US State Dept announces new passport rules for transgender people
Via Associated Press and others:
Surgery not required to change gender on passports
Transgender travelers no longer will need surgery in order to change their stated genders on U.S. passports, the State Department said Wednesday.
Beginning Thursday, a transgender person applying for a U.S. passport will just need to show a physician’s certification that the applicant has “undergone appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition” to declare a new gender on a passport, the department said.
Mara Keisling, executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, said appropriate treatment could mean surgery for some patients and non-surgical care for others.
The State Department said there are guidelines detailing what the certification must include, but no other medical records are required. The government also said it’s possible to obtain a temporary passport if a physician’s statement shows that an applicant is in the process of gender transition.
Under previous rules, the State Department would only change the sex on passports if travelers had completed sexual reassignment surgeries, according to the National Center for Transgender Equality.
But Keisling said that policy put some transgender people in jeopardy when they traveled through countries where changing genders is dangerous.
The State Department says the new policy is based on standards and recommendations from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health.
AFP adds:
“Sexual reassignment surgery is no longer a prerequisite for passport issuance,” [the State Department] said in a statement.
From June 10, “when a passport applicant presents a certification from an attending medical physician that the applicant has undergone appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition, the passport will reflect the new gender,” the statement said.
“As with all passport applicants, passport issuing officers at embassies and consulates abroad and domestic passport agencies and centers will only ask appropriate questions to obtain information necessary to determine citizenship and identity.”
The State Department said the new rules mean “it is also possible to obtain a limited-validity passport if the physician’s statement shows the applicant is in the process of gender transition. No additional medical records are required.”
Definitions of “appropriate”, anyone (“appropriate clinical treatment“, and “appropriate questions“)?
—————
Edited to add: The State Department’s press release announcing the new policy is here.
The official document containing the full details of the policy (including details of the criteria to be met; the list of required documents; model letters, etc) is available for download from the State Department’s website – here’s a direct link to the 8-page PDF – or I’ve saved a copy locally here on QT.
[...] Cross-posted at Questioning Transphobia [...]
US State Dept announces new passport rules for transgender people « bird of paradox
10 Jun 10 at 1:38 am
As far as the appropriate clinical treatment goes, it sounds like there are guidelines, and then everything else is left to the physician’s discretion. (At a wild guess, surgery or non-surgery would be decided upon in part by the person’s financial situation, physical maturity, general health, and any physical problems that might preclude successful surgery.)
Seamyst
10 Jun 10 at 5:12 am
I agree that “appropriate” is vague and problematic, though I always shudder at the thought of more specific guidelines (even if the specific standard isn’t genital surgery).
But that said, this feels like amazing, wonderful news. I think it will make this document change easier for a lot of people who currently either don’t meet the genital surgery requirement or can’t get proof from a non-U.S. or deceased doctor.
MHS
10 Jun 10 at 6:43 am
I think the importance of this can not be overstated. Along with it’s obvious ramifications, the Federal Government now also recognizes the WPATH guidelines and the AMA’s position statement on transgender care. This may allow for the arguement that denying transition care under Medicaid or Medicare is contrary to federal policy. Between this decision and previous IRS determination that GRS is a valid medical deduction, it also adds to the case against private health insurance companies who routinely deny transition services.
Kimberly
10 Jun 10 at 8:19 am
I contacted the Passport Help Line to get more information on what the guidelines are (which I can’t seem to find on the internet). The help desk person told me that since the press release was just made, it’s likely that he’s not updated on the information yet, but what he can tell us now is that you need to have documents to prove citizenship, a name change, your passport photograph needs to reflect your gender you are changing it to, and a letter from a physician detailing that you have undergone some kind of treatment. As regards to “detailing treatment” he was unable to elaborate and says perhaps that information will be available in the next week or two online.
Connrawr
10 Jun 10 at 8:49 am
I’m excited because it means I can have a form of employment verification that’s 100% correct. Though I’m a little cautious to be too excited because I don’t know how hard it will be for me to get the “physician’s letter”. I wonder if a letter from an LCSW would be good enough.
stufftransmenlike
10 Jun 10 at 8:56 am
I’ll admit up front to not being very knowledgable about passports and overseas travel, but if its possible to get a limited validity passcard (those DL size cards for use within North America) then it’d be a big help for those trans people whose states have asinine rules for changing their gender marker on their DL who need correct ID. The passcard is something like 50% cheaper than a passport, and I’m thinking having a second piece of government issued ID that has my correct gender marker on it would be a nice thing to have in my wallet-even if its for a limited duration.
