From the Los Angeles Times:
When Azul Ruelas-Brissette was born in the summer of 2018, the baby’s parents were resolute: They did not want “male” or “female” spelled out on their child’s birth certificate.
Jay Brissette and Miguel Ruelas had weighed their decision carefully. They are part of a small but burgeoning cohort of parents who are raising their children in what they call a “gender creative” or “gender expansive” way.
In the couple’s Los Angeles social network alone, several of their friends have chosen not to reveal the gender of their children until the kids are old enough to articulate their identities on their own. ...
Hence Azul’s birth certificate, which shows two dashes where gender is typically indicated. In January 2018, the state of California began issuing birth certificates that mark a gender of female, male, non-binary (those whose gender identities fall outside the categories of male or female) or nothing at all. At least 10 other states allow gender-neutral markers on identity documents.
But Brissette and Ruelas soon learned that federal agencies still adhere to traditional ways of designating gender.
Last November, the couple contacted the Social Security Administration to inquire about registering Azul for a Social Security number. They asked how they should handle the application form, which has just two options in the “sex” category: male and female.
“They went into this whole thing. That we had to pick a gender, that a baby is not a person without a gender,” Brissette said. ...
So they went to the SSA office in downtown L.A. with Azul, who wore a jean jacket and sparkly boots. They filled out the paperwork but left the “sex” category blank, and showed an employee Azul’s birth certificate.
A few minutes later, the employee handed the parents Azul’s Social Security card and a copy of the paperwork. On it, Azul was listed as male. The couple asked how, and why, the agency made that choice for them.
“They told us Azul did have a gender and closed the window,” Brissette said. ...
DHS should be called in on these parents.
ReplyDeleteSex and gender are not the same thing.
ReplyDelete@10:08 AM
ReplyDeleteYeah, what kind of abhorrent monster tries to give their child the dignity of not forcing a particular gender identity upon them. I'm with you, @10:08 AM. If these parents truly cared about their child, they'd tell the child it's a boy and shun it if it should fail to conform to all the arbitrary mannerisms Americans customarily expect of males.
Seriously, though- Go crawl back into your cave, caveman.
Such a helpful comment. Please act like an adult.
ReplyDelete@10:03
ReplyDeleteFor leaving an entry on a form blank? Even assuming you disagree with the parent's parenting intent, that's not what has occurred.
1, my understanding is that most individuals, even those who advocate as the parents are advocating, acknowledge a distinction between "sex" and "gender," with the former being strictly a biological fact based on what sex organs are present in the individual, as opposed to the latter which is arguably not. So if the form really does just say "sex," I'm not sure what the parent's argument is.
2, I'm curious how, in the rare case where an individual is born with both sex's reproductive organs, this is handled. It's not unheard of. Persistent Müllerian duct syndrome is an example where an individual has some organs normally seen in only one sex. Does the state have a default option? Weird situation.
3, In any event, SSA is being unreasonable. If they believe a sex entry were required, the correct response is to notify the parents and indicate the form will not be accepted incomplete. Or at least, notify them that that entry has been completed since they left it blank and they should contact SSA if they disagree with SSA's action (similar to when SSA makes minor changes on an application, and tells the claimant to notify them if they disagree with the summary, which frequent).
Since there is no provisioning POMS covering the situation, the people at SS were unable to know what to do.
ReplyDeleteThe computer system is probably programmed to require an entry and would not let the transaction proceed until they did.
The problem is not with the people at the local office although I am sure they could have handled it better. The problem is that the honchos at SS need to adjust their system to not have this problem in the future.
I
The implications of not indicating a sex for a particular Social Security Number are astounding .. ever had doctor's visit or a test not linked to your SSN ?
ReplyDelete@2:47
ReplyDeleteYes? Most doctors' offices link treatment to DOB, not SSN. I've heard of some doctors' offices kicking back medical records requests specifically because an SSN was provided, which isn't in compliance with their record system.
@1:01
You are probably right, but I'm not sure why it still wouldn't be better to contact the parents and state their form could not be accepted without the sex entry completed.
Ah to have these problems. One can dream.
ReplyDeleteThere are 2 major issues that need to be addressed.
ReplyDelete1. The worker should have stated "Azul has a sex." This is true presumably based on the birthing doctor's interpretation. Now, there are humans who are kind of ambiguous called hermaphrodites. Assume Azul is not this. So the SSA basing the designation on doctor's interpretation of sex is valid.
As stated above, gender is really the human's interpretation of their own sex.
2. The SSA needs to stop being rude and inconsiderate to its citizens. Sounds like this SSA worker was trying to make some kind of backward political statement about worrying about gender identity. And slamming the window in somebody's face is ridiculous. This couple should file a complaint on that alone.
Out here in SoCal, I have been to that local SSA. They are overwhelmed and have some pretty unruly SSA workers but most are good. This person needs some training on not letting personal belief's creep into their interaction with citizens. It is not that hard.
"The implications of not indicating a sex for a particular Social Security Number are astounding .. ever had doctor's visit or a test not linked to your SSN ?"
ReplyDeleteEven Social Security is getting away from using SSN's. The risk is just too great.
these horrible first world problems....
ReplyDeleteIt was always my experience that when the field hits a situation outside the POMS or regional instructions, that the FO contacts the RO for advice, and the RO contacts CO if needed. I doubt management would advise a worker to fill in this and process this application. SSA seems pretty current regarding transgender situations. But in this case, the worker should have returned the application to the parents, stated the obvious - you fill it in and you get the card, or you hold your ground and you don't. It should never have been filled in for them. The parents should make that decision to comply or not, and the worker doing that for them was wrong. Whether or not the policy needs to be changed is above the paygrade of most everyone in that decision chain and changing that policy likewise.
ReplyDeleteCurious why this baby didn't get an SSN through EAB (enumeration at birth). Unless the child was born at home, the hospital paperwork automatically generates the SSN. Perhaps the fact that the birth certificate didn't specify the sex causes the EAB to be rejected?
ReplyDeleteRefer to RM 10212.200; SSA still requires a doctor's letter to change the sex on the numident. I don't think central office could do anything about this baby's situation; if they refuse to choose male or female, I doubt that it's possible to create a numident and issue an SSN. The FO should have explained this to the parents and told them to choose one or the other. The sex code won't appear anywhere other than on the numident and doesn't affect anything (of course, these parents are probably the types who can't just accept the fact that an aging computer system can't always accommodate new ideas).
The same problems came up after same-sex marriage became legal nationwide; the SSI system wouldn't accept an input that would have shown two people of the same sex as married, and SSA had to put out complicated instructions for an error-prone workaround that resulted in the record looking like the child only had one parent (I retired 3 years ago so don't know if this has been fixed)
It's highly unlikely that the SSA worker handed the parents the Social Security card as quoted in the article. Those are sent from another location. It may just be an error on the part of the writer or something that indicates there may be other errors in the piece.
ReplyDelete@ 5:19, the correct term is intersex. "hermaphrodite" is considered a derogatory term. Also, there are 1 in 1,200 births that are born intersex. It is more common than you think. Just be nice
ReplyDeleteI see a great deal of condemnation of the CR but nobody pointing out that the parents obviously have an agenda and that the version of the story they are telling may be tainted by the publicity seeking behavior.
ReplyDelete