Passport Gender Markers: Biological Fallacies and Unnecessary Harm
In response to a State Department request for comments on aligning passport gender markers with Executive Order 14168, the technical and biological case against the proposal is definitive. The order rests on a definition of sex that is both scientifically untenable and socially damaging. All applicants should retain the option to select the gender marker they believe best fits, including M, F, or X.
The Executive Order's Definition Fails Biologically
The order's definition of "female" as "a person belonging, at conception, to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell" is incoherent. Zygotes do not produce reproductive cells at any point—oogenesis begins more than a month into embryonic development. Under the order's own logic, no one has a sex. Even if one attempted to karyotype a zygote immediately post-conception, potential errors would arise because the gametes an individual eventually produces depend on the later formation of the genital ridge.
Sex is Not a Simple Binary
Human biology contradicts the order's foundational assumptions at multiple levels. Chromosomal arrangements are varied and include X, XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XXX, and various tetrasomies and pentasomies. People can be a mosaic of cells with differing genetic compositions, such as a mix of XX and XYY cells. Furthermore, chromosomes do not always determine anatomy: individuals with XY chromosomes can be born with a vulva and internal testes. Others with XY chromosomes and a small penis may be surgically and socially assigned female at birth, without ever being informed of the circumstances.
The Wrong Question for the Wrong Purpose
Practically speaking, completing the forms under the proposed definition would require a guess at a biologically unanswerable and socially irrelevant question. Given that approximately two percent of humans are born with an uncommon sexual development—often without their own awareness—the form introduces a significant margin for error.
The policy also misunderstands the function of the gender marker itself. Passport gender markers exist to align with how border control officers perceive the holder's gender at a glance. Presenting a marker that fails to match that perception creates friction, intimidation, and hardship for travelers, particularly those with non-conforming bodies, dress, voice, or mannerisms.
A Policy of Reserved Cruelty
The practical weight of this change falls most heavily on a specific minority. The proposal's impact is reserved for trans people, gender-non-conforming individuals, and anyone whose genetics, anatomy, or behavior strays from a narrow script. The animus is clear, and for those affected, the consequences are lived daily at borders and checkpoints. This is cruelty that should be resisted on both biological and social grounds.
