From an objective viewpoint I know these laws are being passed in the name of hate, but I wonder of there is a medical reason to have such information. However, it would be more appropriate on a carried medical emergency information card rather than ID as this information is often enough not helpful in proof of identity.
If I ever have to get an ID in Kansas, I’ll make sure to flash my genitals as proof. And I won’t shower for the week prior.
The “white moderate”* position is not always worth considering. Trans people should not have to justify their existence, this has nothing to do with medicine.
* This is an MLK reference. If you do not know it, read more.
Try to understand that that would be a subjective position I did not address. My only non-objective statement was the prod at their idiocy in my second part mocking their hate. There is no justification for hate of any kind.
The “white moderate” position you’re demonstrating is what MLK warned about: someone who agrees injustice is wrong, but insists on finding neutral framings for it. You’re more devoted to appearing objective than to justice.
Trans people do not owe anyone a medicalised justification for their existence on a government document, period. The DMV are not medical staff. Your gender has nothing to do with passing a test to drive.
Searching for a “reasonable” angle on a law built on hate doesn’t make you objective, it makes you an obstacle; and to paraphrase what MLK said: Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than outright hostility.
even worse, the neutral framing is just wrong, there isn’t a medical reason to treat trans people as their assigned sex rather than their actual sex, and in fact there are medical reasons to view trans patients as their actual sex and not their assigned sex (as I get into in my comment above).
There might still be other neutral framings that can be used to undermine trans rights, I think the trans athletic bans are a good example (though, the more evidence we get on that, the more it is looking to be the case that trans women on average are like cis women in their physical fitness and ability, not like cis men).
You completely mischaracterize my point.I’ll try to be clearer. I never assume that a law or tradition is right, correct, fair, or just. I question everything. The presupposition that I would not change or challenge current, new, or past legislation is false. My position is far from neutral, it’s just not based on opposing the percieved enemy as is so common these days. My position is intellectual and caring.
The position you continue to think I took would be not be intellectual. It presupposes that I believe in conserving the status quo. That is as far from correct as possible. I question everything. The position you continue to think I took would not be caring. It presupposes that I am not considering the harm to individuals. Also, far from correct.
I question everything, even solutions, because it often happens that by making a change based on one harm has potential to do harm to another. I want to thank dandelion for the amazing post that helps explore the harm than is done by the new law. With the understanding that hate is the only reason such a law would pass, we see that this is only doubling down on harm. That alone would convince me to push for removal of gender from all IDs because they are relics of fundamentalists in power.
I took a moment to reflect on the possible need for gender as a qualifier for many niche social programs. My conclusion is that it could be a separate form if necessary. Further, these programs are a sad reminder that we do not take care of each other on the grander scale of things which is what would make such qualifiers necssary. But that’s a much bigger tangent to this conversation.
So is your point that you are angry and fed up? Me too. Credibility matters in the long run. Feelings are fleeting. Both have great value. Acting only on feelings will have divisive outcomes and result in more bad feelings. Acting only on intellect only will unintentionally not account for some factor and result in more bad feelings. Holding dogmatic to either method only perpetuates conflict. What point am I missing?
The answer to your question is no, there is no medical reason for the sex marker on the driver’s license. (Nor would it make sense to carry a medical card with your assigned sex marker on it.)
Assigned sex at birth is rarely relevant in medical contexts, and in fact is probably misleading (causing doctors to inappropriately treat the patient based on their assigned sex rather than their actual biological characteristics).
A trans woman is truly more like a cis woman than a cis man when it comes to medical needs, e.g. she will need mammograms like cis women, and (assuming here that trans women are on estrogen) they metabolize drugs like cis women and almost all of their biology is not different from a cis woman who lacks a uterus and ovaries.
A study from Oct 2025 found that within 12 months of taking HRT, trans people have a heart mass that matches their gender:
The troponin threshold to predict cardiovascular events is lower for women due to the greater cardiac mass typically seen in men.
Since estradiol and testosterone were not thought to directly impact cardiac mass, researchers expected that troponin would remain similar to individuals’ assigned gender at birth.
However, they found the opposite to be true.
