So, related to another post I made, I wanted to post a thought/debate here, without clouding up responses in the other post.

Some states require a letter of SRS for changing your gender marker on your license... but others just require a note that you've GID and/or are on HRT. My thought is, has anyone ever thought of suing a DMV for enacting those laws?

Specifically, I was thinking it may be in violation of HIPAA laws to "disclose a medical condition". It would seem to me that some conditions would be on a "need-to-know" basis, and a history of one's surgeries seems like a far-reaching requirement, which (again) I thought might violate HIPAA, to require anything other than a diagnosis.

Your thoughts, or any cases?

Quote from: ChristiVee on December 22, 2016, 04:13:12 AMHIPAA laws to "disclose a medical condition".

HIPAA privacy laws are about somebody else disclosing your medical conditions without your permission, not you disclosing them.

HIPPA is need to know. You might be able to sue if a DMV employee disclosed any identifying information to  anyone outside of those that need the information to process the gender marker change. If they are professional and just use the information to do their job there would be no violation.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

No, you cannot use HIPPA to challenge the policy in the way you mentioned. (After all, DMVs would need to inquire about the relevant medical history for someone who has a condition that would affect their ability to drive.) Like Tonya said the only way you'd have standing to challenge them is if a DMV employee disclosed your information to someone who doesn't have a reason to know.

Indiana law just states you have undergone permanent change.  HRT that produces breasts is permanent change.  In fact the form you fill out for Indiana specifically states that Surgery is NOT required to meet this requirement.

Thanks for the responses....

I just wanted to challenge the idea that HIPAA covers more than disclosure, because (IIRC) HIPAA (not just the ADA) prevents businesses and even police from asking for identifying medical information when requesting an accommodation.

In some cases, that's a need to know basis. But with some things, they're not allowed to ask... I was just thinking, for as long as they want to refer to GID as an "illness", that one might argue switching the gender is an accommodation, while requiring a medical procedure is an obstacle to said accommodation.

As I mentioned/asked in another topic (never got an answer though), it's almost as if a person who cannot have the GRS done for any variety of reasons, must move to another state to get accommodated....

Again, just food for thought....

Quote from: ChristiVee on December 24, 2016, 05:13:38 AM
... that one might argue switching the gender is an accommodation, while requiring a medical procedure is an obstacle to said accommodation.

As I mentioned/asked in another topic (never got an answer though), it's almost as if a person who cannot have the GRS done for any variety of reasons, must move to another state to get accommodated....

I heard this argument in the hallowed halls of a Maryland Senate Sub-Committee hearing room several times during hearings for a TG Rights bill (aka Bathroom Bill). The basic premised proposed was "Sure fine. Just have GCS present the paperwork and you won't be arrested for using the toilet" A major road block to all those of us that live and present as women (of course, the opposition's only care is about TG, or predator males raping 10 y/o innocent girls in a toilet stall. So w/o the dangly bits not too much of a problem for them to handle) that do not want GCS or can even afford the cost of HRT, much less expensive surgeries.

I understand your frustration, but remember that HIPPA doesn't apply when they have a bona fide reason for inquiring about your history. Another transgender-related analogy is when for example an employer asks about other names you've used - some TGs claim that they don't need to disclose their dead name because it'd essentially amount to a disclosure of your medical history, but unless your former name would truly be superfluous information when running a background check on you it should be disclosed (in practice that'd apply only if you changed your name before adulthood; or in some cases if it's been many years ago, the check doesn't go back that far, and all of your relevant credentials are under the right name).