Amanda in the South Bay
10 Jun 10 at 9:10 am
This is wonderful! I hope it works similarly to New York’s rules for drivers licenses (also no surgery, just a doctor’s letter), where it’s basically just a “certifying you’re trans” thing. I got mine from my GP, and it was one sentence just saying “This person has transitioned and lives as a man, please change ID accordingly.” No formal “diagnosis” or anything.
Mike
10 Jun 10 at 9:23 am
Amanda,
Here in Washington State (as well as NY, Michigan, and Vermont and possibly others) we have what is called an Enhanced DL which is issued by the state but under the auspices of the feds. A modified gender marker is available on a regular DL in this state(after filling out a State form that must be signed by a physician, and does not require GRS), but must be surrendered when an Enhanced DL is issued. This change in policy should apply to EDL’s as well.
Kimberly
10 Jun 10 at 10:21 am
[...] course, with the new rules, concerns regarding cissupremacy and classism are not wholly alleviated. As Helen G points out at Questioning Transphobia, what exactly constitutes “appropriate” medical treatment is currently unclear, as is [...]
U.S. State Department Relaxes Passport Rules for Transgender People — The Curvature
10 Jun 10 at 10:29 am
A passport makes it easier to leave the country in case the right-wing lunatics ever start to come after us in a serious way.
That’s comforting.
Marlene
10 Jun 10 at 4:50 pm
Here’s a link to the new standards:
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/143160.pdf
In the words of Joe Biden, this is a big f’ing deal!
Kimberly
10 Jun 10 at 8:28 pm
Well said Kimberly. Surgery that about half of trans women have should not be a prerequisite for basic human rights.
Valerie Young
11 Jun 10 at 12:51 am
Huzzah!
I share the concerns of just about everyone else about what qualifies as “appropriate,” but this is good news nonetheless and will undoubtedly make many trans people’s lives at least a little bit easier.
Just Some Trans Guy
11 Jun 10 at 8:52 am
Very positive announcement in that it makes a crucial step forward for the transgender community. I, like the rest of you, though do question what is meant by “appropriate” and whether this is going to be something that standardised across physicans or not.
Michelle
11 Jun 10 at 12:17 pm
[...] 11, 2010 by Astrid As Helen G pointed out on Questioning Transphobia, in the United States, sexual reassignment surgery is no longer required for a sex change on one’s passport. The reasoning behind this change of policy is that some trans travelers have been at risk in [...]
Thoughts on Requirements for Legal Sex Change « Astrid's Journal
11 Jun 10 at 1:21 pm
Well, I really don’t think its time for me to celebrate just yet.
From reading the linked docs, what worries me is that they require you to submit a photo which “must agree with the submitted identification evidence and reflect the applicant’s current and true appearance.”
Which means that your appearance on the photo had better conform to cishetero norms, or you’re SOL. That means if you’re a butch trans woman, a femme trans man, or simply someone who (like myself) doesn’t present an image that can be clearly gendered correctly, you’re screwed. In my case, my face is ambiguous, hence whether or not I get a corrected passport will be up to the judgment of the (almost undoubtedly cis) bureaucrat who is examining my application. I mean, sure, I can put on earrings and makeup, but who knows whether I’ll be judged a woman or as a “man in a dress”?
And non-binary people are further screwed by being forced to pick one of the binary genders.
It’d be so damned much easier if they just stopped caring about gender. Then everybody would benefit, not a limited set of cisnormative-appearing binary-gendered trans folk.
Oh, and my medical care actually comes from a PA, and I’m not sure whether or not any of the actual MD physicians at the facility I use are one of the accepted types (internist, endocrinologist, etc). If not, I’m screwed, as it means I have to see a psych, and not just once but on an ongoing basis.
So yeah, this also means that people have to have enough money to afford medical or psych care AND find a doctor in one of the five categories that isn’t a transphobic pillock.
GallingGalla
11 Jun 10 at 3:46 pm
Galla hit the nail on the head there, and it matches what I’ve been saying (and she does it better! I’m envious).
Dyssonance
11 Jun 10 at 10:56 pm
This doesn’t seem to be appreciably different than the requirements for a standard passport.
(3) The requirements are intended to ensure that the photograph adequately identifies the passport bearer and thereby prevents difficulties or delays to the bearer during his or her foreign travels.
