Except states are now increasingly allowing nb folk to do this. I fail to see how this language can’t arguably have been made to combat that.
-
-
Replying to @queermel @EmilyGorcenski
Hell, CA is rolling out major changes on this front *this very month*, allowing ppl to easily procure these sort of changes on state documents. How is it too much to argue that the federal govt changing their regulations this same month can be due to that in some small capacity?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queermel
How is it too much to argue that the initial impact of the policy was a a bunch of binary trans folks who had to cancel trips, one of whom has their life in danger, and recognizing that that is also a part of it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @queermel
I am *not disputing* that this change hurts nonbinary folks. I am disputing that it was the *principle motivation* for the change. I am also disputing that binary trans folks somehow have easy access to all these new requirements.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
I think arguing it is a principle motivator doesn’t actually detract from the fact that binary trans folk will be hurt either. I also don’t think it insinuates binary trans folk have it “easier” and I’m not sure why we think we have to paint it with that sort of dichotomy.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queermel
This policy mirrors decades of pre-2015 policy language that has historically targeted binary trans women and in particular has the biggest impact on binary Black trans women and I think that reversions to that history deserve equal consideration as adaptations to new state law.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
The issue with this framing is that it frames the issues of binary trans people as being directly opposed to the issues of nb folk when they’re often one in the same, and deriding one is often a means to deride another.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @queermel
The conclusion in the QT was that the “vast majority” of the changes targeted nonbinary folks. That’s what I’m disputing. I’m not framing in in any way. I am disagreeing on the basis of the impact.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski @queermel
If you would like to present an argument on how the “vast majority” of changes affects specifically nonbinary folks please do so.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EmilyGorcenski
Considering the vast majority of the language focuses on the transition between two binary sexes where before it was vague and allowed some breathing room that might actually allow some ease in at least changing one’s name on these documents, or applying to them with a nb...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The passport policy was already between two binary sexes. The language change focuses on medical transition. The name change policy deltas target IDs older than 1 year, which won’t even affect CA’s new law for at least a year, but affects binary trans folks *right now*.
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.