Search

Table of Contents Introduction I. Voter ID Requirements and the Cost of Compliance A. The Current Landscape of State Voter ID Requirements 1. Strict Photo ID 2. Strict Nonphoto ID [...], Thirty-five states currently request or require identification documents for inperson voting, and these requirements uniquely impact transgender voters. Of the more than 697,800 voting-eligible trans people living in states that conduct primarily in-person elections, almost half (43 percent) lack documents that correctly reflect their name or gender. When an ID does not align with a trans voter's gender presentation, the voter may be disenfranchised--either because a poll worker denies them the right to cast a ballot or because the voter ID requirement chills their participation in the first place. Further, when a trans voter presents an ID that does not align with their gender presentation, they effectively out themselves. For both nonpassing and cispassing trans voters, presenting an ID that does not align with their gender identity compels them to express a message about their identity that they do not personally believe. In response to these problems for trans voters, this Note offers a novel legal avenue through which to challenge voter ID laws, arguing that voter-ID requirements as applied to trans voters constitute compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment.

INTRODUCTION 337 I. THE "TRUE BIOLOGICAL SEX" ERA (MID-19TH TO MID-20TH CENTURY) 342 A. A Medical-Scientific Quest for "True Sex" 342 1. Gonads 342 2. Hormones 344 3. Genes 346 [...], Legal sex in the United States is undergoing a dramatic transformation. By "legal sex" this Article refers to various instances in which legal authorities engage in defining an individual's sex, either directly or indirectly. This Article begins by charting this transformation and then draws on this history to rethink the current political moment. Until around the mid-twentieth century, legal sex was mostly understood as immutable sexual difference between males and females that is biologically determined prior to birth. Groundbreaking scientific and medical theories in the 1950s introduced gender identity as a new way to describe an internal sense of being male or female. Since then, in slow steps, this concept has been integrated into various areas of law and policy. Today, the trend in U.S. law is toward viewing gender identity, defined as "an individual's own internal sense of whether they are a man, a woman, or nonbinary," as a central characteristic of legal sex. While there is not one coherent definition of sex across all areas of law, this Article observes that the trend across legal domains, including sex reclassification laws, antidiscrimination laws, and family laws, is clear: the legal system is shifting towards gender identity as the primary indicator of legal sex. This Article demonstrates why it is urgent to name and evaluate this transformation. As of 2023, lawmakers have introduced and passed hundreds of bills and policies that target transgender people by undermining the incorporation of gender identity into legal sex. They call instead for narrow notions of immutable "biological sex" that is fixed at birth. This Article situates the current backlash against transgender people as an attempt to roll back laws, policies, and societal norms that view gender identity as the primary indicator of legal sex. The Article proposes that advocates on behalf of transgender people engage current debates about gender identity by insisting on the moral desirability of future generations of transgender people.

The International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia annually memorializes the rights violations of transgender people, yet once a year will not be enough to remember the atrocities that transgender people [...]

Anew admissions policy at private women's liberal arts school could bar transgender women for 2025-26, requiring that an applicant confirm her sex assigned at birth is female, and that she [...]

FEATURE CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1068 I. SEX EQUALITY, REAL DIFFERENCES, AND ANTI-STEREOTYPINC 1084 A. Real Differences 1084 1. Biology Is Neutral, or Biology Is Not Bigotry 1095 2. The Two Sexes [...], This Feature uses recent developments in LGBTQ-equality law to unsettle sex equality's enduring commitment to biology as a basis for sex discrimination. Sex equality rejects sex discrimination when it is based on sex stereotypes, defined as gross generalizations about women and men, but not when it is based on biological differences between the sexes, like pregnancy, anatomy, and strength. Biological justifications for race discrimination--once commonhave been relegated to the trash heap of history. But biological justifications for sex discrimination persist. This is so because sex equality insists that biology alone is neither a stereotype nor an expression of bigotry. Biological rationales for sex discrimination remain attractive to lower federal and state courts, and have received the Supreme Court's blessing, most recently in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The result is a broad swath of laws across substantive areas--including family law, tort, immigration law, criminal law, property, and abortion law--that sustain sex inequality courtesy of biology and despite a fairly robust anti-stereotyping principle. This Feature argues that sex equality's continued embrace of real differences should not survive what LGBTQ equality shows: that biologically rationalized sex discrimination is an illegal sex stereotype. It uses recent developments in LGBTQ equality surrounding sex, the body, procreation, and parenthood to unsettle sex equality's beliefs in the reality of biological differences between the sexes and in the legality of laws based on those differences. It urges sex equality to grapple with what LGBTQ equality has to say about biology and its role in lawmaking and imagines what the American law of sex might look like when it does. Biologically rationalized sex distinctions have always been sex stereotypes. It is just that now, LGBTQ equality makes those stereotypes easier to see, harder to ignore, and impossible to justify.

I. OVERVIEW II. BACKGROUND A. Sex-Based Classification B. Levels of Scrutiny III. COURT'S DECISION IV. ANALYSIS A. Gender, Sex, and Transgender Litigants B. Policing Transgender Identity C. Identification Policies, Transgender [...]

I. INTRODUCTION R.M.A. was discriminated against merely because he identified as a male. (1) He was denied use of basic school facilities that are available to all other boys his [...]