(2) Good Likeness: The photograph must be recent (normally taken within the past 6 months), be a good likeness of and readily identify the applicant at the time of the application (see 22 CFR 51.26). A
photograph retouched to the point where the applicant’s appearance is changed is not acceptable. A photograph showing a change in facial hair or hair color is acceptable if it still is a good likeness of the applicant.
I wouldn’t be surprised, knowing Barney Frank’s involvement, that he inserted this to avoid the “bearded man in dress” issue.
Kimberly
12 Jun 10 at 7:14 am
OK, first off…this is great, and the only right thing to do. And I’m suspicious of my own distrust of society. However…
What will this mean for individuals who went through this whole rigamarole years and years ago, who submitted all their records to the State department after surgery, and who go in to renew? Can I now be asked for another letter, requiring certification of completed “gender transition” in addition to the pages of crap they already required?
What does it mean that this is still an administrative accommodation, as opposed to a legal recognition of any kind? I dunno…its the only right thing to do, but I’m not cheering, exactly. There is still no _legal_ basis for our identities in the US, just an expression of liberality at the whim of the current executive branch. We are still medicalized, albeit less restrictively. But what bothers me most is the whim factor. The state department will now do the right thing, the administration gets queer points from the community for being cool…and only a total jerk would think that people who don’t have surgery don’t need proper ID…but now we are a higher profile target, and we have not replaced the misconceptions of anatomy with a law or right…just with an easily replaceable rule change. If one sees things as going toward greater and acceptance and goodness generally, that’s great…
Jessl
12 Jun 10 at 3:11 pm
It will be very interesting to see what “undergone appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition” is interpreted to mean when one is applying for a passport for a (pre-pubertal) child.
Or were our children simply forgotten in all this?
Previously, since children did not have surgery, it was not possible to get an appropriate passport for a post-transition child.
HenryHall
12 Jun 10 at 9:07 pm
Henry-
I believe WPATH’s Standards of Care clearly address treatment for prepubescent children. I think that the saving grace in this ruling is that all treatment is acording to WPATH guidelines, and for most healthcare professionals there is a good understanding of what that entails. Also, the determination of the appropriateness of care now resides with your doctor and not some bureaucrat.
Kimberly
12 Jun 10 at 10:00 pm
I’ve said it often before. Using sex, or really a persons gender presentation and how much it fits officials expectations, as a personal identifier is so completely and utterly without merit that not one insult can i find that correctly describes the lack of worth of anyone who places trust or value in it or defends it.
At best it divides all the people on the planet that person can be by less than half. Thats it. It does not crrectly identify the person as the person they claim to be. Not even remotely does it have such a function or a good role within that function.
So many biometrics would be better! Blood type for example is far less variable than gender expression and swift blood tests using a single drop have been made for a number of diagnostic purposes. There myriad ways of electronicly assessing other biometric traits to dtermine if a person matches their details on a document far better than a sex marker matched visually by an untrained human against that humans expectations of gender presentation appropriate to that sex marker.
The advent of the woman suicide bomber makes any sex marker based or utilising security system a danger to national and international security. It’ll just have gender-diverse people clogging the system who are not a threat while real threats pass unrecognised. It even creates tools terrorists can use against our security systems!
The passport system needs to drop sex markers alltogether and turn to quick easily tested far more reliable biometrics. Keeping sex markers has no practical purpose but to actually damage security!
Anyone who defends the use of sex markers on passports and rejects any suggestion of an imediate switch to alternative practical biometric identifiers is so incompetant for any security or leadership or administration or authority position they should be fired imediately and also instantly there should begin an investigation into them as a possible terrrorist or terrrorist suporter themselves for trying to protect a system of total uselessness and incompetance that defending it is in itself an extremely suspicious act!
Battybattybats
12 Jun 10 at 11:56 pm
“not one insult can i find that correctly describes the lack of worth…”
“there should begin an investigation into them as a possible terrrorist or terrrorist suporter themselves…”
“defending it is in itself an extremely suspicious act!”
if the goal at QT is civil discourse, I think this is crossing a line. to put it extremely mildly.
at this time I choose to celebrate those for whom this policy IS different than the previous policy. it doesn’t do everything for everyone. but it does make life easier and safer for some trans people, and that’s not nothin’.
MHS
13 Jun 10 at 8:21 am
and to Jessl, the policy is only relevant for correcting gender marker on an existing passport. if someone already has a passport with the correct info on it, they would not need to (re-)prove their gender. just follow standard procedure for expired passports.
