Sometimes, changes can seem glacial. We can look back on more than 15 years since the introduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and the actual passage of this bill – let alone full transgender inclusion – seems just as far away as it did then. The military's anti-gay "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, enacted two presidencies ago, is still the law of the land. Transgender people still usually get short shrift from the Human Rights Campaign and other rights organizations, let alone the public overall. Indeed, sometimes it feels like progress is traveling at something far less than a snail's pace. This causes one to be positively thrown for a loop when, out of nowhere, a change comes along that many did not see coming.
Earlier this month, the U.S. State Department issued new policies around passports. The change in rules allows for a transgender person to get the gender marker changed on their passport with certification from an attending medical physician. All the doc needs to state is that the applicant has undergone appropriate clinical treatment, and the passport will be updated. This policy also allows for a "limited-validity" passport if the statement by one's physician indicates that the applicant is currently in the process of transition.
As good as it is to know that one can get a passport that reflects their gender, the news gets better when one considers the ramifications of this rule change.
Prior to this, a change of one's passport required proof of sexual reassignment surgery before one could get the gender marker changed. You would have to dig up authorized medical records, or have a doctor check what is in your drawers before officials would make a permanent change to your passport. While this was of little consequence to those who did have genital reassignment surgery – or, presumably, those who opted out of travel to foreign soil – it was a huge issue for those who had not had such surgeries. Given that not all female to male transfolks opt for "lower" surgery for a number of good reasons, and given that the current standards of care require a period of cross-living before surgery can take place, not having surgery be a requirement for reflecting one's gender on a passport is a Very Big Deal.
Those of us who are transgender, likewise, have made it clear that the configuration of one's genitals is not and should not be the be all and end all of gender. One is as much a man or woman mentally the day before genital reassignment surgery as they are the day after. As such, this policy goes a long way toward affirming that, indeed, it is the person – and not their parts – that determines gender.
But what really excites me about this is the potential ramifications on REAL ID, the national identification card.
For those who might not know what REAL ID is, this was a bill drafted and passed in the wake of the so-called global war on terror. Authored by Representative James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisconsin), and attached as a rider to a military spending bill, the REAL ID bill mandates a federal identification card. The card would be required to have a person's full legal name, a signature, date of birth, gender, and a state driver's license or identification number. In order to get such a card, one would have to provide a photo ID, documentation of their birth date such as a birth certificate, documentation of legal status, a Social Security number, and documentation showing name and residence.
One thing not included in REAL ID is how to correct one's gender marker on such paperwork if one is transgender.
The Department of Homeland Security – not the State Department – would be issuing REAL ID cards. That is if DHS wasn't still mired in a lot of political challenges, including the little detail that REAL ID could be viewed as a violation of the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. So it is unlikely that the policy change on passports would have any direct effect on the REAL ID program – but given it would be an obvious precedent, perhaps it could. If we ever did get suck with such a program as REAL ID, well, it would be rather nice to be able to get one's gender markers so quickly updated!
But I find myself with one further query: why do we even need such a marker on our identification? How does knowing my gender change my ability to be identified on my passport or identification? How does an "F" or "M" add a single bit of useful information not provided by one's name and photograph? As validating as it is for me personally to have an "F" on my state-issued driver's license, perhaps it is time to decide if such information has any relevance in a society where all genders enjoy the same rights and responsibilities.
Such a change might be a long ways off, of course, and I doubt many would be willing or interested in such a change when there are so many other needs to be had, and so many other rights to be secured in this country. I'll live – gladly – with a gender marker on my license if it means seeing ENDA passed sometime before I hit retirement age.
For now, though, I will take joy and comfort in knowing I can get the gender marker that best fits me on my passport without a panty check.
That's a change for the better.
Gwen Smith is not looking forward to a DMV visit next month. You can find her online at http://www.gwensmith.com.