The clinical research team found that troponin levels shifted towards the affirmed gender after 12 months of hormone therapy.
Troponin decreased in transgender women to a level not statistically different from cisgender women, but which was 78% lower than in cisgender men.
Another recent study published in Oct 2025 found that on the molecular level hormones change the protein biomarkers in cells:
“For transgender women, we found gender affirming hormone therapy alters the levels of many protein biomarkers,” Novakovic said, noting that this could impact risk assessments for things like autoimmune disease and heart conditions. Usually, these assessments factor in any number of variables, including sex as well as lifestyle or genetic components.
“Feminizing GAHT [gender-affirming hormone therapy] skews the plasma proteome toward a cis-female profile,” the study concluded. It should be noted that people of any sex or gender can exhibit a vast and evolving spectrum of these biomarkers—there is no “one size fits all” model for biodiversity.
The more evidence that is collected the more we realize that biological sex is not fixed but instead the human body is plastic and the sex really does change, so it’s not really an exaggeration to say that trans women are biologically female in most medically relevant contexts.
The only exceptions I can think of are due to organs developing a certain way, e.g. trans men with a uterus still might technically have a rare chance of becoming pregnant or developing cervical cancers.
On the flip side, in rare cases, a trans woman (esp. one who transitions late and has a family history of prostate cancer) might develop a prostate cancer (fun fact: cis women have an organ similar to a prostate called the Skene’s gland that, like the prostate, produces ejaculate; it’s not a male-only organ), so that is one difference - trans women might need prostate exams that cis women wouldn’t need.
But for almost all medical contexts, trans people should be treated as their gender and not their assigned sex at birth. For trans folks who have been on HRT for >6 - 12 months, it is genuinely a risk to their health to view them as their assigned sex at birth.
EDIT: for what it’s worth, my doctor basically told me not to out myself to other doctors and this advice is not uncommonly given; he said the only thing I need to figure out in the future is possibly getting prostate exams when I’m much older - but even that is not clearly indicated given the treatment for prostate cancer is anti-androgens and estrogen, which I’ll have been on for decades before the screening would start for prostate cancers; the needs vary, a woman who transitions later in life and has a family history of prostate cancer will have a different need for prostate cancer screening than a trans woman who transitioned before puberty and has no family history of prostate cancers, for example.
From an objective viewpoint I know these laws are being passed in the name of hate, but I wonder of there is a medical reason to have such information. However, it would be more appropriate on a carried medical emergency information card rather than ID as this information is often enough not helpful in proof of identity.
If I ever have to get an ID in Kansas, I’ll make sure to flash my genitals as proof. And I won’t shower for the week prior.
Don’t try to justify bigots.
This interpretation of my comment is far from accurate. But I should not expect less in this world of divisive ignorance.
The “white moderate”* position is not always worth considering. Trans people should not have to justify their existence, this has nothing to do with medicine.
* This is an MLK reference. If you do not know it, read more.
Try to understand that that would be a subjective position I did not address. My only non-objective statement was the prod at their idiocy in my second part mocking their hate. There is no justification for hate of any kind.
The “white moderate” position you’re demonstrating is what MLK warned about: someone who agrees injustice is wrong, but insists on finding neutral framings for it. You’re more devoted to appearing objective than to justice.
Trans people do not owe anyone a medicalised justification for their existence on a government document, period. The DMV are not medical staff. Your gender has nothing to do with passing a test to drive.
Searching for a “reasonable” angle on a law built on hate doesn’t make you objective, it makes you an obstacle; and to paraphrase what MLK said: Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than outright hostility.
even worse, the neutral framing is just wrong, there isn’t a medical reason to treat trans people as their assigned sex rather than their actual sex, and in fact there are medical reasons to view trans patients as their actual sex and not their assigned sex (as I get into in my comment above).
There might still be other neutral framings that can be used to undermine trans rights, I think the trans athletic bans are a good example (though, the more evidence we get on that, the more it is looking to be the case that trans women on average are like cis women in their physical fitness and ability, not like cis men).
