“Male, female, or are you declining to state?”
The question wasn’t registering.
The clerk very nicely repeated the question as I had left a space blank on paperwork connected with a transaction.
I looked at the paperwork, looked at her, and then decided to hold my tongue.
“Male, I guess,” I said with a slight laugh.
It was my attempt to be funny.
The short exchange is a reminder that “male” and “female” may go in the direction of “madam” and “sir” as being unacceptable as a way to reference someone.
I really don’t care that the State of California starting Jan. 1, 2019 when you apply for a driver’s license or go to have it renewed that you can opt to designate yourself as non-binary for gender instead of male or female thanks to the Legislature and its infinite wisdom.
I’d just like the DMV to get my weight right for a change, When I renewed my license in 2008 I told them my correct weight which was 170 pounds. For some reason they kept the old weight on my license which was 198 — a number I gave the DMV when I weighed 215. No one believes your license has your real weight anyway. You almost wonder why they ask for it besides the fact it may provide a police officer — or someone else that needs your official ID — a reference to confirm who you say you are. If non-binary will soon be an option for gender why even bother to include a reference to your sex or even your wieght on a driver’s license.
If anyone has the legal authority to order you to drop your pants to find out, how do they verify you’re non-binary?
I’ve got nothing against anyone desiring to customize their gender such as the 56 choices Facebook offers with such options as “neither”, “trans*” (I have no idea what the asterisk is supposed to note), “neutrois”, and “agender” to “transsexual person” and “two-spirit”. But isn’t the point of official documents to depict physical attributes and not your emotional version?
I get it if a woman believes she really is more comfortable as a man and vice versa or whatever the issues that are in play. But monkeying with official documents is a bad case of overshooting the runway especially since California now allows you to list your kid —I assume the word “kid” is still acceptable unless they should be referred to as “independent biological units” — as non-binary on birth certificates.
It’s an odd move for a number of reasons. Since the beginning of time, society has identified the end result of a successful mating process as nature designed it based on what everyone sees when the baby pops into the world. It isn’t based on their sexuality.
And how is a parent to declare that a new-born is non-binary instead of male and female without bothering to consult with the new born who is busy letting the world know they have lungs. After all, isn’t that as presumptuous as assuming someone born with male parts wants to be identified as male when they’re 21?
Why not cut to the chase and require it be left blank on the birth certificate until the thing that is born turns 18 years of age and ask it then what it declares itself to be?
I’m sure State Sen. Toni Akins — the mastermind behind the non-binary option for California driver’s licenses and birth certificates — would go ballistic if all of those currently identifying themselves as “male” at Google that is under a gender discrimination suit over pay legally changed their genders to “female” or “non-binary.”
I get the need for people to be comfortable in their own skin and deplore the fact anyone is taunted for who they are let alone be driven to the point of being suicidal. We need to do what we can to stop people from being pushed to the edge for what essentially is bullying.
That, however, is not the same as physical attributes used basically by the government to identify people.
The law in California gives you the right — but not the newborn who is who really matters — to determine whether what is the end result of your mating process is male, female, or non-binary. And what happens if the parents disagree with the gender?
“Pick a gender” is almost as wacked as saying people should have the option of saying on a birth certificate their newborn is 8 pounds and 13 ounces when it actually tips the scales at 12 pounds because they don’t want it to be taunted in the nursery for being overweight based on the average birth weight.
Whether one is male or female matters from a physiologically standpoint.
If not why should the Red Cross be allowed to ask whether I’m male or female when I make platelets donations every two weeks. Not only that, but the Red Cross then applies a different standard for minimum iron levels they’ll accept before drawing out white blood cells. Isn’t it unfair a male’s iron count has to be higher than a woman’s iron count in order to donate blood products?
There are reasons why we are grouped into two basic genders when it comes to things like birth certificates, passports, driver’s licenses, and platelet donations.
But if we’re going to act like it doesn’t really matter then let’s go all the way and ban everyone — including the government — from requiring anyone to identify their gender.