From a press release:
Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, announced that the agency now offers people the choice to self-select their sex on their Social Security number (SSN) record. The agency has implemented this policy change and the new option is now available. ...
People who update their sex marker in Social Security’s records will need to apply for a replacement SSN card. They will still need to show a current document to prove their identity, but they will no longer need to provide medical or legal documentation of their sex designation now that the policy change is in place.
The agency will accept the applicant’s self-identified sex designation of either male or female, even if it is different from the sex designation shown on identity documents, such as a passport or state-issued driver’s license or identity card. SSN cards do not include sex markers. Currently, Social Security’s record systems are unable to include a non-binary or unspecified sex designation. The agency is exploring possible future policy and systems updates to support an “X” sex designation for the SSN card application process. ...
It doesn't matter to the Social Security Administration what a person's gender identity might be. The Social Security Act is gender neutral. Wherever there's a wife's benefit, there's a husband's benefit. Wherever there's a widow's benefit, there's a widower's benefit. There's really no need for the Social Security Administration to even record gender. It's a relic from more than 40 years ago when the Social Security Act was not gender neutral.
5 comments:
Probably just easier to remove it from the records rather than find some way to screw up the system with something it can handle.
If it’s irrelevant and unnecessary, just remove it all together.
Well, imho, in this context gender and sex are not synonymous. Sex is the biological definition based on DNA at birth. Gender is a social construct. This policy is co-mixing the two. The sex coding at SSA is/was used for identification verification and for statistical purposes, similar to actuarial use for life insurance purposes. No one really cares at SSA (or your the company that holds your life insurance policy) what gender (or race, species, or whatever) you think you are, it is the biological identification that matters for purposes of life expectancy, trust fund solvency, etc., to SSA. This policy change will cause the statistics based on sex coding to become less useful and skew the data analyses that rely on that accuracy. I suspect the reason for 'blurring' the sex coding now is because the MBR data cannot currently be expanded to include a new Gender code (Systems limitation we've been dealing with for about 7 years now, and there are higher priority data to include whenever IT Mod can handle it) and the ACOSS wants to score some points with administration while still in office.
Odds are very high that the software makes behind-the-scenes decisions, as in addressing letters, that are gender-based. And taking those decisions out, or trying to bypass them, risks crashing the whole relevant module, and perhaps the whole program. True gender neutrality, or leaving gender out completely in favor of asking a person how they would like to be addressed, will not be possible until new software is put into place.
@10:38: Your assertion sex as an immutable binary fact rather than a fluid construct is outdated and inconsistent with the science.
I would die laughing if "we can't fix gender options with our current IT" is what gets us the money to finally kill PCOM and get a functioning enterprise system.
Post a Comment