I can imagine some potential scenarios at the borders of some countries where this might not be such a good idea but this is exactly why they allow you to get a copy passport.
Another example of needing a copy would be if you had an Israeli stamp and you needed to visit one of the countries that doesn’t allow that.[0]
The New Zealand Passport Office reviewed the utility of the sex marker on passports [1], in the context of calls to remove it, and concluded:
> The costs of the removing the requirement to display the holder’s gender on travel documents
outweigh the benefits at this stage. The costs of the change would be more significant given the adverse
affects on the operations of border authorities and the potential inconvenience for passengers.
In particular, they noted that border authorities use this data for risk assessment, the significant cost of modifying existing software that processes this, and that many countries would not accept passports without a sex marker.
Because girls and women are targets of sex trafficking? Now you give abusers the ability to get travel documents with an "X" which makes them harder to spot.
There seems to be this attitude taking hold whereby people who are (probably) overwhelmingly young and ignorant challenge everything they consider "not progressive". Clearly all the people who came before us were a bunch of idiots, so how could they possibly do anything right? It's an arrogant hubris. I say that as someone who is only in their mid 30s.
What I have come to realize is that everything people do (including those things I consider stupid, like organized religion) has a purpose. Once in a while the justification is weak. But if you find yourself wanting to eliminate some social practice because you think it's stupid and can't possibly comprehend why we would do a thing, that's a sign of ignorance.
Only after you understand the purpose can you start to talk about whether something is actually still useful.
> Now you give abusers the ability to get travel documents with an "X" which makes them harder to spot.
This assumes an overwhelming adoption of the X gender marker. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption; I'd expect the number of folks who do adopt an X gender maker to be an incredibly tiny and easy-to-spot minority.
Azov battalion was a Nazi regiment until it was in our interest to overlook it.
Google CNN's coverage, a few months ago, then compare to now.
One planted Nazi flag made the media paint all the Canadaian trucker as Nazi's.
Yet, we are arming people who proudly claim to be Nazi's.
Of course, all of this is Russian propaganda, and you will be banned on Reddit, Facebook, and other outlets for having inappropriate thoughts, if you were to doubt the narrative:
Handedness is a fact. I'm left-handed, but my passport doesn't need to say so. Why is it 'sensible' to include this? Shall we include my favourite foods as well?
They note several negative outcomes if the sex marker were to be removed - some excerpts:
> Border authorities would be less able to establish the context of a passenger's travel and do risk assessments before passengers arrive. Knowing the passenger's gender is useful in determining if someone matches the profile of a person of interest. This cannot always be done using a passenger's name because some names are unisex.
> A significant problem for border officials is the detection systems used to process passengers would be
less reliable. Automatic systems such as watchlist checks would bring up more false matches if a passenger's gender information is not entered in border control systems. Excessive false alarms may undermine security as officials are more likely to ignore alerts if they are constantly dealing with false matches. These false matches would also decrease the speed passengers are processed.
> Upgrading and modifying software would impose significant costs on border authorities and airlines. Ongoing costs would be high as the systems used to read travel documents would have to handle processing the two types of travel documents for a significant period of time. If ICAO made not displaying the gender field mandatory, this period would be around 10 years. If displaying the gender field became optional, this period of having to modify software to process the different types of travel documents would be indefinite.
> The common secondary use of travel documents to provide identification in non-travel situations may be undermined if the gender field is removed. People issued a travel document that does not display their gender would lose an official way to prove their gender. This may be inconvenient where someone is required to provide an official document that displays their gender, perhaps to access a service restricted
to only males or females.
The same doesn't apply to whether a person is left-handed or right-handed. Usually, that information is recorded nowhere.
I don't think that "it would be expensive to maintain the software" is a tenable counter-argument to a claim that a gender-neutral option (or optional gender) is important in preventing discrimination.
In particular, all of your quoted arguments would proceed identically with `s/gender/race/`. However, race is not something we specify on passports currently, and a call to add the field would be solidly rejected.
Could you explain your arguments in more detail please? I don't see how permitting an 'X' marker for sex will reduce discrimination. Depending on the country the passport holder is entering and its border control policy, it may well increase the risk of being discriminated against.