MHS
13 Jun 10 at 8:23 am
When I meet someone, I unconsciously gender them. It’s not something I do willing or intentionally, it just happens. I don’t know if it is instinctual and has to do with finding a suitable mate or knowing who may present a greater threat to my safety, or is merely a societal construct and has to do with language and pronouns and modifiers.
This is the world I live in, for good or bad, and must survive in. As a 99er, my primary focus is finding and keeping employment. The career I’ve chosen is one which keeps me in close proximity to other people, and I’ve known the discomfort (mine and their’s) of their inablity to properly gender my presentation.
This is current reality, and no matter how we wish it to be otherwise, it is what it is. I do not believe that gendering is simply aquired bias we overcome with persuasive arguement. How do we change human nature?
Kimberly
13 Jun 10 at 9:02 am
I hope we don’t berate for misspellings and errant grammer on this site.
Kimberly
13 Jun 10 at 9:05 am
Yeah, MHS I agree. Accusations of terrorism over differences about bureaucratic procedure are profoundly unhelpful, Battybattybats.
Personally, I think that biometrics are a horrific idea. I’m no libertarian (yech) but I think that taking blood tests from the whole population contains some seriously dangerous prospects for misuse, and all the more because of the often inarguable status of biology in legal and political discourses. Frankly, I could see that being ten times worse for trans people.
I don’t think that MORE biopolitics is a solution to transphobia, surely a photo is enough? The sex marker is a relatively new addition to identification papers (late 60s for US passports), and could just as easily disappear. There’s no need to extend governmental control over bodies, considering that these will inevitably be mapped into rigid bureaucratic categories.
So, you know, I disagree with you. Time to call the cops eh?
queenemily
13 Jun 10 at 10:18 am
I’m not sure it can easily disappear :} Once something is dumped into the passport system, shared around the world, it seems unlikely that it will go away.
I share your thoughts about biometrics, but it seems likely that these will, regrettably, become _more_ sophisticated and pervasive. Our climate is one of fear and any incident will be met with “you didn’t do enough!”. Putting our civil rights up against public perceptions of safety (and politicians ideas of how to survive) seems — however correct you are in principle — likely to be a nonstarter.
My own hope is equally unrealistic — that we’ll recognize that privacy is not created, in an age of full body scanners and ever faster DNA scans, by obscurity, but by laws which respect human dignity and choice. It is an American conceit that one can just go to the frontier, to the edges, and — bootstraps firmly in hand — keep the interfering government from our lives. In fact, our details have never been more public (try getting a permanent job with a crappy credit rating, to use my own pathetic case as example). What we need are _laws_ which ensure privacy and individual rights, and genuine penalties to enforce them. It seems to work in many ways for Western Europe. I don’t have any real hope this will happen, but it does feel to me like the only possible solution to ways our personal information is ever more avaliable…
Jessl
13 Jun 10 at 10:53 am
A clarification.
My point about supporting policy is refferring to supporting sex markers on identification as a useful tool of identifying specific individuals particularly for national or international security.
That does not mean that i apply such conclusions to people supporting an improvement of this however piecemeal it may be. A disaster that hurts one less person while still a disaster does hurt one less person and thats a worthwhile reduction of harm and i do not ignore that value.
If this was missunderstood to mean that i suggested that those happy that this pinacle of incompetance and harm has been chipped away at a litle bit making some peoples lives substantially better then i apologise for not being clearer.
There is however no security value I can find to keeping any sex markers on identity documents like passports or drivers licences etc. They do not serve to correctly identify someone. They are a remnant of systemic incompetance and archaic measures not caught up with decades of work on biometrics along with habitual mindlessness with the only single practical function that I have heard of or found of harming those whose presentation does not meet an officials expectations. They serve no actual genuine security purpose.
An argument was raised once in a disscussion i had on this topic regarding prisons.. which simply illustrates the failure of prisons to adequatly address Trans and Intersex reality. And segregating prison populations does not require sex markers remain on passports or drivers licences etc.. they remain still vallueless. And when applying the argument to birth certificates in Australia U.N. obligations to count and report female population numbers was raised.. so everyone needs these ID markers and concurrent gender expression discrimination for that purpose? The census counts those anyway. The beareau of statistics could record those without having the marker on all ‘cardinal documents’ of identity.
Now i do support the improving this pinnacle of negligence and bigotry even a piecemeal amount because thats real peoples lives suddenly less burdened.
But sex markers on identity documentation are rot. a cancerous person-harming gender-expression-policing rot. A missdirection of security-resources rot. A gaping hole in international security rot. An avoidance of creating a genuine identification system rot.
