What? No 'This week in trans' thread about Passport X?

[Metaphor]

I don't have a U.S. passport, but none of the examples I've looked at online have a 'Gender' field. Did the U.S. add a 'Gender' field and give it three options?

Right side, about half way down.

I do not see any 'gender' field.

I see a field marked 'sex'. If the US wants to replace biological sex (which is observed and recorded at birth) with gender identity, it should get rid of 'sex' and put 'gender identity' in its place. And if the US wants her people to have 'gender identity' on their passports, I would ask 'why'?

"X" indicates intersex, which is sex but not M or F.

How is this even a question given all the information that has been hashed out here about how human beings are not always fully female or male in reproductive organs? When it's not clearly male or clearly female, it's called intersex. This is not always apparent at birth, which is not even a point in the sex organ process. It begins early after conception and continues for most of gestation and not much of significance until puberty. The process can be described as "ongoing," but birth is not a change point or "milestone" in that process.

Sex is not an ongoing process. Sex is binary in mammals and cannot change.

There is no rational reason to consider these cases "disorders" any more than you would call blue eyes or freckles "disorders."

Whether the people who know their own sex to be intersex want that to be known is their business. When they do, there are now more places where they can indicate X. This is not a "gender identity" although that is of course related in not only personal experience but obviously in social dynamics throughout life.

Most people with disorder of sexual development are not intersex but are male or female. But where there exists enough ambiguity for passport purposes, their sex should rightfully be indicated as 'X'.

"Intersex" is not a gender identity but the State department listed several uses for 'X', including for people who are trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming. These are not sexes.

As for why a passport would have gender identity, I have no idea, but if they do that, I would also be interested in their rationale for it. Trump administration aside, government agencies don't tend to make such changes flippantly. Right or wrong, they do get legal and scientific input, especially for shit they are aware is going to hit the fan given the large chunk of bigoted right wing morons we have in our population.

The military started adapting to this reality decades ago in a lot if not all of the many and varying DoD databases within the DoD and in agencies whose databases the DoD can access.

The new passport will now have a hybrid 'sex' field, where sex is listed for some people and gender identity for others.

 

[Metaphor]

I think Metaphor want pictures of the person's genitals in their passport too.

No. I think if you have a sex marker on a passport it should be a sex marker, not an incoherent mish-mash of sex marker and gender identity marker.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think Metaphor want pictures of the person's genitals in their passport too.

No. I think if you have a sex marker on a passport it should be a sex marker, not an incoherent mish-mash of sex marker and gender identity marker.

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

 

[Trausti]

I think Metaphor want pictures of the person's genitals in their passport too.

No. I think if you have a sex marker on a passport it should be a sex marker, not an incoherent mish-mash of sex marker and gender identity marker.

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Isn’t it more “do you match the picture”?

 

[Metaphor]

I think Metaphor want pictures of the person's genitals in their passport too.

No. I think if you have a sex marker on a passport it should be a sex marker, not an incoherent mish-mash of sex marker and gender identity marker.

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Whether a gender marker is a better indicator than a sex marker that the person presenting the passport is in fact that person seems to me an empirical matter. Gender identity and gender presentation can change, so I'm told, so it may be problematic on a passport that lasts five or ten years. Of course, there is nothing to stop the State department from including both, is there?

If it included both, for example, my sex marker would be 'M' and my gender marker would be 'N/A'

 

[ZiprHead]

I think Metaphor want pictures of the person's genitals in their passport too.

No. I think if you have a sex marker on a passport it should be a sex marker, not an incoherent mish-mash of sex marker and gender identity marker.

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Whether a gender marker is a better indicator than a sex marker that the person presenting the passport is in fact that person seems to me an empirical matter. Gender identity and gender presentation can change, so I'm told, so it may be problematic on a passport that lasts five or ten years. Of course, there is nothing to stop the State department from including both, is there?