I also don't really understand what parallel you are attempting to draw between sex and race - they're very different types of classification, in many ways. For example, sex is either male or female, and typically easily determined by fundamental biological features - but how would you even begin to usefully classify race, and from the global, international perspective expected of passport documentation?
I think when I get my passport soon I’m going to get this, and the same for my wife. Heck I wonder if I can get it for my two daughters too. The less information I have to give out the better. I do wonder if this would get my family hassled at the border to some countries.
Has anyone seriously and honestly asked themselves why the US is so keen on pushing the LQBTQ agenda? Even if sincere, LGBTQ people are a very tiny percentage of the population so why go through such lengths to make large and sweeping systemic changes? It is totally distracting from much more serious issues. Very puzzling.
Is it really a large and sweeping change, or a tiny change that’s far less difficult to implement in our politically gridlocked country than anything requiring legislation?
I dont think it's fair to characterize an "LGBTQ Agenda" as if there is cabal trying to bend the country to their will. I think somehow it's become mainstream to be terrified of offending anyone, while simultaneously not really understanding what we stand for. And a very small minority of trolls exploit that to see how far they can push us on ridiculous directions. You look at how much harm this does to the public perception of people who may fall under someone's umbrella LGBetc acronym, and how everyone gets riled up while also looking ridiculous. Who does it actually serve.
So don't think there is a coherent agenda, just look at it as trolling and try not to hold it against normal people who just want to live their lives.
Climate change, energy efficiency (cough bitcoin), ocean pollution, political corruption, abortion laws, tax evasion, etc. etc.
I'm not sure I agree with him but there definitely are more important issues and attention isn't an unlimited resource. The time spent changing this definitely took time away from something else.
> Climate change, energy efficiency (cough bitcoin), ocean pollution, political corruption, abortion laws, tax evasion, etc. etc.
Are you serious? Is this just a way of getting out of admitting you don't really care about LGBTQ issues? Because the idea that we'd otherwise be making any kind of meaningful progress on any those issues is stupendously naive.
More than likely the answer is: pandering for votes.
A reasonable persons understands you are: XX (Female), XY (Male), or one of many extraordinarily rare edge cases such as (not inclusive): XXY, XYY, XYY, XXX, etc. The fact this under debate shows the level of disillusionment and detachment from science among the individuals arguing for it.
This is the opinion section of my comment: I think LQBTQ individuals desire to have their sexual preferences reinforced by society. I imagine the thought process is something like "If I can only prove it's biological, I no longer have to constantly justify my choices to others and there will be acceptance." This is sad in my opinion, as we should not be lecturing others unless they ask for your opinion. You certainly aren't required to support anyone's decisions, but treating them less than human isn't acceptable. Unfortunately, I see LQBTQ communities are further distancing themselves by pushing this agenda of redefining science.
Like another commentor said, I don't think it's any government's business who I am. And while that's a great theory, the real world doesn't work out this way. Marking your passport this way will more than likely cause issues at international borders and it would be good to stick to scientific identification to avoid unjust arrest.
> A reasonable persons understands you are: XX (Female), XY (Male) [...]
A reasonable person is also not applying a chromosomal test to determine gender. Instead, the reasonable person identifies gender by appearance, incorporating anatomical features, grooming choices, and social paraphernalia like wardrobe.
In most people, chromosomal, hormonal, anatomical, and social genders conform. The "reasonable person" heuristic is therefore correct in the majority of cases. However, the risks are borne disproportionately by those for whom there is nonconformance.
A gender-neutral option on identification provides at minimum a signal that the a binary (social) gender marker is not helpful for identification of the bearer. That's rights-enhancing, with no cost to the gender-conforming majority.
> grooming choices, and social paraphernalia like wardrobe
That's a very regressive approach, based on cultural stereotyping and expectations related to restrictive ideals of masculinity and femininity. A woman who chooses to shave her hair short is still a woman. A man who chooses to wear a dress is still a man.
Let's not discriminate against gender non-conforming people by denying or questioning their sex due to their reluctance to adhere to stereotypes. It's not really a reasonable position to take.
