I was a little surprised to have a red flag hoist its little fluttering textile over my head while reading this article on a controversy concerning Federal passports:
In the half decade since, at least 15 states and the District have offered non-binary gender designations on identification cards, and major airlines have announced they will offer gender-neutral booking options for people who identify as neither male nor female.
But the State Department has refused to follow suit. Despite an order from a federal judge, Zzyym is still unable to get a passport that matches their gender identity.
Now, as the State Department continues to appeal Zzyym’s case, Democrats in Congress are pursuing a legislative solution to the dilemma. A bill to be introduced this week by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and more than two dozen co-sponsors would require the State Department to offer an “X” gender marker. [WaPo]
What do I care about how people self-identify sexually? I don’t. That’s not it. But this paragraph contains the clue, if you’re willing to ask the right question:
[Shige] Sakurai, who identifies as non-binary and uses they/them pronouns, argued that gender markers on passports in general are unnecessary. But as long as the markers are required, there should be accurate markers available for everyone.
And that question is Are gender marks on passports unnecessary?
What is a passport? This is a case where attention to detail matters. This one seems pertinent, clear, and less wordy than Wikipedia:
a document of identification required by law to be carried by persons residing or traveling within a country [Merriam-Webster]
The keyword is identification; that is, a passport should permit the positive identification, within the bounds of human inexactness, of its bearer as the person to whom the passport appertains, and to whom the benefits of the passport accrues. It is common and seemingly legitimate to state that someone has a certain set of sexual equipment, and while hermaphrodites are not an unknown sexual formation, the term is not used in the article. The sexual equipment can legitimately be used to identify the subject of the passport, as part of a holistic approach.
But those who self-identify as X, rather than M or F, are not describing an obvious characteristic, even on close inspection, and therefore it makes little sense to have such data in government databases, or on a passport. This is not about the emotional needs of the carrier of the passport.
And that’s why the red flag came out. Even in the most advanced of cultures, a customs officer isn’t going to care if you’re M, F, X, or any other designation when it comes to your sexual orientation, because such things cannot be readily seen on inspection. But sexual equipment? “Drop your panties,” as they used to say in the Olympics. And if they’re looking for a positive ID on someone who’s androgynous in general looks, well, perhaps such a person will be thankful for the “gender box” when they need that passport to safeguard them.
