GRAHAM: THIRD OPTION NO CHARM,
Why did the Massachusetts state Senate vote 38-1 to add a third sex — “X” — to our state’s driver’s licenses and ID cards?
The answer, according to the bill’s sponsor is, “Why not?”
“If this will help (people) feel more safe and secure and more comfortable, why not do it?” says Sen. Karen Spilka (D-Ashland). “There’s no reason for somebody to have to check off a box of male or female on their license.”
Maybe she’s right. Maybe there’s no reason to ask the question in the first place. So if Sen. Spilka wants to get the state out of the business of having sex listed on our official IDs — fine. Let’s face it: In the internet era, all we really need is a name and a photo. Google will do the rest.
The real question is why the state would let people list something on their ID that’s biologically untrue.
As anyone who’s ever watched a cop show can tell you, DNA identifies your sex. And every time, it comes up either male or female. There is never a third option. Ever.
Biology, it turns out, is the Bob’s Country Bunker of sexuality. (“We’ve got both kinds — Country and Western.”)
This isn’t being judgmental. It’s being biologically accurate. Your life and how you choose to live it, how you dress and identify, etc., that’s entirely your business. Where it becomes everyone else’s is when you insist that the state, aka “your fellow citizens,” must be forced to agree with your notion that there is a third option.
As bioethicist Dr. Ryan T. Anderson puts it: “The challenge for gender activists is to explain why a person’s ‘real’ sex is determined by an inner ‘identity,’ but age and height and race and species are not.”
At one level, the “Gender X” issue couldn’t be more petty. Who cares if someone puts an M, F or X on their license. But looked at more broadly, this is one of the biggest issues we face as a state: Are we going to abandon facts and science in the name of feelings and identity politics?
And if so, where does it end?