US will now offer gender-neutral X option on passports

If more cisgendered/non-LGBTQ people adopt it for privacy reasons, that could helpfully shield LGBTQ people who might face persecution for having it on their passport in other countries. So maybe a feature, not a bug?

The privacy angle is lost on me. You've got a document that has your biometrics and photo in it, there is all sorts of other information requested and shared, even more for countries where you need a visa, now you need to provide various arbitrary covid related information... who are the people that go through all this but don't want to give away their sex (which for 99.9% of adults is obvious anyway)? Maybe it's possible you can find someone, but it seems like a vanishingly unimportant use case.

> If we hypothetically assume that gender is no longer recorded

Male Americans and green card holders are still required to sign up for Selective Service. Failing to sign up is grounds for denying benefits like federal financial aid and citizenship.

Does putting X on your passport prevent any of this discrimination from happening? If not, it's pretty meaningless.

> This might sound good - but it would make it very hard to study, for example, whether men or women receive preferential treatment from US Consuls. Or whether men or women face different threats abroad (some embassies keep statistics on sexual assaults).

What the passport agency prints on your passport is totally different from the info they have on file and share with official agencies.

Make sure you ask your wife about that. Sounds like you’re just making a decision for her.

probably tells them much more about you than putting male does.

Is it really a large and sweeping change, or a tiny change that’s far less difficult to implement in our politically gridlocked country than anything requiring legislation?

I dont think it's fair to characterize an "LGBTQ Agenda" as if there is cabal trying to bend the country to their will. I think somehow it's become mainstream to be terrified of offending anyone, while simultaneously not really understanding what we stand for. And a very small minority of trolls exploit that to see how far they can push us on ridiculous directions. You look at how much harm this does to the public perception of people who may fall under someone's umbrella LGBetc acronym, and how everyone gets riled up while also looking ridiculous. Who does it actually serve.

So don't think there is a coherent agenda, just look at it as trolling and try not to hold it against normal people who just want to live their lives.

Is it really a large change? It's just a letter on a document.

I wouldn't call the LGBTQ population a tiny percentage when ~14% of people in the US don't identify as straight.

I have seen pretty much nothing from the US that appears to be “pushing the LQBTQ agenda”.

> It is totally distracting from much more serious issues

Which other issues? Which issues would be getting addressed now, but for attention consumed by "the LGBTQ agenda?"

Same as with anti-apartheid agenda. Largely opposed by the same kind of people.

More than likely the answer is: pandering for votes.

A reasonable persons understands you are: XX (Female), XY (Male), or one of many extraordinarily rare edge cases such as (not inclusive): XXY, XYY, XYY, XXX, etc. The fact this under debate shows the level of disillusionment and detachment from science among the individuals arguing for it.

This is the opinion section of my comment: I think LQBTQ individuals desire to have their sexual preferences reinforced by society. I imagine the thought process is something like "If I can only prove it's biological, I no longer have to constantly justify my choices to others and there will be acceptance." This is sad in my opinion, as we should not be lecturing others unless they ask for your opinion. You certainly aren't required to support anyone's decisions, but treating them less than human isn't acceptable. Unfortunately, I see LQBTQ communities are further distancing themselves by pushing this agenda of redefining science.

Like another commentor said, I don't think it's any government's business who I am. And while that's a great theory, the real world doesn't work out this way. Marking your passport this way will more than likely cause issues at international borders and it would be good to stick to scientific identification to avoid unjust arrest.

And the concerning part to me is that there seems to be no end in sight to this movement. Why not allow people to have multiple wives/husbands/spouses? And what if someone wants to identify as a dog? Or merry their dog? And is why not let children get married, why discriminate based on age? If they are old enough to decide which gender they identify as… Etc etc.

This really has nothing to do with the LGB. There's no passport marker for sexuality.

I have seriously and honestly asked myself this! In my own head and never publicly, of course. I don't believe it's subject to rational/utilitarian analysis. It has, gradually at first, accelerating to a tipping point, become fashionable (albeit in a very serious way) to seek to protect this category of person. Admittedly reductionist, but I believe the core essence is simply this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW8amMCVAJQ

I think protection, respect, dignity, rights for LGBTQ people is great! But as you note, there is something extra here. It seems like the entire population, which is mostly cis and hetero, is being asked... well, not asked, really. It's not a request anymore, is it? Strongly urged, to deconstruct and overhaul how we think and speak about sex and gender in all contexts and at all times. And this is a bit difficult to square with the goodness of protecting LGBTQ people. It's a little extra.

I was going to write that the growth of this movement consists of cishet people ("allies!"), since it's not a recruitment drive to turn people. But then I realized that's not strictly true either. While I do not believe that sexuality and dysphoria are chosen, there is some fuzziness in the [TQ] part. I could, with high sincerity, choose to identify as agender, possibly a bit genderfluid, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify as non-binary, which under the current rules qualifies me to identify myself as transgender. I don't do that. I don't see it as being in my interest, but that could change. I could join up in the future.

In closing, I wish that there was the same level of zeal for protecting the very poor, homeless, mentally and chronically ill!

No they have a sex field, the state is taking about allowing M, F, and X for that. There is really no distinction between gender and sex except as a way for people to explain the difference between “social sex” (i.e. the one people mean 99% of the time they say sex) and “chromosomal sex” (i.e. the one basically only doctors care about). Every one of my trans friends has their sex on their legal documents matching their post transition sex.

Which like I get that it’s controversial round certain parts that it’s even possible for those two concepts to not be in lock step but you gotta remember that 20 years ago it was controversial whether one’s sexual orientation could not be in lock step with one’s sex.