I raise this question because I’ve been considering the new law in California and similar laws proposed in other places. As I understand it–feel free to correct me if I’m wrong–the law allows public school students to choose public restrooms, sports teams, and so forth based on the gender they choose to identify with, regardless of biological gender. If a student who is biologically male, for instance, wishes to use the girls’ bathroom, there’s no need for the student to have surgery or plan to have it, have any type of hormone therapy or plan to have it, or have any psychiatric evaluation. The student need only claim to have a female gender identity.
Now if this type of law becomes more widespread in areas of society outside of public schools, it raises interesting questions. There are many ways in which the government discriminates by gender, usually in favor of females: affirmative action, divorce laws and child custody arrangements, welfare programs designed primarily or entirely for women. All of these are based on the assumption that two genders exist and are fixed. But if I can simply select my gender identity, wouldn’t such laws and programs be thrown into chaos? Is there any reason why I, despite being anatomically male and having a identified that way from birth until the present moment, shouldn’t be able to take on a female gender identity and start receiving the special government privileges that are offered only to females? If there’s a job posting that must be filled by a woman for affirmative action purposes, can I take that job? If there’s a contract that must be offered to a female-owned business, can I take that contract? If a certain welfare program only offers payouts to women, can I receive payouts from it?
The possible complications seem endless. Pres. Obama recently took actions designed to address the gap in pay between genders. (A mythical gap, but I digress.) Suppose that the ACME Company is being sued for paying women too little, and is required to demonstrate in court that it pays the same wages to both genders. Could ACME simply have some of its highest-paid men take on female gender identity, and make any pay gap vanish by that means? Is there any law which says it can’t do so?
Recommendation: Worry about problems that actually exist (gender discrimination) or are highly likely to exist in the future (economic devastation from climate change).
Throngs of people claiming a sudden male-to-female gender switch to gain custody of kids or score awesome welfare benefits? Not so much.
Pretty much this. Gender identity is really important to most people, they aren’t going to claim to be a member of the opposite gender. It’s like worrying that men are going to start cross dressing en masse so they can sneak into women’s restrooms and peep at them; theoretically possible, but it won’t happen.
What law says that women get special consideration in divorces or child custody?
When people say that divorce and custody and child support are biased in favor of women, it isn’t because the law says that women are awesome and men suck. It’s because judges are a lot more likely to believe that a stay at home mom should be paid spousal support than a stay at home dad. It’s because judges are more likely to believe women are primary caregivers.
Find the the laws that benefit women specifically. Not things that tend to benefit women because women tend to be the sort of people that can claim the benefit.
I never mentioned anything about “throngs” of people. I’m just asking whether, hypothetically, people could declare a new gender identity to take advantage of such things.
As usual, people aren’t reading enough into the actual process and law, and going off their gut reactions. Just as people demean transsexuals by thinking that one just wakes up one morning and says “fuck you everyone! I’m a girl!”
California and other school districts have processes for determining that the gender identity is real. In the Senate analysis from 6/13/2013 in California, it’s specified that the parents and guardians are the one who initiate the process. That means that the parents and guardians presumably have some really good reasons for doing this. I work with untold numbers of parents of trans children, and NONE of them has ever taken the child’s claims on faith. And in counseling there must be normally three criteria present - the child must be insistent, persistent, and **consistent **in their gender identity.
The school can deny the parents or guardian’s petition, in which case it goes to an appeals process in the California Interscholastic Federation. A little more info can be found here: Bill Text -
The process for changing your gender legally is established in every single state, and it is not a matter of just saying you are. In some states you need a court order, in others a surgeon’s or doctors certification, in some both. The US government will normally go off a court order or medical letter for things such as passports. I simply used my medical records when I went through the process.
I submit that the entire line of debate here is on rocky footing because one cannot just declare their gender and make it legally and universally so. Only in right-wing blogs and on FOX news is that true.
Actually, your title indicates that that you, personally, might want to do such a thing just to take advantage of such a situation. I really didn’t think you were the type of person that would do something like this, so please clarify where you stand on this issue.
Yes, this. Gender identity is so fundamentally important to most people that it’s part of the root cause of the undeniable violence and hatred shown towards myself and my people. Even the thought that someone else might change their gender can send people into a murderous rage.
