When Brown Eyes Turn Blue—& Other Legalities
On February 18, Kansas passed a new law invalidating drivers’ licenses and birth certificates held by those for whom the sex markers on the IDs differ from their sex at birth. Instantly void. No grace period.
I understand some folks fear for their daughters’ safety should their girls have to urinate in a cubicle next to a trans woman doing likewise. But I have a question for these protective parents: Will you feel less fearful when your daughter encounters a man in the restroom because that is the appropriate facility for his sex at birth?
Maybe some people favor the new law because it allows citizens to file suit against people they suspect are transgender and using the “wrong” public restroom—for $1000 a pop! Those aforementioned daughters can now save for college tuition by catching trans women in the ladies’ room and taking them to court.
Personally, I think the law is actually designed to do two things that aren’t immediately apparent: (1) distract the public at large from real problems, like how the rich get richer but don’t pay taxes, and (2) immediately stop trans people from voting—while they navigate the brouhaha enroute to new and improved IDs. But that’s my particular flavor of conspiracy theory.
I thought identification cards were a means of checking out people at the moment in time when they are driving a car, catching a plane, or buying a bottle of wine. And, generally speaking, the sex factor in these instances is a presumption for everybody involved. The only way to ensure a person’s sex matches their identification card would be to examine their genitals, and this would be rather cumbersome in TSA lines and drive-through liquor outlets. And, of course, impossible if the ID doesn’t match the current sex of the individual in question.
My driver’s license, issued by the state of Michigan, lists my date of birth, sex, height, eye color, and the fact that I need corrective lenses. To look at me, you wouldn’t know I need corrective lenses, because I wear contacts. Which could obscure my real eye color. My hair color is easily modified. I’m taller when I wear my winter boots. And some people tell me I look younger than my age. So what good is any of this information? Least of all sex—which is the hardest to examine in the moment.
Throughout history, girls have disguised themselves as boys and vice versa, and managed to blend into society. Just ask the Almighty Google about a 19th century woman named Margaret Ann Bulkley, who lived as James Barry for over 50 years in order to practice medicine. Or Cathay Williams, a former slave, who turned herself into Willam Cathay so she could serve in the US Army. Or the Chevalier d’Eon who, in the 18th century, lived openly as a man and as a woman at different stages of life. And these are just the tip of the iceberg.
The point is, these little plastic ID cards we must carry are generally only needed to prove who we are at a specific point in time to allow us to conduct the business at hand. A recent photograph with minimal other information can achieve that. The rest is smokescreen.
I propose eliminating the sex marker from drivers’ licenses entirely. It’s the least useful piece of data on the ID card. Just the most political.
(As of this writing, the new law has been challenged and its enforcement delayed until March 26. A ruling is expected as this column goes to press.)