2005, the most recent year for which data were available. But state spending varies widely, from $45,000 a year in Rhode Island to $13,000 in Louisiana.
The cost of medical care is growing by 10 percent annually, the report said, and will accelerate as the prison population ages.
About one in nine state government employees works in corrections, and some states are finding it hard to fill those jobs.
Quote from: tekla on July 24, 2011, 02:27:27 AM
Those seem to be 2002 numbers, the 2008 numbers are closer to the ones I had.
The numbers I had used was taken from the 2009 statistics
Yeah from the entire population, just use the adult population.
Quote from: Valeriedances on July 24, 2011, 09:01:31 AM
In the U.S. drivers license's are used as the primary form of identification. This is different in many other countries where there can be a National Identification Card. The U.S. doesnt have this. Moving the sex marker to a magnetic strip or to some other form of identification the police, other government agencies, employers and gender restricted businesses can access seems a reasonable solution. Though, how is gender determined if not on some form of documentation where gender determination is needed by those agencies I mentioned? Would all these agencies and business have magnetic card readers? And if so, what good is changing where it goes.
Australia does not have a national identification card, closest thing would be the medicare card which says nothing but your medicare number and your name, and as such isn't considered a primary identification document legally. The only primary identification I carry or need to carry is my aforementioned drivers license.
Personally, a magnetic stripe to enable visual identification of some details but not others stored on the card seems an interesting potential solution for some. But it still doesn't change the fact that I don't think it should have to say gender at all. People should be handed on a case by case basis, with a policy framework to support it, I think that would result in the fairest outcome for as many as possible.
Quote from: Valeriedances on July 24, 2011, 09:01:31 AM
Changing the sex marker to an "Other" is not reasonable, which could potentially happen to trans people. Which is why I quoted that reference by a trans blog advocating it as an alternate solution in an artice directly discussing NSW, Australia.
I should keep my views to myself? I was responding to Stephe where she asked me my definition of 'men', is why I quoted her question. My definitions are as valid as anyones, my point of view as valid as anyones. The view I expressed is the mainstream transitioning MtF and FtM transsexual experience. If I cannot speak on that, then we are not free to speak at all.
You are free to speak whatever you want as far as I'm concerned, but maybe just be careful about what you say when it might hurt someone.
Quote from: Valeriedances on July 24, 2011, 09:01:31 AM
I tried to be very careful with my wording, using 'I', instead of 'you' and male-bodied/female-bodied instead of identities. If some found what I wrote offensive, I dont know what to say. I know the question presented to me was a trap and that in answering it some would object. But I have a right to my view and to be able to express it as sensitively as possible.
Of course I realize this. Every day I leave my home I am at risk to be murdered. Every time I go out on a date with a man I am at risk of being killed. Every day I go to work I face potential subtle discrimination from a management team that knows my past. Every day is a challenge not to be afraid. Every day my phone is silent from family who have rejected me.
I have paid the price, I continue to pay the price every day. And because of that my place here on Susan's is as valid as anyone elses.
I don't think I said it wasn't, but really, if you go around calling people male/female-bodies who don't identify as that, as matter-of-factly as you did. You should probably expect it to provoke a negative reaction, regardless of its validity.
Quote from: Valeriedances on July 24, 2011, 10:55:12 PM
Fair points about sensitivities. That's what makes it difficult to discuss matters such as law changes where gender is involved. Anatomy is a sensitive topic for most everyone here. Even so, anatomy is part of our life and when discussing the legal system it is potentially a factor to discuss, as society will certainly discuss it.
If societies are willing and able to function without gender markers, I certainly fully support it. I do not wish for anyone to be oppressed.
Actually you don't support this. You stated you would not want to be detained with a transgendered person unless they were post op. You proclaiming how others must identify is no less insulting than the people who will say "I don't care what kinda surgery you have had, you're still a dude." I doubt you will ever see it though.
holy thread necromancy...this one should have been left dead.
how would you protect females from a predatory minded or simply aggressive heterosexual crossdresser male in a prison system?
