California Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with 11 other attorneys general, has expressed opposition to a proposal by the U.S. Department of State that would remove the option of "X" as a gender marker on U.S. passports for transgender and nonbinary individuals. The proposal also includes changing the term "gender" to "sex" on passport applications.
In their comment letter, the coalition argues that these proposed changes contradict state laws allowing gender markers such as "X" on official documents like birth certificates and driver's licenses. They also raise concerns about potential negative impacts on transgender and nonbinary individuals.
Attorney General Bonta stated, “Everyone deserves the right to live as their authentic self, free from discrimination based on their gender identity. The Trump Administration’s attempt to force our transgender and nonbinary communities to use a passport that does not accurately reflect who they are is a direct attack on individual liberties and the work we do to protect our citizens from discrimination.” He emphasized California's commitment to protecting the rights of transgender and nonbinary communities.
Historically, since at least the 1980s, federal policies have recognized gender identity as distinct from sex assigned at birth, allowing for changes in gender markers on identification documents. However, this practice was challenged by an Executive Order during the Trump Administration titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The coalition's letter outlines several issues with the Department's proposed changes:
- They conflict with state laws permitting appropriate gender designations.
- They could cause confusion in administering state-issued IDs.
- They may interfere with travel rights for transgender and nonbinary individuals by forcing them to use inaccurate passports.
- They risk exposing these individuals to harm including harassment and discrimination.
Attorney General Bonta is joined by his counterparts from Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington in opposing this proposal.
A copy of their comment letter is available online.