And the concerning part to me is that there seems to be no end in sight to this movement. Why not allow people to have multiple wives/husbands/spouses? And what if someone wants to identify as a dog? Or merry their dog? And is why not let children get married, why discriminate based on age? If they are old enough to decide which gender they identify as… Etc etc.
> And is why not let children get married, why discriminate based on age?
The really awful thing is, there are paedophiles (or "minor-attracted persons", as they prefer to rebrand themselves nowadays) and their advocates making this exact argument in earnest. Including some in academia trying to influence from a position of supposed research. It's sickening.
I have seriously and honestly asked myself this! In my own head and never publicly, of course. I don't believe it's subject to rational/utilitarian analysis. It has, gradually at first, accelerating to a tipping point, become fashionable (albeit in a very serious way) to seek to protect this category of person. Admittedly reductionist, but I believe the core essence is simply this:
I think protection, respect, dignity, rights for LGBTQ people is great! But as you note, there is something extra here. It seems like the entire population, which is mostly cis and hetero, is being asked... well, not asked, really. It's not a request anymore, is it? Strongly urged, to deconstruct and overhaul how we think and speak about sex and gender in all contexts and at all times. And this is a bit difficult to square with the goodness of protecting LGBTQ people. It's a little extra.
I was going to write that the growth of this movement consists of cishet people ("allies!"), since it's not a recruitment drive to turn people. But then I realized that's not strictly true either. While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen, there is some fuzziness in the [TQ] part. I could, with high sincerity, choose to identify as agender, possibly a bit genderfluid, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify as non-binary, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify myself as transgender. I don't do that. I don't see it as being in my interest, but that could change. I could join up in the future.
In closing, I wish that there was the same level of zeal for protecting the very poor, homeless, mentally and chronically ill!
> In closing, I wish that there was the same level of zeal for protecting the very poor, homeless, mentally and chronically ill!
Very much agreed. I suspect that a lot of these identity issues are being deliberately pushed as a distraction from these more fundamental and wider societal concerns of material wellbeing that successive governments have largely failed at addressing.
> While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen
The leap of logic with gender dysphoria in recent years seems to be that if a person has dysphoria, then they actually are the alternate gender (in terms of a replacement to the concept of sex) that they desire to be. So, we're told, people identify into the role of a man or a woman, rather than simply existing as such in material biological reality. Personally I find that assertion rather questionable, but it seems it's no longer acceptable to question this.
I’m not for or against this. I am against people automatically assuming this is good or bad.
For better or worse, gender is frequently used as a piece of identifying information.
This could cause problems.
For example, many cisgendered privacy oriented folks could choice this option.
The possible result would a very large chunk of the population having no gender marker on their passport.
This might sound good - but it would make it very hard to study, for example, whether men or women receive preferential treatment from US Consuls. Or whether men or women face different threats abroad (some embassies keep statistics on sexual assaults).
If we hypothetically assume that gender is no longer recorded, that means gender inequality becomes very difficult to study.
Additionally, US Passports function as identity documents for US Citizend abroad. When I travel, I use it to pick up prescriptions. Most foreign pharmacies will accept it, but I occasionally run into trouble.
I simply hope the State Department looked at these issue.
If more cisgendered/non-LGBTQ people adopt it for privacy reasons, that could helpfully shield LGBTQ people who might face persecution for having it on their passport in other countries. So maybe a feature, not a bug?
I can’t imagine a situation where a bigoted foreign police officer is going to say “oh this person is probably just a privacy oriented civil libertarian, not some <insert horrible name for sexual minority>.”
I just can’t imagine that happening.
I could imagine a situation in, say, Saudi Arabia where I need to prove in male in order to, say, drive a car.
And not being able to do so could get me in a world of trouble.
> I can’t imagine a situation where a bigoted foreign police officer is going to say “oh this person is probably just a privacy oriented civil libertarian, not some <insert horrible name for sexual minority>.”
They're not going to say that, they're going to say "oh, lots of Americans have this, who even knows what it means, the person in front of me looks [male/female] enough, whatever, go on."
The privacy angle is lost on me. You've got a document that has your biometrics and photo in it, there is all sorts of other information requested and shared, even more for countries where you need a visa, now you need to provide various arbitrary covid related information... who are the people that go through all this but don't want to give away their sex (which for 99.9% of adults is obvious anyway)? Maybe it's possible you can find someone, but it seems like a vanishingly unimportant use case.