If it included both, for example, my sex marker would be 'M' and my gender marker would be 'N/A'

You have no gender??? And everyone's appearance changes over time.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think Metaphor want pictures of the person's genitals in their passport too.

No. I think if you have a sex marker on a passport it should be a sex marker, not an incoherent mish-mash of sex marker and gender identity marker.

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Isn’t it more “do you match the picture”?

Then why is the marker needed?

 

[Metaphor]

I think Metaphor want pictures of the person's genitals in their passport too.

No. I think if you have a sex marker on a passport it should be a sex marker, not an incoherent mish-mash of sex marker and gender identity marker.

Wouldn't a gender marker be more descriptive of the person's identity than a sex marker? Identity is the purpose of having the marker on the passport in the first place.

Whether a gender marker is a better indicator than a sex marker that the person presenting the passport is in fact that person seems to me an empirical matter. Gender identity and gender presentation can change, so I'm told, so it may be problematic on a passport that lasts five or ten years. Of course, there is nothing to stop the State department from including both, is there?

If it included both, for example, my sex marker would be 'M' and my gender marker would be 'N/A'

You have no gender??? And everyone's appearance changes over time.

As far as I can tell, I do not.* I have a sex, and I recognise that I am that sex, because I am my body.

Everyone's appearance does change over time, which is why passport photos are updated.

EDIT: I do not have a gender identity. If 'gender' includes the social constructs and thoughts of other people about how I dress or what people see and expect when they look at me (a male), then I suppose I have a gender, it's just that that gender is the collective thoughts of other people.

 

[Patooka]

What the State department has done is certainly Orwellian: they've made the sex marker on passports an incoherent field. The field is labelled 'sex' but it no longer means 'sex'.

That's it then, I suppose. The world is completely fucked now.

 

[Metaphor]

What the State department has done is certainly Orwellian: they've made the sex marker on passports an incoherent field. The field is labelled 'sex' but it no longer means 'sex'.

That's it then, I suppose. The world is completely fucked now.

Do you believe I have written something incorrect? If I have made an error of some kind, I am keen to hear what it is.

 

[Patooka]

Do you believe I have written something incorrect? If I have made an error of some kind, I am keen to hear what it is.

What makes you think I disagree? I'm serious. This is how Stalin came to power. First you advocate tolerance towards trans people, then you impose your totalitarian regime on everyone.

So stay strong, Metaphor and keep on fighting the good fight for...whatever the fuck you're crusading for.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you believe I have written something incorrect? If I have made an error of some kind, I am keen to hear what it is.

What makes you think I disagree? I'm serious. This is how Stalin came to power. First you advocate tolerance towards trans people, then you impose your totalitarian regime on everyone.

What have I said that is 'intolerant' of trans people? Is it refusing to embrace the religion of gender ideologists? What, in particular?

So stay strong, Metaphor and keep on fighting the good fight for...whatever the fuck you're crusading for.

Is wanting language on official documents to be coherent somehow an undesirable wish? Why?

EDIT: You've now made two posts making wild and unjustified implications about my arguments, but you have not actually addressed anything I've written in this thread. Why not? I would think if there was some obvious error I've made it would be easy to point out.

 

[Patooka]

What have I said that is 'intolerant' of trans people? Is it refusing to embrace the religion of gender ideologists? What, in particular?

You're the one who worships at the altar of pedantry, not me. Figure it out yourself.

Is wanting language on official documents to be coherent somehow an undesirable wish? Why?

I know that's the hill you want to die on. It's not my problem that you can't realise how petty and small minded it is.

You've now made two posts making wild and unjustified implications about my arguments, but you have not actually addressed anything I've written in this thread. Why not? I would think if there was some obvious error I've made it would be easy to point out.

I wouldn't be starting, not just participating but actually starting, as many threads as you have unless I had a real issue with trans people. I'm reasonably certain you will never openly explain why you feel compelled to give this treatment of strict definitions only in a trans context. Rest assured, I'm giving your personal crusade to protect innocent defenseless pronouns the maturity it deserves.