If i am in error and missing some vital value for maintaining such a system I’ll happily reassess my views. But lacking them then the danger and harm of such a system is clear.
What possible value is there in the naked-eye gender-expression compared to sex marker as proof of personal individual identity test? What other logical cause for preserving such a system is there but laziness/incompetance, deliberate gender policing by false pretence of security value, deliberate maintainance of a broken identification system for criminal/terrorist purposes?
Battybattybats
13 Jun 10 at 10:54 am
Queen Emily. I am actually happy when people disagree with me. Thankyou for your response.
I share your concerns about the potential missuse of biometrics. I was bringing that up to counter the arguments in favour of sex markers as an efficient or neccessary means of personal identification.
If we insist on having a way to ascertain that person A is the person they claim to be than a gender-expression appraisal compared to sex marker expectations of gender expression is next to useless for that purpose. If we decide we want a certain way to do so there are myriad traits that are more reliable. Indeed a recent photograph has infinitly more value than an M or F in a printed page.
In other words sex markers on I.D.’s are a hoax. A crock. A charaltans trick. We don’t have a reliable system for ascertaining that a person is who they claim to be using sex markers but we harm gender non conforming and sex-diverse et al people based on the premise that this harm is a neccessary evil for providing the security that personal identification provides.. which is clearly a false argument when sex markers do not identify a specific individual as the specific individual they claim to be.
(capilaisation which follows is for IF/THEN logic statements not shouting)
IF we are going to have a personal identification system THEN we should not rely on sex markers and gender expression for that purpose as they are useless for that purpose.
IF we must have such a system THEN there are systems like biometrics based ones that are actually effective where sex Markers are not THERFORE there is no reason to keep Sex Markers on documents.
So whether or not we agree with the IFs what matters is if the IF = true then the then = true (if my argument is correct)
Battybattybats
13 Jun 10 at 11:15 am
@Jessl
Oh yes, “easily” was ridiculously overstating the case. Certainly politically, it’s about as impossible (perhaps even more) as adding a third sex category – especially on an international level. I meant that with the political will, it could be done (though of course as you rightly point out this is unlikely in the age of terrorism).
And yes, pessimistically I agree with you about the increasing amount of biometrics. Historically, techniques pioneered on criminals (like fingerprinting, DNA testing) and immigrants tend to be eventually used on the general population. And the data trail is as important as the biological and ocular/surveillance facets – the days of stealth are certainly numbered…
queenemily
13 Jun 10 at 1:40 pm
Kimberly,
you said:
“This is current reality, and no matter how we wish it to be otherwise, it is what it is. I do not believe that gendering is simply acquired bias we overcome with persuasive argument. How do we change human nature?”
“Human nature” is socially constructed.
jayinchicago
13 Jun 10 at 3:18 pm
Shorter battybattybats: “If you don’t do / think about gender like I do, you’re a terrorist.”
Nice. So when can I expect to be dropped off at Gitmo?
GallingGalla
13 Jun 10 at 4:12 pm
GallingGalla, you clearly missunderstood. Your losing vital context in your ‘shortening’ that makes it mean what i did not in fact say.
You missed the meaning of this bit: “…is so incompetant for any security or leadership or administration or authority position…”
In other words anyonce claiming the need to keep sex markers for security purposes in a position of authority over such security systems is either logically a) incompetant b) keeping them to discriminate using the false pretence of security or c) deliberatly keeping security un-secure and lying that it is secure for criminal/terrorist ends (false passports having been in the news not so long ago..) Because there is no genuine practical security value to sex markers.
Unless of course you have a d) or more that logically works or better yet an actual security value for keeping sex markers then that statement logically stands untouched no matter the missquoting sans context or ad hominems you might try.
Battybattybats
13 Jun 10 at 6:33 pm
I agree that biometrics aren’t a good idea, and also that they’re likely to happen.
just wanted to add to the discussion- new passport books (at least in the U.S.) all have RFID chips in them now. if you renew, you get an RFID chip. if you get a brand new first time passport, you get an RFID chip. and those can be scanned & read by devices near you without you even knowing it. given that reality, it is in our interests imho to keep as little info as possible available on that chip.
MHS
14 Jun 10 at 7:32 am
I’m all for dropping sex/gender markers in their entirety–that does seem to me to be the best possible ultimate outcome. And, absolutely, this change doesn’t do nearly enough for lots of folks under the trans umbrella, and that’s a problem.
