Monday, June 26th, 2017 12:00 am
darkoshi: (Default)
Several news articles were posted to the Yahoo Androgynes list recently about legislative progress on allowing people to get identification documents that specify their gender as "non-binary".

California moves closer to recognizing third gender - ... The state Senate passed a bill that would allow Californians to choose gender non-binary for identifying documents like drivers licenses and birth certificates...

Oregon becomes first state to allow nonbinary on drivers license - ... Beginning July 1, Oregonians will be able to choose "X" for sex Instead of "F" or "M" on their licenses and identification cards...

D.C. to allow gender-neutral driver’s licenses - At the direction of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, the city’s Department of Motor Vehicles will begin allowing residents to choose a gender-neutral “X” identifier on driver’s licenses and other city identification documents on June 26. ...
on the same day that six members of the D.C. City Council introduced a bill that would enact the gender neutral I.D. policy proposed by the mayor administratively into city law. ...

Activist vying for non-binary birth certificate taking N.L. to court

While reading the first 2 articles, I wondered if it's possible that in the not-too-distant future, I could even get a driver's license here in South Carolina which says non-binary. It seems quite unlikely to happen here, but then again, that's what I thought about gay marriage.

But with the Republicans in control of the federal government, it seems likely that there will be some kind of backlash first. Like a "defense of gender act" which would make it illegal for states to issue IDs with non-binary markers.

When the second article mentioned the California legislation again, it suddenly hit me. I was born in California. If the bill passes, I could conceivably get my birth certificate updated. !!! I wouldn't have to wait for SC to pass such a bill, at least not for my BC.

But then that might present other difficulties. Like, "You can't renew your driver's license (or sign up for XYZ), because we only allow M and F, and your BC says X, which isn't a valid value."

I wonder how non-binary gender IDs will affect things that are segregated into M and F. Obviously, there's the bathroom thing... if a state like NC has a law saying that you have to use the restroom which matches the marker on your DL, and your marker is X, can they legally keep you from using both restrooms? And what about prisons... For a non-binary person who is convicted of a crime, how will they decided whether to send them to a men's or women's penitentiary?

For that matter, what about selective service? That will be a can of worms. Suppose that anyone could get out of the draft by changing their gender marker to X or F, because only males are required to sign up? (I'm against the draft and selective service in the first place - I don't think anyone should be required to join the military, regardless of their sex or gender.) I imagine that they'll eventually change the selective service rules to require everyone to sign up, regardless of gender.

Another problem - what about sporting competitions? Will non-binary people not be allowed to compete in men's or women's competitions? But that's already an issue for trans athletes, even without considering non-binary people.

U.S. drone strikes

Wednesday, February 8th, 2012 11:04 pm
darkoshi: (Default)
U.S. drones targeting rescuers and mourners


Someday, there will be drones as small and quiet as mosquitos. The mosquito drone will be able to suck the victim's blood and compare it against a database of DNA samples to determine if it's found the correct target or not. When the correct target is found, the mosquito will inject the person with lethal poison or perhaps with biochemical matter designed to kill that specific person.

No matter which candidate or party wins the presidency, does pretty much the same military, CIA, and FBI leadership stay in power? Exerting influence on whichever president is in place? Acting as though they have unlimited, unchecked power to do anything they feel is necessary to "protect the government against its enemies"?
darkoshi: (Default)
The Biggest Star Wars Plot Hole, Explained By Science

In regards to the dehumanization aspect of storm-trooper gear, I remember that when I first saw Star Wars as a child, it never occurred to me that storm-troopers were supposed to be humans in armor, even in spite of seeing Luke and Han putting on the gear. To me, stormtroopers were some kind of robot/monster. Even when I was introduced to the idea of there being real *people* inside those things, it did not compute... I could understand that to make the movies, there had to be people wearing costumes pretending to be stormtroopers, but I couldn't believe that in the actual story, they were supposed to be human, too. Even when I got a bit older, the subject was still murky for me, because I had heard that stormtroopers were clones, and it seemed that if clones were stormtroopers, they couldn't be regular people.

These are interesting articles linked from the one above, regarding human reluctance to kill:

Hope on the Battlefield

Hidden Wounds