Colorado has enacted legislation, effective Jan. 1, allowing adults born in Colorado to secure a new birth certificate reflecting a self-designated gender other than as recorded on an original birth certificate.  That legislation is unwise, unethical, dangerous, and, surely to be contended by some, unlawful.

Government identification documents (“IDs”) are issued by government (including schools) to confirm facts about the person to whom the ID is to be issued and/or that the person is a member of a specific class of persons.  IDs serve as verification of a person’s identity and/or membership in a class of persons (1) authorized to take certain actions (such as acting as a police officer, physician, attorney, teacher, plumber, electrician, architect, etc.), or (2) entitled to certain benefits or privileges ( Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, right to vote, right to purchase alcohol, right to travel, etc.)  IDs are presented by the holder for the express or implied purpose of securing the trust and confidence of the person or entity to whom the ID is presented.  For IDs to fulfill their purpose, the correctness of the information disclosed in the ID is absolutely necessary so that reliance upon that information is justified.  If governmental policy allows IDs to contain false, misleading, confusing, or unverified information, a chain reaction of adverse societal consequences will result. Those formerly comfortable in relying on the information disclosed in IDs will be compelled to undertake their own costly, time-consuming, and difficult investigations in order to verify the true nature of the person presenting an ID.

The government ID process entails investigation and verification of relevant information and, then, issuance of an ID.  It is not, and never has been, a process to provide false, confusing, unverifiable, or deceptive information requested by the applicant to use for whatever purpose the applicant desires, nor for deception of others as to facts which, in an orderly society, need to conform to reality.  Inability to rely on the accuracy of the ID information will be of serious, if not critical, concern to most of the population.  Examples of those adversely affected by government identification of males as females (and vice versa) are:

1.  Parents when vetting potential playmates for their children and when vetting the parents and siblings of proposed playmates.  Most parents would not consent for a teen daughter to go overnight camping with a teen transgirl.  Parents understand the adverse medical, social, and economic risks and consequences and the social contagion and indoctrination attending the transgender lifestyle. 

2.  Parents when vetting potential babysitters and companions for their children and when vetting parents of such babysitters and companions.  Most parents would not consent for a teen transgirl to babysit a daughter nor permit their daughter to spend time at the home of a transgirl.

3.  Government and others when needing to track suspected criminals, employers when needing accurate background information as to prospective employees, government when needing accurate information in order to perform background checks on purchasers of firearms, and lenders when needing information for credit checks.  If a person, merely upon request, can secure changes to ID documents, his or her history may be hidden from investigation and discovery.  (A police officer making a traffic stop will not discover that an apparent female driver is actually a male with an arrest warrant outstanding under a different name.)  Terrorists, and anyone else, could hide their background history by transitioning one or more times.

4.  Employers (especially medical providers) who desire to confirm the biological sex of prospective employees (when such is a legally permitted qualification).  A female patient requested a female nurse for an intimate procedure and was summoned by an “obviously male” staffer with stubble and tattoos, who claimed, “My gender is not male. I’m a transsexual.” The woman declined the procedure. 

5.  Persons, for whatever reason, seeking relationships only with persons of the same biological sex or only with persons of the opposite biological sex, i.e., a male desiring to date and marry a female who can bear him a child. 

6.  Persons considering intimate involvement wanting to know the biological sex of the sexual partner because of the extraordinarily high risk of HIV infection attending the transgender lifestyle.  The CDC reports that a review of studies shows that 28% of transgender women had HIV infection (56% of Black/African American transgender women, 17% of whites, and 16% of Hispanic/Latina.)    Government should resist any action which may result in the hiding or non-disclosure of HIV infection or the risk thereof.

7.  Persons, for whatever reason, seeking or expecting privacy and safety in connection with interactions with persons of the opposite biological sex, including privacy and safety in bathrooms, locker rooms, hospitals, shelters, and prisons.

8.  Insurance companies screening applicants and setting premium rates  for insurance policies for which the premiums are actuarially calculated and based on the biological sex of the prospective insured.

9.  Medical providers when the appropriate treatment depends on the patient’s biological sex, since medical science has concluded the patient’s biological sex is critical in medical treatment.  (For example, certain heart arrhythmia drugs which are safe for men may not be safe for women.)  Since treatment may be needed when the patient is unconscious, incompetent, or unwilling to volunteer the information, governmental IDs (drivers licenses, passports, birth certificates, and school documents) need to confirm one’s biological sex.

Each of the above examples provides sufficient justification for government (including courts) to refuse to allow any person (especially children) to delete his or her biological sex from identification documentation.

Impersonation is an act of pretending to be another person for the purposes of entertainment or fraud.  Criminal impersonation includes pretending to be another individual in order to deceive others or gain some advantage, benefit, or thing of value.  Since impersonation can also include assuming a fake identity with intent to defraud another,  persons of one sex impersonating the opposite sex may be in violation of law when seeking an advantage such as access to opposite-sex bathrooms or when surreptitiously advancing intimate relationships with unsuspecting persons who would find such a relationship abhorrent.  Violence can occur in such cases, so often that many courts accept a panic defense to exculpate the deceived party. Government should not participate in or contribute to such fraud, pretension, or resulting violence in any manner. 

If  states issue IDs not including indication of biological sex, the federal government should refuse to accept any such IDs in connection with federal programs and federal IDs.  If government deems it necessary, if at all, to indicate on an ID a self-determined gender identity, government should certify on the ID (in addition to a designation of biological sex) only an accurate designator, namely a “T” (for transgender).