Ban on nonbinary birth certificates: Is OK Gov. right?

Andrew (No)

All across the nation and indeed the world, people are waking up to the idea that gender is a social construct and there can be more than simply two ways to express one's gender. Schools and universities ask students to decide for themselves which gender pronouns they prefer, and, with the exception of a few backward-thinking schools, this poses no problems for students and faculty. Some countries such as Canada, Austria, Denmark, and Brazil offer nonbinary passports. Now America has followed suit, offering a gender 'X' option. With the majority of the world moving in one direction toward acceptance, compassion, and tolerance, Oklahoma Governor Kevin Stitt has decided to take his state in the opposite direction. Rather than embrace all walks of life, Stitt has chosen to pursue close-minded and discriminatory policies regarding gender identity—a bad look for any politician.

The truly sad thing about this legislation is that it is such an obvious political ploy to fire up conservatives ahead of the midterm elections. What difference does it really make to society how people identify their genders? There was a time when the Republican Party stood for small government and personal liberty, but now governor Stitt and the Oklahoma legislature think they know best how their citizens should identify their own genders. People's gender identity is too important to play politics with for cheap short-term gains ahead of the elections. Further, the continued Republican culture wars show that these conservatives are out of touch with reality and attempting to assert control over basic aspects of individuals' lives, a wholly un-American trait.

Curtice (Yes)

In an act of common sense, Oklahoma Governor Stitt signed a bill passed by the legislature banning nonbinary genders on birth certificates. This has, predictably, outraged the perpetually outraged LGBT advocates. Altering birth certificates to deny the biological reality of children or allowing one to change it later on to match their self-identity is wrong; it's good Oklahoma has moved to ban both options. 

The sex of a newborn child is readily identifiable, not assigned. This is basic biology—science—something the Left claims to follow. As OK state representative Rep. Sheila Dills correctly asserted, 'People are free to believe whatever they want about their identity, but science has determined people are either biologically male or female at birth.' While one is free, yes, to believe they are a cat, they are not free to try to change reality or coerce others into affirming them as a cat in order to make it so. The CDC estimates less than 2% of high school students identify as transgender. None (0%) could identify themselves as 'transgender' or 'nonbinary' at birth. A newborn's parents or doctor are also unable to determine at birth if that child will be lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or gender-confused later in life. These are not fixed categories of being whereas a child's sex is known before birth and confirmed after. Intersex conditions do not negate the necessity of the sexual binary, just as people born with one leg don't contradict the fact that humans are bipeds. 

If someone wants to pursue harmful medical procedures to try to 'change' one's gender as an adult (something physically impossible), they may do so. Transgenderism has practically become a fad. Yet, denying reality should never be fashionable. It's not about being anti-equality; it's about affirming science over delusion.