The designation of sex on passports is currently in the news. But why do we even have such designations on photo IDs with facial recognition verification? Rather than arguing over M, F and/or X, I’m wondering why that entry isn’t simply eliminated.
British passports actually didn’t state the bearer’s sex until 1988, when the format was standardised across the EU (though they did include title, which would usually indicate it). Not sure what it’s used for now, other than general identification.
ETA: This was a plot point in a murder mystery I read about 20 years ago. Finally useful for something. 
I mean, removing it now would be a culture war battle in and of itself because Republicans are hell bent on “you must be in one of these two boxes and we’ll remind you at every possible opportunity.”
But I don’t think it brings any value. Lots of states and countries have allowed X for a while, which is effectively the same thing as not having a gender on there, and I haven’t heard of any issues.
They have sex for the same reason they have race, so I can’t borrow/steal someone’s ID, insert my picture, and try to con my way out of trouble by pretending I’m someone else or gain access to something I’m not supposed to have access to. For the vast majority of cases the gender listed is the gender of the person. The more confirming details there are on an ID the harder it is to alter it.
Perhaps one day they’ll remove it. I don’t care one way or the other but I know other people do so if they do remove it for their benefit I support it.
Wondering how realistic this is for today’s passports and real IDs.
This morning we were discussing the argument over whether it should be M or F, or allow X, and I wondered how often someone checking ID asked the holder to drop trousers.
Come to think of it, including hair color might be pretty silly as well.
That’s probably a good analogy. In both cases, many but not all people unambiguously fit into one particular category, in a way that is obvious to anyone looking at them, and in those cases the classification does help with verifying identity.
By the same token why do (many) drivers licenses have height? And mine also has eye color.
That token is why are we debating the sex/gender one and not eye color?
but when you renew it does (should) reflect your current color; of course, with some young people who color their hair every week…
I would suspect height and eye color (absent certain contact lenses) are somewhat more readily observable than sex/gender. And I’m not sure we are debating anything in this thread. Tho the mods may find this an inappropriate forum, I intentionally posted it in FQ. I was interested in the historical and current reasons for including this information on these IDs.
They have race?
Considering that close to half the population shares your sex and whatever your race is at least millions of people share that too, I don’t see how either of those prevents you from doing that.
I’m old enough to remember when drivers licenses did not have photos. When they added photos, the other items remained, at least in my state.
It does make forgery and misrepresentation a bit more difficult.
Mine does not unless it is hidden somewhere. No height or weight either. Just sex and birthdate.
Mine doesn’t have race either, and I’m pretty sure it never did.
The photo is there, and long gone are the days of laminated IDs where you could swap out a picture. If you’re faking an ID these days, you can change anything you want on it. I wonder if anyone ever uses height and eye color. Those are both self-reported anyway.
How much does it cost to print M or F on a license?
How much would it cost to install up-to-date high tech facial recognition technology everywhere?
Why does the cost of printing M/F on it matter? I’m not catching your point here.
I think he’s referring to the OP mentioning facial recognition, but maybe he’s confusing “I’m looking at the picture on this license and I’m looking at your face and I recognize that they’re the same person” with technology.
Height I get, you can’t tell how tall someone is from a headshot. Eye color I get, albeit less so. But if you have a picture of someone and you’re trying to make sure it’s the person standing in front of you, gender identity doesn’t add much.
Eta: any time I’ve had to check IDs, I look at the person, look at the picture, and then look at either the name (if I’m trying to verify identity) or DoB (if I’m trying to verify age). Sometimes I’ve had to look at expiration. The rest of the ID might as well be jibberish.
I’m pretty sure that my Real ID Illinois driver’s license allows facial recognition. And I’m pretty sure when I looked into a tablet the last time I went through customs, they used facial recognition. Don’t recall anyone checking my junk.
Having a hard time imagining any doorman or whatever eyeballing my ID saying, “Well, you look nothing like the picture, but it DOES say M and you look like a guy.”
Asking a why question in FQ is essentially impossible. The “why” is buried in the logic some bureaucrats had in their heads X years ago when US passports first had sex printed on them. Which might date from the very first year there was such a thing as a passport. Whatever rationale they used, they almost certainly didn’t write it down, nor if they did, are those process notes available to the public today.
We can create lots of opinions about why. Most of which come down to “In the days before computers, identity documents included as many physical descriptors as was practical”. Sex is a pretty obvious one.
Right now, just after the reactionary traitor propagandists have invented a new fake issue to trigger the rabble’s outrage is not the time to be seriously considering bowing to their manufactured hysteria by changing anything.
If you are using DNA to narrow your search for someone, you can immediately exclude half the IDs you might have to inspect if gender is noted.