A Utah Republican Representative has introduced legislation to bar transgender people from changing their gender on their birth certificates.
Merrill Nelson introduced HB 153 on Tuesday, which aims to define gender as “the innate and immutable characteristics established at conception.” If passed and signed into law, it would eliminate the legal process by which transgender people can change their gender listing on their government documents later in life.
“Gender identification, based on one’s self-perception, may vary,” Nelson explained in an interview with KSTU News. “While gender identification is subjective, a person’s sex, as male or female, is determined objectively by science and medicine. The birth certificate records ‘sex,’ not ‘gender identity.’ Therefore, gender identity should not be used to change the sex designation on the birth certificate.”
Related: Trump thought about the trans military ban for all of 10 minutes before tweeting
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Queer rights activists have already struck back at Nelson and his discriminatory bill. Troy Williams, speaking for Equality Utah, in a statement called the bill “an egregious step backward for transgender Utahns. This bill is clearly aimed at hurting the Utah transgender community.”
The move also happened to coincide with a Supreme Court decision upholding a Trump Administration banning transgender people serving in the military. The ban utilizes similar language to the Utah bill. The move by the Trump White House has met with wide protest from civil rights activists, who characterize it as damaging to transgender people and overtly discriminatory.
Kangol
Of course he did! Is anyone surprised?
>>> www.hmmeet.pro <<<
You are absolutely right. But i am here to advise you the best place for gay singles. Just check my nick-name. There are a lot of real gay sugar “daddies” and frivolous gay singles looking for love and pleasure.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
Countdowns til this vile, abhorrent, noxius, smcubags kiddie sex scandal erupts. 10,9,8,7…..
Polaro
Yeah, one must wonder why he thinks this is so important.
meet69 . tk
Real truth. And I would like to kindly inform you about one great place of finding love and pleasure. Just check my prof1le. There are a lot of real gay sugar “daddies” and frivolous gay singles looking for love and pleasure…
Polaro
If you read what he says, he’s got a point. My problem with him and his bill is it is intended to cause harm and ignores the unique nature of transgender people. I believe a transgender woman is not the exact same as genetic woman, however that does not change who she is or reduce her value as a human being. I think we need to make transgender men and transgender women a new gender/sex. Saying they are the same is not the same as saying they should be treated the same. This bill is just mean-spirited in ignoring the reality that some people really are trans and need to be embraced, not objectified.
Dwik27
According to this ever-so-enlightened Mormon: “The birth certificate records ‘sex,’ not ‘gender identity.’ ” Uhhm actually the use of the word “sex” there is really meant as “gender”. Male and female are genders. Doggie style is “sex”
Sass-zilla
And there you have perfectly illustrated the problem with changing legal documents to fit changing norms. He said “sex” because if he had said “gender” someone would have told him that gender is a spectrum and there are over 87 genders… His points are valid. If we start changing our legal status based on how we “feel” that will create dangerous, confusing, legal issues. What if I “identify” as a 65 year old black female? Can I legally change my gender, my ethnic background, and my age to accommodate my “feeling”? If so, then I should get minority business owner status and benefits as well as be able to collect social security and qualify for Medicare, even if physically I’m a twenty-something Hispanic male. Maybe there should be a 3rd and 4th option for biological MtoF and for FtoM? Because medically biological males and females have very different concerns and risks that manifest from before birth and continue through old age (Baby boys have higher mortality rate than girls in their first year of life – and we don’t know why, men have different heart attack rates than women and different rates of contracting cancer and different types of cancer – testicular & prostate vs ovarian, breast, and uterine, etc.). I am sure that MtoF and FtoM transgenders have very different medical issues than both! So maybe adding 2 more, as Polaro, suggests would be better, but changing your gender on legal documents because of a feeling is potentially disastrous.
Heywood Jablowme
@Dwik27: Look at a dictionary: sex is also “either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive function.”
In everyday speech, “gender” has become more frequently used in recent years, but this usage of “sex” is standard in the legal field. Note the recent movie about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, “On The Basis Of Sex,” where the title doesn’t refer to someone being denied a job because they were doing it doggie style.
Myles
@Sass-zilla it is incredibly inappropriate to compare changing your gender marker to a fabricated connection of your, (lack of better words) ridiculous example.
As well a gender change marker has no impact on a baby because its a baby. If a baby cannot speak, let alone comprehend what being a human being is this has no impact or correlation between the two things.
As well there are no social/financial or medical bonuses for being transgender, you actually have to put in a lot of work, money, resources, time and effort to receive any medical care or legal documentation change.
Medically transitioning would be in someones medical file, which would not be impacted by a change of someones gender marker.
Clay83
Sure Utah has more important issues to deal with than what a person wants on their birth certificate. I never understand these people, this has no effect on them but yet they are so obsessed with it
QueerTruth
Because people who live in prisons don’t want anyone else free. And that’s the T.
Myles
There a so many things wrong with this.
Firstly if Nelson were to only view gender as an individuals sex at birth there are not only male or female, intersex which is actually more common than most people will say gives an individual a mix of sex characteristics from male and female.
Secondly changing legal documentation does not create “huge potential problems” Having your drivers license say M or F or X does not change your ability to drive, to go to the bar and have your ID checked, or for even an officer to ticket you if you are speeding. A gender marker change validates and reflects transgender peoples identity and can actually increase their safety.
Medically people who are transgender are informed of the risks they will gain if they choose hormone treatment (cancers statics if they increase or decrease, heart attack, blood pressure concerns) and with all that a gender marker has no impact on an individuals health care experience because they communicate being transgender to a doctor when needed.
The argument of saying a gender marker change could be harmful is absurd and used to invalidate transgender people.