> If we hypothetically assume that gender is no longer recorded
Male Americans and green card holders are still required to sign up for Selective Service. Failing to sign up is grounds for denying benefits like federal financial aid and citizenship.
Does putting X on your passport prevent any of this discrimination from happening? If not, it's pretty meaningless.
Agreed, we see similar in places like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, where women and girls are harshly discriminated against and restricted in society. They simply don't have the option to opt out of the misogyny inflicted upon them because of their sex.
These assertions that permitting an 'X' sex marker on passports will somehow reduce discrimination don't really make any sense.
> This might sound good - but it would make it very hard to study, for example, whether men or women receive preferential treatment from US Consuls. Or whether men or women face different threats abroad (some embassies keep statistics on sexual assaults).
What the passport agency prints on your passport is totally different from the info they have on file and share with official agencies.
I support this as a matter of policy in terms of recognizing LGBTQ people and respecting their identities. However, I think we'd need to make sure people who choose this optional are aware of potential ramifications when going to a country that doesn't share the current American government's relatively progressive social stances.
For example, China or many middle eastern countries seem likely to add a lot of extra scrutiny to someone who has this on their passport. And even if you are just transiting the airport in such a country, it could increase the skepticism of local authorities or "out" you as someone "deviant" in the terms of that society's norms.
It's unfortunate that it is this way, but we can't really control the behavior of every other country out there, so it's important for travelers to be informed.
No they have a sex field, the state is taking about allowing M, F, and X for that. There is really no distinction between gender and sex except as a way for people to explain the difference between “social sex” (i.e. the one people mean 99% of the time they say sex) and “chromosomal sex” (i.e. the one basically only doctors care about). Every one of my trans friends has their sex on their legal documents matching their post transition sex.
Which like I get that it’s controversial round certain parts that it’s even possible for those two concepts to not be in lock step but you gotta remember that 20 years ago it was controversial whether one’s sexual orientation could not be in lock step with one’s sex.
66 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadAnother example of needing a copy would be if you had an Israeli stamp and you needed to visit one of the countries that doesn’t allow that.[0]
[0] https://thepointsguy.com/guide/israel-entry-exit-travel-requ...
> The costs of the removing the requirement to display the holder’s gender on travel documents outweigh the benefits at this stage. The costs of the change would be more significant given the adverse affects on the operations of border authorities and the potential inconvenience for passengers.
In particular, they noted that border authorities use this data for risk assessment, the significant cost of modifying existing software that processes this, and that many countries would not accept passports without a sex marker.
[1] https://www.icao.int/Meetings/TAG-MRTD/Documents/Tag-Mrtd-21...
It's likely the picture will not be useful for determining their sex. This is why male / female was useful.
There seems to be this attitude taking hold whereby people who are (probably) overwhelmingly young and ignorant challenge everything they consider "not progressive". Clearly all the people who came before us were a bunch of idiots, so how could they possibly do anything right? It's an arrogant hubris. I say that as someone who is only in their mid 30s.
What I have come to realize is that everything people do (including those things I consider stupid, like organized religion) has a purpose. Once in a while the justification is weak. But if you find yourself wanting to eliminate some social practice because you think it's stupid and can't possibly comprehend why we would do a thing, that's a sign of ignorance.
Only after you understand the purpose can you start to talk about whether something is actually still useful.
This assumes an overwhelming adoption of the X gender marker. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption; I'd expect the number of folks who do adopt an X gender maker to be an incredibly tiny and easy-to-spot minority.
Reference?
Google CNN's coverage, a few months ago, then compare to now.
One planted Nazi flag made the media paint all the Canadaian trucker as Nazi's.
Yet, we are arming people who proudly claim to be Nazi's.
Of course, all of this is Russian propaganda, and you will be banned on Reddit, Facebook, and other outlets for having inappropriate thoughts, if you were to doubt the narrative:
putin bad! ukraine good! that simple!
we were never at war with Eurasia.
Fighting against 20,000 barely armed conscripts / "peace-keepers"
you are a shill.
