Missouri Mandates Surgery Proof or Court Order for Gender ID Changes

Missouri has introduced a new requirement for residents seeking to update the gender listed on their driver’s licenses. Effective immediately, individuals must now provide proof of gender-affirmation surgery or a court order to make this change. This marks a significant shift from the previous policy, which only required a doctor’s approval without the necessity for surgery.

The Missouri Revenue Department, which made this announcement, has not clarified the motivations behind this policy alteration. In a statement provided to the press, spokesperson Anne Marie Moy explained, “Customers are required to provide either medical documentation that they have undergone gender reassignment surgery, or a court order declaring gender designation to obtain a driver license or nondriver ID card denoting gender other than their biological gender assigned at birth.”

This change has raised eyebrows among LGBTQ+ rights advocates. The advocacy group PROMO has voiced strong opposition to the sudden nature of this policy shift, labeling it as something implemented “secretly.” The organization’s Executive Director, Katy Erker-Lynch, demanded an explanation from Missouri’s Revenue Department, questioning the abrupt change to a policy that had been in place since at least 2016.

Erker-Lynch stated, “When we’ve asked department representatives about why, they stated it was ‘following an incident.’” According to PROMO, the previous policy was established with feedback from transgender leaders, aiming to provide a more inclusive approach. Concerns have arisen following recent protests related to a transgender woman’s access to women’s locker rooms at a gym in suburban St. Louis.

Some Missouri lawmakers have expressed concerns regarding the previous identification policy, fueled by discussions surrounding the protests. Republican state Rep. Justin Sparks openly questioned the earlier policy, asserting that many were unaware that such a process existed to change gender markers on identification. Sparks indicated that he had received assurances from the Revenue Department about an impending change to the policy.

In a statement about the gym incident, Life Time’s spokesperson, Natalie Bushaw, detailed that the transgender woman involved had presented a driver’s license identifying her as female to gym staff. Yet, following the protests, Life Time decided to revoke her membership, citing “publicly available statements from this former member impacting safety and security at the club.” The nature of the statements or behaviors leading to this decision has not been made public.

Life Time’s spokesperson, Dan DeBaun, emphasized the company’s commitment to safety, stating, “This action was taken solely due to safety concerns. Life Time will continue to operate our clubs in a safe and secure manner while also following the Missouri laws in place to protect the human rights of individuals.”

The implications of Missouri’s new policy are still being debated, especially regarding whether it would have prevented the former gym member from using the women’s locker rooms. She had previously indicated that she underwent several gender-affirming surgeries, but the specifics of her situation in light of the new criteria remain unclear.

In addition to these identification changes, it is important to note that Missouri has not enacted laws governing bathroom usage for transgender individuals. However, the state is among over two dozen that have passed legislation limiting or prohibiting gender-affirming medical care for minors. This trend is alarming to many advocates, who believe it erodes the rights and recognition of transgender and nonbinary individuals.

Erker-Lynch criticized Missouri’s legislative direction, asserting that it illustrates a state commitment to marginalizing transgender, gender-expansive, and nonbinary residents. The ongoing developments have ignited debates over transgender rights, access to appropriate healthcare, and recognition within society.