Living as a transgender person is better than it used to be, but it’s no cakewalk. Fakers, with some exceptions as in any case, generally just don’t last.
And my point was that you should worry about problems that have a chance of becoming significant from a societal perspective. If not a lot of people will be doing it, then worry about something else.
Thank you for sharing those facts. They certainly help lay a basis for the discussion. But the questions I’m asking are, basically: what are the criteria and what should they be? Some states require a certification from a doctor or a surgeon, okay. What exactly has be certified. Does a person in these have to undergo surgery to switch genders? Does a person have to undergo any sort of medical process? If not, then what exactly is the doctor or surgeon certifying? Any can this sort of law be expected to stand in the long term? The general zeitgeist in some circles is that a person should be permitted to have any gender identity, regardless of what their anatomy is. If so, they why exactly should any surgeon or doctor play any role in legally determining a person’s gender identity?
The law does not often specify exactly what the criteria is, and it’s left up to a state agency and the healing arts boards to determine this. Some states require full proof of surgery, others require a hysterectomy done for gender reassignment purposes or a gonadectomy. Others require “appropriate medical treatment to complete transition” because they they don’t want to really get into the nuts and bolts.
Sure people can and do “doctor shop” but more than 99% of the time someone who has surgery or even hormone treatment has already been through extensive counseling and medical screening.
And sometimes people go through the court system. That happens maybe 1/3-1/2 the time. There a judge decides whether the person had transitioned genders. Typically a judge will ask for the same medical information outlined above.
You mean the law for determining gender reassignment? That’s been around for decades in most places. Sometimes 50+ years. How long do you need?
I don’t know how to respond to an uncited “general zeitgeist” of ad hoc/on-demand gender fluidity, other to say that those folks seem to be in a very small minority.
ITR champion, why are you interested specifically in the legal side of all this? Practically all of the people we deal with in life, we figure a gender for, either by the clues they give us or sometimes by the gender they tell us is theirs. Anybody can change the clues and statements they give us whenever they want, no matter what their reason. If somebody decides to cross dress so that you will open doors for them, why aren’t you worrying about that? Note that I think it’s pretty implausible somebody would do such a thing, but then I also think that about your premise for the legal questions.
As to your question about “why exactly should any surgeon or doctor play any role”, I think the short answer is that this has evolved in reaction to alarmist skepticism by cis people, and not to suit trans people. If anybody knows better please correct, this is just my thought.
There really aren’t hordes of people ready to switch their gender identities once legal requirements are relaxed. This is just nonsense.
A more interesting question to me is why we have legal gender identities in the first place. Okay, I get why we do. But assume for a moment that same sex marriage is allowed in all states, that women are allowed in combat, and that all gender-based forms of discrimination are eliminated. Why should the government have any role at all in determining gender identity? Any more than it has a role in legislating racial identities?
I’m torn between believing the OP is being disingenuous and believing that he’s actually sincere in his questions, despite the air of typical right-wing aggrieved incredulity regarding transgender status.
Ladies rooms often have sofas and armchairs, so they are more comfortable than mens rooms. They still stink, though, and have women talking about female complaints. It’s a trade-off.
I’m dying to know what these “woman only” programs are, because I’m not aware of any.
Affirmative action certainly isn’t limited to women only, there are a lot of categories it applies to.
Divorce laws? The law doesn’t favor women, although some judges do have that bias.
Child custody? Same thing - judge bias, but men certainly aren’t banned from having custody, be it join or sole, on the basis of their gender.
Welfare programs? Food stamps certainly aren’t woman-only. TANF is available only to adults with children - but it doesn’t specify the parents’ gender.
There’s WIC, standing for Woman, Infants, and Children. That one is “limited to women” only to the extent it include pregnant and nursing women, so just being a woman isn’t enough, you have to be either pregnant or lactating. That’s a small subset of women. Men can still collect WIC on behalf of their infants and young children, including formula for infants since we don’t expect those biologically male to lactate. Aside from that one I’m unaware of any “woman only” welfare benefits.
What are these “female only” privileges you speak of?