A move by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles could present a long-awaited test case on transgender identity. The Department is reportedly moving to bar people from listing their transgender identity for their gender on Florida driver’s licenses. The rule could be challenged and force a court to rule on the constitutional protections afforded to sexual identity.
Robert Kynoch, deputy executive director of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, reportedly announced that the Department will repeal a clause in the Driver License Operations Manual that allowed people to list a gender of their choosing on their licenses.
The Department will maintain that it does not have the authority to allow a gender identity other than their biological gender. He explained that “gender” under state law “does not refer to a person’s internal sense of his or her gender role or identification, but has historically and commonly been understood as a synonym for ‘sex,’ which is determined by innate and immutable biological and genetic characteristics.”
He further stated that “[p]ermitting an individual to alter his or her license to reflect an internal sense of gender role or identity, which is neither immutable nor objectively verifiable, undermines the purpose of an identification record and can frustrate the state’s ability to enforce its laws.”
That could create a conflict with any local and state laws allowing a change on birth certificates.
In the United Kingdom, legislators are facing an analogous issue. Labor Party MP Charlotte Nichols has called for the Parliament to amend the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 to allow posthumous changes to gender. In other words, instead of changing driver’s licenses, they would change death certificates.
The impetus for the legislation was the death of Brianno Ghey, a transgender person murdered in a suspected hate crime. Ghey was also a social media influencer.
The Florida policy is likely to be challenged. Even if challenged under state law, it is likely to raise the question of the constitutional protections that must be accorded gender identity. If so, it has the makings of a case with broader implications.
