To: The California Assembly. About: The Language in Your Bill
A letter from 2020
Note: the author wrote that the bigender identity is no longer applicable. This bill did end up passing.
As a senior citizen of Mendocino County, CA, who is currently struggling with the care available to gender-nonconforming individuals, I have serious reservations about the language of AB2218.
A bit of the bill text:
This bill would establish the Transgender Wellness and Equity Fund, under the administration of the office, for grants to transgender-led (Trans-led) organizations and hospitals, health care clinics, and other medical providers that provide gender-conforming health care services and have an established partnership with a Trans-led organization, to create, or fund existing, programs focused on coordinating trans-inclusive health care, as defined, for people that identify as transgender, gender nonconforming, or intersex.
As you may be aware, "transgender" thought and policy is currently engulfed in an irrational battle between "the affirmative model" (under which no one is allowed to question the "feelings" of someone who thinks they might be "trans"), and the "gender critical" viewpoint (which says that certain aspects of life, like chromosomes and internal reproductive organs, are immutable).
I'm "bi-gender," a midpoint where I realize I will always have male chromosomes and male organs, but find the mental and emotional effects of female hormones wonderfully liberating after seventy years of failing to "pass" as a "real man." But when I ask my local clinic for help, they are forced to classify me as "MTF transgender" and note my sex as "female" in their patient record.
I'm an unusual case, but I illustrate how far the system is already prejudiced toward the "affirmative model." Specifying that providers "have an established partnership with a Trans-led organization" will only increase this bias. The very term "gender-conforming health care" writes this bias—the idea that the solution to gender issues is forcing people to conform to the opposite binary—into law!
There is a glaring need for funding assistance to ALL gender-nonconforming individuals, whether or not they are helped by the "affirmative" "Trans Women are Women" model. In particular, "detransitioners" who have tried "affirmation" and found it did not solve their issues, need support—and will never get it from partisan "Trans-Led" groups. There are many new groups supporting detransitioners, with views opposing those of the "Trans-Led". Including them would be a start toward fairness.
But the government should not be funding advocacy groups on either side of the "gender wars." Please remove that concept from the bill, and base support on medical credentials and peer-reviewed research. I realize there is little applicable research—supporting more would be a good use for your funds! (Provided it is not required to be led by "trans" partisans.)
Finally, please remove the mention of "intersex" from the bill. It refers to an entirely separate medical condition which has nothing to do with transgenderism. Its use by Trans-led organizations to support their concept of a "gender spectrum" insults people with "intersex" conditions.