Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Bill to remove ‘X’ gender option on state IDs draws sharp, divided testimony
Loading...
Summary
Rep. Seth King’s HB1165 would eliminate the “X” gender marker on state IDs. Supporters framed the change as restoring a binary, biological marker; opponents including GLAD and residents with X markers warned that removing the option would cause misidentification, privacy harms, and legal exposure, and they urged the committee to leave the existing policy in place.
Representative Seth King introduced HB1165, which would remove the “X” gender marker option from New Hampshire state‑issued identification and leave only male or female. The sponsor said the change is intended to align identification with biological sex and roll back policy enacted in 2019.
"There is no x gender," Representative King said in remarks, framing the issue as one of state recognition of biological realities rather than ideology. He described the change as a rollback of a recent statutory addition and said he sees the measure as correcting what he described as a policy mistake.
Opponents argued that the option provides accurate, affirming documentation for people who are nonbinary or intersex and that removing it would force people to present identification that misgenders them. Michael Haley, a staff attorney at GLAD, said the change would reimpose costs, complicate interactions with insurance and records systems, and remove a tool many people rely on. He told the committee the option was adopted in 2019 with bipartisan support and that there is no documented harm from the current policy.
Ty Thompson and other residents who use the X marker described personal impacts: Thompson said his federal and state documents are aligned and that taking away the marker would compel him to carry ID that misidentifies him. Attorneys and witnesses also flagged the fiscal and administrative cost of reversing an identity‑marker change because insurers and agencies updated systems when the option was adopted.
Committee members pressed for the practical rationale for having a gender marker on IDs at all, questioned the state interest in removing the X option, and asked whether removing markers might be an alternate solution. Several witnesses suggested removing gender entirely from some forms of identification or preserving the current policy.
What happens next: The public hearing closed after extended testimony and the committee moved to executive session on multiple bills later in the day. The transcript records robust and sharply divergent testimony but no committee decision on this bill recorded in the hearing segment itself.