They note several negative outcomes if the sex marker were to be removed - some excerpts:
> Border authorities would be less able to establish the context of a passenger's travel and do risk assessments before passengers arrive. Knowing the passenger's gender is useful in determining if someone matches the profile of a person of interest. This cannot always be done using a passenger's name because some names are unisex.
> A significant problem for border officials is the detection systems used to process passengers would be less reliable. Automatic systems such as watchlist checks would bring up more false matches if a passenger's gender information is not entered in border control systems. Excessive false alarms may undermine security as officials are more likely to ignore alerts if they are constantly dealing with false matches. These false matches would also decrease the speed passengers are processed.
> Upgrading and modifying software would impose significant costs on border authorities and airlines. Ongoing costs would be high as the systems used to read travel documents would have to handle processing the two types of travel documents for a significant period of time. If ICAO made not displaying the gender field mandatory, this period would be around 10 years. If displaying the gender field became optional, this period of having to modify software to process the different types of travel documents would be indefinite.
> The common secondary use of travel documents to provide identification in non-travel situations may be undermined if the gender field is removed. People issued a travel document that does not display their gender would lose an official way to prove their gender. This may be inconvenient where someone is required to provide an official document that displays their gender, perhaps to access a service restricted to only males or females.
The same doesn't apply to whether a person is left-handed or right-handed. Usually, that information is recorded nowhere.
In particular, all of your quoted arguments would proceed identically with `s/gender/race/`. However, race is not something we specify on passports currently, and a call to add the field would be solidly rejected.
I also don't really understand what parallel you are attempting to draw between sex and race - they're very different types of classification, in many ways. For example, sex is either male or female, and typically easily determined by fundamental biological features - but how would you even begin to usefully classify race, and from the global, international perspective expected of passport documentation?
So don't think there is a coherent agenda, just look at it as trolling and try not to hold it against normal people who just want to live their lives.
I wouldn't call the LGBTQ population a tiny percentage when ~14% of people in the US don't identify as straight.
I have seen pretty much nothing from the US that appears to be “pushing the LQBTQ agenda”.
Which other issues? Which issues would be getting addressed now, but for attention consumed by "the LGBTQ agenda?"
I'm not sure I agree with him but there definitely are more important issues and attention isn't an unlimited resource. The time spent changing this definitely took time away from something else.
Are you serious? Is this just a way of getting out of admitting you don't really care about LGBTQ issues? Because the idea that we'd otherwise be making any kind of meaningful progress on any those issues is stupendously naive.
A reasonable persons understands you are: XX (Female), XY (Male), or one of many extraordinarily rare edge cases such as (not inclusive): XXY, XYY, XYY, XXX, etc. The fact this under debate shows the level of disillusionment and detachment from science among the individuals arguing for it.
This is the opinion section of my comment: I think LQBTQ individuals desire to have their sexual preferences reinforced by society. I imagine the thought process is something like "If I can only prove it's biological, I no longer have to constantly justify my choices to others and there will be acceptance." This is sad in my opinion, as we should not be lecturing others unless they ask for your opinion. You certainly aren't required to support anyone's decisions, but treating them less than human isn't acceptable. Unfortunately, I see LQBTQ communities are further distancing themselves by pushing this agenda of redefining science.
Like another commentor said, I don't think it's any government's business who I am. And while that's a great theory, the real world doesn't work out this way. Marking your passport this way will more than likely cause issues at international borders and it would be good to stick to scientific identification to avoid unjust arrest.
A reasonable person is also not applying a chromosomal test to determine gender. Instead, the reasonable person identifies gender by appearance, incorporating anatomical features, grooming choices, and social paraphernalia like wardrobe.
In most people, chromosomal, hormonal, anatomical, and social genders conform. The "reasonable person" heuristic is therefore correct in the majority of cases. However, the risks are borne disproportionately by those for whom there is nonconformance.
A gender-neutral option on identification provides at minimum a signal that the a binary (social) gender marker is not helpful for identification of the bearer. That's rights-enhancing, with no cost to the gender-conforming majority.
