D
Deleted User
Guest
The problem is that this is how it's listed on official documents. Realistically outside of medical documents (which I suppose is either already covered or just takes a second to clear up), there is zero reason to specify someone's biological gender on official documents. This is the reasoning as to why changing this on a government document (so say, your passport or drivers license) is considered to be permissible (unless the document is in use bc you got in trouble w/ the legal system, in which case, though shit, gotta wait that out).
The problem that this creates is that it gets "rid" of people being violent against people who identify as trans (quotation marks since the violence still exists, it's just no longer considered a crime specificially because they were trans, which would be a hate crime), gets rid of the rights trans people have needed to get in order to not get harassed (and even then in America that's still an issue.) and just gets rid of trans peoples existence in general. Make your "can't commit crimes against trans people if you make sure they don't legally exist" jokes, but realize that this is literally the end goal with this.
It basically prevents people from IDing as trans and having said status recognized by a legal body in cases of say:
- Getting send to jail for comitting a crime (you'd end up being send to the jail which your legal document recognizes, which would mean you get locked up as the sole female in a jail filled with males or vice versa.)
- Having a defense against people starting harassment campaigns or comitting violence against you for being trans and having this recognized as a hate crime.
But that's something that shouldn't require this kind of approach. Medical malpractice should be handled on a case-by-case basis. As well I don't see how this kind of approach would be related to malpractice.
Yeah, and on top of this it also sets a bad precedent. There's a very slippery slope we take if this gets passed, and I really don't like it.