Would any of you mind explaining the intended outcome of these changes? I have some assumptions, given our current political climate but my assumptions are still limited to my perspectives. Gender Designation vs Sex Designation? And the detailed physician requirements?
-
-
-
Ultimately, many believe this to be part of a plan implemented by Family Research Council to deny trans people rights. This policy change mirrors point 1:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/brynn-tannehill/and-then-they-came-for-tr_b_9258678.html …
-
Ultimately, this language co-opts the clumsy distinctions many, including many trans activists, have made over the years between sex and gender. These distinctions are erroneous and harmful, and this is one way that the well-intentioned effort has been leveraged for harm.
-
Sex and gender are both social constructs, and the *impact* of differentiating sex and gender has been to use one concept (sex) to codify policies against transgender people.
-
The language of the policy change makes that clear. “Oh, we’re not judging your *gender*, we’re just judging your sex, so it’s fine, ignore all the very real social and legal implications that this ‘sex marker’ has on how you move through the world.”
-
The detailed medical requirements are a form of hate keeping. Not all trans folks have access to this kind of medical care. And not all physicians are willing to sign papers containing this kind of language, for fear of reprisal or liability.
-
Furthermore, not all trans people can or want to medically transition. That is not sufficient reason to deny them access to accurate identification necessary for them to exist in public.
-
Finally, the new requirements cast a lot of uncertainty on people who have already gone through all of these processes. Not every state allows easy name/gender marker changes. Some places are very expensive. Some states require you to publish your name change, which can be unsafe
- 14 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
this part makes it seem… almost well intentioned?https://twitter.com/moomanibe/status/1040012564111876098 …
-
I wouldn’t go that far. I am just thankful that it still says your doctor determines what qualifies.
-
But also doctors are terrible
-
Depends on your doctor but this was true before the change. The discretionary component isn’t new and removing it would have likely meant mandatory SRS to have the market changed
-
I would say it’s the opposite of well-intentioned and is veering toward the bioessentialist nature of sex is all that matters.
-
I can see the reading of “don’t worry we’re not disputing your gender identity” but I think that was either incidental or a deliberate attempt at placation
-
I can also see that reading. Could be either explanation. I’m definitely wary since it still excludes nonbinary people and also excludes many trans people. We gotta take what we can get, I suppose, and then demand more.
-
I would like to see us push from the removal of gender and sex markers from ID. That shit is unnecessary.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
What is the end game here? Just to make life more difficult or something more ominous?
-
I am officially terrified now.
-
This is beyond troubling. It could be just to terrorize the community and make them live in shadows but I’m suspecting there’s a plan.
-
I can’t do shadows. Every single person in life knows. I didn’t just come out of the closet I welded the door shut behind me.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.