But biometrics? HELL no.
Just Some Trans Guy
14 Jun 10 at 10:23 am
[...] US State Dept announces new passport rules for transgender people (Questioning Transphobia) [...]
Global Feminist Link Love: June 7-13 « Gender Across Borders
14 Jun 10 at 11:02 am
[...] http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2010/06/10/us-state-dept-announces-new-passport-rules-fo... // Share| AKPC_IDS += "561,"; Rating 3.00 out of 5 1 Comments Leave A Response [...]
The State Department has revised its policy on changing passports for Transgender people(Washington Post)
14 Jun 10 at 11:53 am
Jay-
You said ““Human nature” is socially constructed.”
How about “biological imperative”?
Innate, instinctual, inborn.
Kimberly
14 Jun 10 at 10:22 pm
I can’t believe you’d want to argue a very transphobic idea with me on this of all blogs.
Science itself is biased because it occurs within society and among people. Humans cannot rid themselves of the bias of social construction while the idea of society still exists. Sex is socially constructed–it is an IDEA, some words and thoughts that humans created.
If you want to seriously argue that you can misgender anyone you want if they don’t live up to your standards of ____[whatever], then argue that. Argue that it is your personal bias. Chalking it up to “instinct” is a cop-out.
jayinchicago
14 Jun 10 at 10:41 pm
But Jay that the observer effects the experiment in all fields of science to some extent that does not neccessarily refute the science otherwise we’d be dissmissing all of physics as untrue pecause the physicists exist in the physical world. My body has a magnetic field which interacts with that of my PC yet my PC still functions.
Indeed removing subjective bias from the study of societies is very very difficult and a constant challenge to it’s every claim but that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
For starters while some social diversity exists comparative studies can be done. This however is becoming less and less possible in todays global trade in mass-media and the still continuing religious crusades against many indiginous cultural practices.
Human societal diversity is not the only option however (though i suspect there’s plenty of work that could be done in examining living subcultures). Studies on behaviour amongst Chimpanzee’s and Bonobo’s for example still retain some significant ways to examine some of what is or is not socially constructed or instinctive.
It’s difficult to study human nature, especially to do so ethically, but that doesn’t mean we cannot do so. And the claim that human nature is socially constructed requires equal standard of evidence and suffers the exact same difficulties as any claim that it is not.
So let any claim either way be supported by evidence please.
Battybattybats
15 Jun 10 at 6:12 am
Jeez Jay-
I made a statement that it seems I (a transsexual by the way) have observed a behaviour in myself, that to my knowledge is not based on any experience or education or indoctrination that I may have had. Now, I may be naive in thinking that, because I ain’t got no collig edumacasion nor am I a scientist or behavioral clinician, but for you to blame me of being transphobic is well, transphobic. See how I did that?
Chalking it up to instinct is the only explanation I have for it, and I welcome you to disabuse me of that notion if you can. I was prepared for a reasoned discussion (thanks Batty) if someone disagreed with me, but I didn’t expect an excoreation.
And frankly, WTF is this:
“that you can misgender anyone you want if they don’t live up to your standards of ____[whatever],”?
Maybe you could write a book, a very sciencey sort, full of facts and emperical evidence that explains how you have overcome any propensity to gender people, and how others can apply the same priciples to their life. I’ll be waiting.
In the mean time, f**k you, in the nicest way possible.
Kimberly
15 Jun 10 at 8:56 am
Heh. Leaving the entire nature/nurture thing on the table with the popcorn — it is sort of interesting that this community — where I often turn for first/best news and opinion from other trans folks — goes so quickly (as a group, nevernomind who said what) from state sanctioned ID to what is and isn’t gender.
For whatever it’s worth, I’ll take EO Wilson’s lovely metaphor for nature/nurture any day — we’re like beach balls tumbling down a stream to the ocean. The wind — environment, developmental — pushes us from channel to channel, where we tend to (but do not always) roll.
jessl
15 Jun 10 at 9:08 am
[...] a comment » There’s always a catch, isn’t there? After last month’s announcement by the State Department that trans people will no longer be required to have undergone surgery in [...]
U.S. passport fees increase « Questioning Transphobia
4 Jul 10 at 12:26 am
[...] have to accept trans identities. And while the president, through his executive actions, including eliminating a requirement for genital surgery to get a passport that matches one’s identified sex, believes that that should be the case, [...]
Valerie Keefe: Pardon Andrea Jones
17 Nov 11 at 9:29 pm