💯💯💯
You completely mischaracterize my point.I’ll try to be clearer. I never assume that a law or tradition is right, correct, fair, or just. I question everything. The presupposition that I would not change or challenge current, new, or past legislation is false. My position is far from neutral, it’s just not based on opposing the percieved enemy as is so common these days. My position is intellectual and caring.
The position you continue to think I took would be not be intellectual. It presupposes that I believe in conserving the status quo. That is as far from correct as possible. I question everything. The position you continue to think I took would not be caring. It presupposes that I am not considering the harm to individuals. Also, far from correct.
I question everything, even solutions, because it often happens that by making a change based on one harm has potential to do harm to another. I want to thank dandelion for the amazing post that helps explore the harm than is done by the new law. With the understanding that hate is the only reason such a law would pass, we see that this is only doubling down on harm. That alone would convince me to push for removal of gender from all IDs because they are relics of fundamentalists in power.
I took a moment to reflect on the possible need for gender as a qualifier for many niche social programs. My conclusion is that it could be a separate form if necessary. Further, these programs are a sad reminder that we do not take care of each other on the grander scale of things which is what would make such qualifiers necssary. But that’s a much bigger tangent to this conversation.
You’ve missed the point, again.
So is your point that you are angry and fed up? Me too. Credibility matters in the long run. Feelings are fleeting. Both have great value. Acting only on feelings will have divisive outcomes and result in more bad feelings. Acting only on intellect only will unintentionally not account for some factor and result in more bad feelings. Holding dogmatic to either method only perpetuates conflict. What point am I missing?
From an objective standpoint, the driving license should have no indication of gender at all.
Hi!
Trans person here.
The answer to your question is no, there is no medical reason for the sex marker on the driver’s license. (Nor would it make sense to carry a medical card with your assigned sex marker on it.)
Assigned sex at birth is rarely relevant in medical contexts, and in fact is probably misleading (causing doctors to inappropriately treat the patient based on their assigned sex rather than their actual biological characteristics).
A trans woman is truly more like a cis woman than a cis man when it comes to medical needs, e.g. she will need mammograms like cis women, and (assuming here that trans women are on estrogen) they metabolize drugs like cis women and almost all of their biology is not different from a cis woman who lacks a uterus and ovaries.
A study from Oct 2025 found that within 12 months of taking HRT, trans people have a heart mass that matches their gender:
Another recent study published in Oct 2025 found that on the molecular level hormones change the protein biomarkers in cells:
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/study-finds-trans-womens-blood-proteins
The more evidence that is collected the more we realize that biological sex is not fixed but instead the human body is plastic and the sex really does change, so it’s not really an exaggeration to say that trans women are biologically female in most medically relevant contexts.
The only exceptions I can think of are due to organs developing a certain way, e.g. trans men with a uterus still might technically have a rare chance of becoming pregnant or developing cervical cancers.
On the flip side, in rare cases, a trans woman (esp. one who transitions late and has a family history of prostate cancer) might develop a prostate cancer (fun fact: cis women have an organ similar to a prostate called the Skene’s gland that, like the prostate, produces ejaculate; it’s not a male-only organ), so that is one difference - trans women might need prostate exams that cis women wouldn’t need.
But for almost all medical contexts, trans people should be treated as their gender and not their assigned sex at birth. For trans folks who have been on HRT for >6 - 12 months, it is genuinely a risk to their health to view them as their assigned sex at birth.
EDIT: for what it’s worth, my doctor basically told me not to out myself to other doctors and this advice is not uncommonly given; he said the only thing I need to figure out in the future is possibly getting prostate exams when I’m much older - but even that is not clearly indicated given the treatment for prostate cancer is anti-androgens and estrogen, which I’ll have been on for decades before the screening would start for prostate cancers; the needs vary, a woman who transitions later in life and has a family history of prostate cancer will have a different need for prostate cancer screening than a trans woman who transitioned before puberty and has no family history of prostate cancers, for example.
Thank you for an amazing response! Perspective and sources. You’re awesome.
Yeah I’m capable of telling my doctor I’m trans, and if I feel like my country isn’t safe enough that should be my decision, not my governments.