COMMENTARY: Male, Female, Or ‘Nonbinary’ – California Set To Be First State To Add “Gender X” Designation To Licenses

RSS Feed

COMMENTARY: Male, Female, Or ‘Nonbinary’ – California Set To Be First State To Add “Gender X” Designation To Licenses

August 30th, 2017

Awake Goy

When Californians are designated by gender on a driver’s license, a birth certificate or any state identification, there are only two possible boxes to check: either “M” or “F.” But they may soon have a third option.

A bill advancing in the Legislature would allow Californians to opt for a “nonbinary” gender marker on all forms of state identification. It’s not yet clear which alphabetical abbreviation will be used, though “X” appears to be a leading candidate.

That would make California the first state in the nation to fully depart from the rigid either/or categorization of gender, embracing a more fluid understanding of the term — at least on paper.

“For someone who has an ID that states a gender that doesn’t match their gender presentation, things can get difficult — everything from a delay in completing what should be a mundane task to outright harassment,” Atkins said on the Senate floor in May.

“It’s liberating to be able to say, ‘Yes, this is who I am,’ and, ‘Yes, my state documentation matches that,’” Shull said.

California State Senator Scott Wiener (D-San Fran)

Not surprisingly, SB 179 has been introduced by the same California State Senator, Scott Wiener (D-San Fran), who last week introduced us to legislation that would seek to imprison healthcare workers that “willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns.”

No, we’re not making this up. In fact, here is a brief summary of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights (or SB-219 if you’re into the whole brevity thing):

This bill would enact the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Long-Term Care Facility Resident’s Bill of Rights. Among other things, the bill would make it unlawful, except as specified, for any long-term care facility to take specified actions wholly or partially on the basis of a person’s actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) status, including, among others, willfully and repeatedly failing to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns, or denying admission to a long-term care facility, transferring or refusing to transfer a resident within a facility or to another facility, or discharging or evicting a resident from a facility.

Meanwhile, here is a couple of other actions that would be considered a crime for healthcare workers in California under SB-219:

(2) Deny a request by residents to share a room.

(3) Where rooms are assigned by gender, assigning, reassigning, or refusing to assign a room to a transgender resident other than in accordance with the transgender resident’s gender identity, unless at the transgender resident’s request.

(4) Prohibit a resident from using, or harass a resident who seeks to use or does use, a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity, regardless of whether the resident is making a gender transition or appears to be gender-nonconforming. Harassment includes, but is not limited to, requiring a resident to show identity documents in order to gain entrance to a restroom available to other persons of the same gender identity.

(5) Willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns after being clearly informed of the preferred name or pronouns.

(6) Deny a resident the right to wear or be dressed in clothing, accessories, or cosmetics that are permitted for any other resident.

(7) Restrict a resident’s right to associate with other residents or with visitors, including the right to consensual sexual relations, unless the restriction is uniformly applied to all residents in a nondiscriminatory manner. This section does not preclude a facility from banning or restricting sexual relations, as long as the ban or restriction is applied uniformly and in a nondiscriminatory manner.

Of course, none of this is considered science denial…but, question someone’s climate change opinion and you might as well walk around with a “Science Denier” sign on your back for the rest of you life.

SB 179 can be reviewed in its entirety here:

Source Article from https://zionistreport.com/2017/08/commentary-male-female-nonbinary-california-set-first-state-add-gender-x-designation-licenses/