That's a very regressive approach, based on cultural stereotyping and expectations related to restrictive ideals of masculinity and femininity. A woman who chooses to shave her hair short is still a woman. A man who chooses to wear a dress is still a man.
Let's not discriminate against gender non-conforming people by denying or questioning their sex due to their reluctance to adhere to stereotypes. It's not really a reasonable position to take.
The really awful thing is, there are paedophiles (or "minor-attracted persons", as they prefer to rebrand themselves nowadays) and their advocates making this exact argument in earnest. Including some in academia trying to influence from a position of supposed research. It's sickening.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ
I think protection, respect, dignity, rights for LGBTQ people is great! But as you note, there is something extra here. It seems like the entire population, which is mostly cis and hetero, is being asked... well, not asked, really. It's not a request anymore, is it? Strongly urged, to deconstruct and overhaul how we think and speak about sex and gender in all contexts and at all times. And this is a bit difficult to square with the goodness of protecting LGBTQ people. It's a little extra.
I was going to write that the growth of this movement consists of cishet people ("allies!"), since it's not a recruitment drive to turn people. But then I realized that's not strictly true either. While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen, there is some fuzziness in the [TQ] part. I could, with high sincerity, choose to identify as agender, possibly a bit genderfluid, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify as non-binary, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify myself as transgender. I don't do that. I don't see it as being in my interest, but that could change. I could join up in the future.
In closing, I wish that there was the same level of zeal for protecting the very poor, homeless, mentally and chronically ill!
Very much agreed. I suspect that a lot of these identity issues are being deliberately pushed as a distraction from these more fundamental and wider societal concerns of material wellbeing that successive governments have largely failed at addressing.
> While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen
The leap of logic with gender dysphoria in recent years seems to be that if a person has dysphoria, then they actually are the alternate gender (in terms of a replacement to the concept of sex) that they desire to be. So, we're told, people identify into the role of a man or a woman, rather than simply existing as such in material biological reality. Personally I find that assertion rather questionable, but it seems it's no longer acceptable to question this.
For better or worse, gender is frequently used as a piece of identifying information.
This could cause problems.
For example, many cisgendered privacy oriented folks could choice this option.
The possible result would a very large chunk of the population having no gender marker on their passport.
This might sound good - but it would make it very hard to study, for example, whether men or women receive preferential treatment from US Consuls. Or whether men or women face different threats abroad (some embassies keep statistics on sexual assaults).
If we hypothetically assume that gender is no longer recorded, that means gender inequality becomes very difficult to study.
Additionally, US Passports function as identity documents for US Citizend abroad. When I travel, I use it to pick up prescriptions. Most foreign pharmacies will accept it, but I occasionally run into trouble.
I simply hope the State Department looked at these issue.
I just can’t imagine that happening.
I could imagine a situation in, say, Saudi Arabia where I need to prove in male in order to, say, drive a car.
And not being able to do so could get me in a world of trouble.
They're not going to say that, they're going to say "oh, lots of Americans have this, who even knows what it means, the person in front of me looks [male/female] enough, whatever, go on."
Male Americans and green card holders are still required to sign up for Selective Service. Failing to sign up is grounds for denying benefits like federal financial aid and citizenship.
Does putting X on your passport prevent any of this discrimination from happening? If not, it's pretty meaningless.
These assertions that permitting an 'X' sex marker on passports will somehow reduce discrimination don't really make any sense.
What the passport agency prints on your passport is totally different from the info they have on file and share with official agencies.
Simply applying for a visa, even tourist visa, almost always requires sharing gender/sex.
For example, China or many middle eastern countries seem likely to add a lot of extra scrutiny to someone who has this on their passport. And even if you are just transiting the airport in such a country, it could increase the skepticism of local authorities or "out" you as someone "deviant" in the terms of that society's norms.
It's unfortunate that it is this way, but we can't really control the behavior of every other country out there, so it's important for travelers to be informed.
My British one has a "Sex/Sexe" field. A prior old style one didn't even have that[1], only listing the Sex of infants (if I included any).
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/UK...
Which like I get that it’s controversial round certain parts that it’s even possible for those two concepts to not be in lock step but you gotta remember that 20 years ago it was controversial whether one’s sexual orientation could not be in lock step with one’s sex.