I know who hasn't been in jail/prison. I put you in jail/prison in Texas/Cali and you'll be trying to buy aggressive heterosexual crossdresser cellmates.
I fail to see how one can be so deathly afraid of a person, without more facts than "person is male/female". Being sexually assaulted is not exclusive to gender, by victim or assailant. I could say with certainty that I would be less afraid of an effeminate male in close proximity than a large and rowdy female.
It seems that everyone jumped to the prison system topic, and as was said before, no this isn't a majority of people. Where do you go every day that puts you at risk for close encounters with trans or crossdressing individuals? Public Restrooms are used by far more people on a daily basis than county jail holding cells. While having an ID that states proper gender would not assist with angry restroom users, it would be at least reassuring for authorities and business owners. Arguing with post-op individuals is relatively pointless, as they have already completed the hardships. If they have not come out publicly they are likely afraid of doing so for one reason or another.
It would be easier to gain support from sympathetic cis-gendered individuals who have a smaller risk of alienating friends or family. I'm not familiar with all the latest trends in teens these days, but I recall people standing up for their LGBT friends to be a common, noble, and totally acceptable action.
Quote from: Morrigan on August 07, 2011, 04:44:53 AM
It would be easier to gain support from sympathetic cis-gendered individuals who have a smaller risk of alienating friends or family. I'm not familiar with all the latest trends in teens these days, but I recall people standing up for their LGBT friends to be a common, noble, and totally acceptable action.
I have found by far the most aggressively 'anti-trans rights' people I have run across online have been either FAR right wing religious people who assume all transgendered people are "->-bleeped-<-s and worship the devil" or they have been from -some- of the stealth post ops. Both groups seem to cook up these insane cases like the "prevent abusers from making false claims of being transgendered so they can be intentionally housed with their victims", like why would the victim be in jail? And how many cross dressing males are "predatory and aggressive? That doesn't fit any I have ever met..
We are already require to be diagnosed as having GID to get hormones, wouldn't be that hard to have this same letter allow for gender change on your ID. Not that I am a fan of the GID and DSM but this would be a compromise that would eliminate someone fraudulently using "I am transgendered" so they would be jailed with females. I doubt predatory males wanting to be jailed with females would be taking estrogen or seek out a GID diagnosis in case they got arrested? BTW seems some jail systems already have a clue about how to deal with this http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/cook-county-jail-transgender_n_846404.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/07/cook-county-jail-transgender_n_846404.html)
These people here are using something that happens to less than 4% of people (most of which are drug dealers) as a reason for a large majority of transgendered people having to deal with the wrong gender marker on their ID. This defeats the whole purpose of having a gender marker on your ID, unless they are gonna start sticking their hand down your pants to ID people! If you don't wanna risk being thrown in jail with a transgendered male, don't deal drugs or drive DUI cuts the likelihood of that possibly happening to less than 1%.
While this perceived risk they preach may or may not exist in reality, the reality of the current state of affairs is 59% of trans people are going to be sexually assaulted now compared to 4% for non-trans.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3372/transgendered_behind_bars/ (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3372/transgendered_behind_bars/)
And you are almost twice as likely to be sexually assaulted in a women prison right now anyway, so don't assume you are safe just being with other women. ""An estimated 5.1% of female inmates, compared to 2.9% of male inmates, said they had experienced one or more incidents of sexual victimization."
http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/bjs/svljri07.pdf (http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/bjs/svljri07.pdf)
The likelihood of a female being sexually assaulted by a "aggressive heterosexual crossdresser male" is so small I really question this being the reason they stand up for the idea that transgender people be forced with the choice of either have the operation or live with the wrong gender marker for the rest of your life.
