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

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Alaska Civil Liberties Union is squaring off in court with Alaska's Division of Motor Vehicles over what it calls an outdated internal policy at DMV regarding how and when someone can change the sex listed on their driver's license.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

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

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?