 

[laughing dog]

My goodness. If using unapproved terminology makes a passport field "incoherent", the apocalypse must be on us.

 

[Metaphor]

What have I said that is 'intolerant' of trans people? Is it refusing to embrace the religion of gender ideologists? What, in particular?

You're the one who worships at the altar of pedantry, not me. Figure it out yourself.

So: you cannot name anything that is 'intolerant'.

Is wanting language on official documents to be coherent somehow an undesirable wish? Why?

I know that's the hill you want to die on. It's not my problem that you can't realise how petty and small minded it is.

I don't want to die on any hill.

You've now made two posts making wild and unjustified implications about my arguments, but you have not actually addressed anything I've written in this thread. Why not? I would think if there was some obvious error I've made it would be easy to point out.

I wouldn't be starting, not just participating but actually starting, as many threads as you have unless I had a real issue with trans people.

Well, that says something about you and your lack of imagination.

I'm reasonably certain you will never openly explain why you feel compelled to give this treatment of strict definitions only in a trans context.

So, being careful with the use of language is transphobic?

Rest assured, I'm giving your personal crusade to protect innocent defenseless pronouns the maturity it deserves.

So: you cannot name anything that is 'intolerant'.

 

[Metaphor]

My goodness. If using unapproved terminology makes a passport field "incoherent", the apocalypse must be on us.

Where do you get the idea that the problem is "unapproved terminology"?

What makes it incoherent is that the field is called 'sex', but it now may mean either sex or gender identity and there is no way to know which from looking at it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There is no rational reason to consider these cases "disorders" any more than you would call blue eyes or freckles "disorders."

Freckles are a disorder, just a minor one. They mess with your skin's adaption to sun exposure.

 

[Arctish]

My goodness. If using unapproved terminology makes a passport field "incoherent", the apocalypse must be on us.

Where do you get the idea that the problem is "unapproved terminology"?

What makes it incoherent is that the field is called 'sex', but it now may mean either sex or gender identity and there is no way to know which from looking at it.

What makes you think it uses gender identity?

The field is called 'sex'. The State Dept. is finally getting on-board with modern science in recognizing that some people have chromosome patterns and sex traits that are not accurately described under the old binary system. Not that the State Dept. was being pro-active. It had to be dragged into the 21st century by a citizen who was unable to get a passport due to their intersex genetic traits and successfully sued the government.

And what definition of gender are you using now? Before you said a person's gender was the thoughts in their head. Now you're saying a person's gender is the thoughts in other people's heads. Can a person have more than one gender? If I think I'm female and someone else thinks I'm male and a third person thinks I'm androgynous and concludes I must be intersex, does that mean I'm all three?

 

[Shadowy Man]

My goodness. If using unapproved terminology makes a passport field "incoherent", the apocalypse must be on us.

Where do you get the idea that the problem is "unapproved terminology"?

What makes it incoherent is that the field is called 'sex', but it now may mean either sex or gender identity and there is no way to know which from looking at it.

What makes you think it uses gender identity?

The field is called 'sex'. The State Dept. is finally getting on-board with modern science in recognizing that some people have chromosome patterns and sex traits that are not accurately described under the old binary system. Not that the State Dept. was being pro-active. It had to be dragged into the 21st century by a citizen who was unable to get a passport due to their intersex genetic traits and successfully sued the government.

But as Metaphor rightly points out this isn’t fully about sex. Your link uses the following language (even saying “gender” in the title):

“The U.S. State Department today unveiled a new U.S. passport gender marker policy and stated it is working towards adding an “X” gender marker for non-binary, intersex, and gender non-conforming applicants.”

They call it a ‘gender’ marker not a ‘sex’ marker and include more applicants than just intersex ones.

 

[Angry Floof]

There is no rational reason to consider these cases "disorders" any more than you would call blue eyes or freckles "disorders."

Freckles are a disorder, just a minor one. They mess with your skin's adaption to sun exposure.

If that's the case, then being a white person is a disorder!