Policies that shape the lives of transgender people are going in different directions at state and federal levels.
A recent presentation to review current transgender-related policy was held at Stonewall Alliance Center of Chico. The main focuses were on recent changes to identity documents, education and health care in California and the U.S.
It was led by Kate Wardrip, managing attorney Legal Services of Northern California’s office in Chico. Here’s what you need to know.
Is gender identity protected by law?
California law explicitly protects gender identity, while federal law is more complicated.
“Overall, state law is more explicit and more protective, and California anti-discrimination laws cover a very, very broad range of interactions,” Wardrip said.
But when looking at federal law, only sex is specifically protected.
A Supreme Court ruling did determine those federal protections on sex also include gender identity. But Wadrip noted that was specifically related to discrimination in the workplace.
She said it’s an example of “case law,” which is based on a judge’s ruling. Case law is less clear for future courts to interpret than a written one.
“It seems very likely that if you cited this case — Bostock from 2020 — that the same interpretation would be reached,” she said. “But you never know.”
Changes to gender markers on identity documents
Under one executive order, many federal agencies no longer allow changes to be made to gender markers on federal identification documents or in databases.
For example, changing a gender marker from “M” to “F” and choosing the gender-neutral “X” option are no longer possible at many federal agencies. That includes the Social Security Administration, which issues social security cards.
“There's no gender marker on your social security card, but they have it in their system, and it could cause, I don't know, complications down the road if that's not matching,” Wardrip said.
Name changes are still generally being processed at federal agencies across the U.S., Wadrip said, regardless of whether it’s related to gender identity or not.
When it comes to the gender marker on passports, there are a lot of unknowns.
Wardrip said a lot of what she gathered was anecdotal. But it currently appears that changes to the gender marker on passports are no longer being accepted.
However, someone who has never had a passport before may still be able to obtain correct documentation, as long as they have a new birth certificate with the updated gender marker from their county.
“Even if the gender marker does not match their original birth certificate, there is probably no way that the Department of Homeland Security would know that it was updated, and that may go through,” Wardrip said.
Anyone who has had a passport previously would already have a gender marker recorded in the system, and Wardrip said their request would most likely be denied.
In California and the North State, there have been no changes that prohibit updating state or county identification documents to match the correct gender.
California has actually been making some things easier for transgender people.
The gender marker on a California state-issued ID or driver’s license is self-declared, and no court order is needed to change it.
A court order for a California resident’s name change can be obtained without attending a court hearing in most cases, Wardrip said. It costs a little over $400 without a fee waiver.
Access to health care and insurance coverage
An executive order titled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation” seeks to end gender-affirming care for minors across the U.S.
Appropriate steps will be taken to ensure medical institutions that receive federal funding stop providing this type of health care to minors, according to the order.
In response, the Children’s Hospital Los Angeles (CHLA) stopped providing gender-affirming health care to those under 19 years old for several weeks earlier this year.
Attorney General Rob Bonta then wrote a letter that said hospitals across California are obligated to provide that care under the state’s anti-discrimination law. The CHLA has since resumed providing that care.
Doug LaMalfa, who represents a large portion of Northern California, including Butte and Shasta counties, reintroduced an act on March 24 that also seeks to end federal funding for gender-affirming care.
It’s the fourth time LaMalfa has introduced the legislation since 2020. It has failed to pass in all previous sessions.
Wardrip said these conflicting directions put health care providers in an unsteady position, especially as a lot of money for health care comes from the federal government.
“Because of the executive orders, there are health care providers that may need to start making a decision between what they perceive as risking their federal funding and violating California law,” Wardrip said.
Wardrip said California does fill in a lot of gaps related to health care coverage, but she isn’t sure whether the state has the capability to extend that to gender-affirming care.
“We provide health care coverage to people who are undocumented that federal funding would not cover,” Wardrip said. “And federal funding doesn't cover certain kinds of reproductive health care.”
Both California and federal health care plans are required to cover gender-affirming services due to anti-discrimination protections, Wadrip said.
She also said most people are eligible to receive some form of state health care coverage, which may be more reliable when it comes to transgender health care in the future.
Parental secrecy in schools
The North State is relatively familiar with the idea of “parental secrecy,” as two court cases related to it have come out of Butte County.
Parental secrecy is about whether a school should have to inform parents when a student changes their name or gender, or whether a school has the right to ever tell parents about that sort of change.
Regino v. Staley occurred in 2023 when the parent of a Chico Unified School District student found out their child was being referred to with a different name and pronouns while at school.
The parent filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent the district from “socially transitioning current students without obtaining informed consent from parents.”
The court ruled in favor of Chico Unified School District, not the parent.
Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill afterward, A.B. 1955, that prevents schools from establishing the exact kind of parental notification policy the plaintiff had been fighting for.
Elsewhere in the state, Chino Valley Unified School District responded with a lawsuit that challenged A.B. 1955. The Anderson Union High School District joined the lawsuit last summer, and results are still pending.
Parents are generally the educational rights holder for their children, Wardrip said. That means they have the ability to request their student’s records at any time.
“If those records are showing that people are using a different gender marker or a different name, the school isn't required to hide that,” Wardrip said. “They would be entitled to get those documents. So, all [A.B. 1955] really prevents is forced outing.”
Receiving assistance with gender identity
If a person needs to file an administrative complaint related to gender identity discrimination outside of employment, Wardrip said state departments are the better option right now.
“In the housing context, we’d want to look at the California Department of Civil Rights versus the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development,” she said. “For a lot of these kinds of complaints, there's a federal and a state equivalent. We would strongly recommend, at least on this basis, going with the California option.”
Resources
Both Stonewall Alliance Center of Chico and Legal Services of Northern California provide assistance with name and gender changes.
