Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

gmcgath t1_j42o24r wrote

My initial reactions:

396 is at best confusing. As you say, what do they mean by "biological sex"?

I have doubts about 264. The notion that people can simply assert their "gender" is silly. However, surgery is often a late stage in the transition, and people going through it would like to be known by their new status before that point. I'm undecided on that one.

368 sounds good, but I'd like lawyers to study it carefully for possible unintended consequences.

−15

1carus_x OP t1_j42ouli wrote

For HB264, here's what would be required instead of surgery:
>""a new birth record shall be prepared to reflect a change in the individual's gender upon receipt of a notarized certification by a licensed and qualified health care provider affirming the individual's gender designation.
>The notarized certification shall be signed by a licensed and qualified health care provider under the penalty of RSA 5-C:14. It shall provide that the named individual is currently or was previously under the signing health care provider's care, and that in the health care provider's professional opinion the individual's gender is male or female and can be reasonably expected to continue as such for the foreseeable future.""

Honestly I'm a bit confused abt the m or f considering new Hampshire has the option of X now, but you can't just walk in and get one, there's still some hoops to go through. Also, 296 would be subpoenas regarding trans care specifically rather than like ALL, if a trans person is under investigation for murder they'll obviously still look into it

4