Valerie, I bet this was more exciting than your date last night! :laugh:
Quote from: valeriedances on August 07, 2011, 06:10:55 PM
If you dont define gender legally, then how do you separate people? That starts with drivers licenses where the U.S. is concerned since that is the primary means of identification. And I already said if it can be moved to the magnetic strip for police officers use only, then that seems to be a good option. ...but then how would people obtain health and other services folks of different genders need, if noone had gender markers? Do males start going to gynecologists for exams and getting mammograms? Sounds ridiculous, but from a billing perspective, how would you deny coverage if there were no gender markers?
Where is the requirement of a non-op to be on HRT? What of the non-op's that dont believe in hormone therapy?
As far as CD's, they are males, as any other males. They just enjoy dressing on occasion, which is their business and cool for them. But you fail to answer where they should be housed in a prison environment. Does someone who dressed once or twice in their girlfriends underwear qualify for being housed with females? Where do you draw the line if you deconstruct gender? And being umbrella advocates, dont you consider CD's transgender people?
I made a statement of people pretending to be transgendered to be housed in a different environment. How would you separate them from the "true transgendered"? An HRT letter would include some but not others. How do we diagnose gender variant people? Do we tell those non-op friends, sorry you have to go on hormones whether you like it or not.
OK first the ridiculous argument about health care and they would start scheduling men for female medical procedures and they would start being sent to a gynecologist. How do you dream up this stuff?
On your second argument about part time c/d who dresses a couple of times a month, do they ID to the world as women? Would these people be applying to have their gender marker changed on their ID? Maybe some would like to live full time but IMHO if they still live the majority of their life as a man, I don't see how they can expect to be treated as a woman once they have been arrested. That seems pretty absurd doesn't it? And given they would NOT have changed their gender marker to female before they were arrested anyway, how does that argument even apply? It doesn't..
On the non-ops who don't believe in hormones. No where does the DSM require someone to be on hormones or that they must -want to take them- to be diagnosed with having GID. I didn't say someone who is diagnosed with GID is required to take them either. If we are going to have this GID/DSM requirement, which you have said you support many times in the past, why couldn't they add a letter that said "this person is living and ID's as the gender opposite their birth sex" to allow a gender ID change? Or simply have a doctor write a letter like this?
There are many people who live as women who either can't or don't choose to have -the- surgery you have had. For a FTM top surgery is all they require. If I have "Top surgery" that still isn't enough! Some states already don't have these surgery requirements, are the people in those states now in danger of these things you posted? of course not.
You forget there was a time and there were people who fought to not allow post-ops to have the gender marker changed but that fight was won. I'm at a loss as to why you would want to keep other people, who may not choose your exact path, from being able to live a happier life.
Quote from: Stephe on August 07, 2011, 11:32:19 PM
On the non-ops who don't believe in hormones. No where does the DSM require someone to be on hormones or that they must -want to take them- to be diagnosed with having GID. I didn't say someone who is diagnosed with GID is required to take them either. If we are going to have this GID/DSM requirement, which you have said you support many times in the past, why couldn't they add a letter that said "this person is living and ID's as the gender opposite their birth sex" to allow a gender ID change? Or simply have a doctor write a letter like this?
If someone wants to have the sex designator changed then they need to be prepared to have some modicum of irreversible process. Simply saying "I am..." and having a shrink sign off on it should NEVER be sufficient to change something that law enforcement relies upon many times EVERY DAY. And no, HRT is not something I consider to be an irreversible process insofar as a change of designator would be concerned.
You seem to forget that MOST law enforcement agencies out there have very specific processes that come into play when they have contact with a female. We are not talking something limited to the grope-n-scope that a quasi-agency such as the TSA does but rather events that have the potential to result in arrest and detention (and yes, every time someone gets stopped at the side of the road -at least in the US- there exists the prospects of a trip to jail).
Transgender /= transsexual when it comes to the legal distinctions or protections conferred vis a vis the sex designator on a DL.
As I noted the other day when the thread was revived for what appears to have been the sole purpose of another backhanded slap at Val, this one should have been left dormant. Hopefully a mod will come along with the key and lock it down...