Arkansas Supreme Court removes gender neutral option from state IDs

The Arkansas Supreme Court made a controversial decision on Tuesday, ruling to eliminate the option for residents to use a neutral gender identification on their state ID cards. This ruling reinstated a state law that had previously banned the use of “X” as an option for gender identification, sparking outrage and debates among the residents of Arkansas.

Previously, a lower court had blocked the bill, arguing that it would harm transgender residents. However, the Arkansas Supreme Court overturned this decision, with Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin, a Republican, expressing his support for the ruling.

Tim Griffin praised the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision, stating, “I applaud the Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision staying the circuit court’s unlawful order and allowing the Department of Finance and Administration to bring its identification rules into compliance with state law.”

However, the Arkansas ACLU had fought against this legislation, with Executive Director Holly Dickson criticizing the move as harmful to transgender, intersex, and nonbinary individuals. Dickson stated, “The only real emergency here is the one created by the state itself, imposing this rule on transgender, intersex, and nonbinary Arkansans.”

With this ruling, Arkansas joins the majority of U.S. states in disallowing the use of “X” as a gender option on identification forms. Out of the 50 states, only 21, along with Washington, D.C., maintain the policy of allowing residents to use “X” as a valid gender identifier.

It is worth noting that out of Arkansas’s 2.6 million active driver’s licenses, only 387 had the “X” designation. Similarly, out of the state’s 503,000 IDs, only 167 had the “X” designation. While the numbers may seem small, the impact of this ruling is significant for those individuals who identify outside of the traditional gender binary.

Ultimately, the debate around gender identification on state ID cards continues to be a contentious issue, with advocates on both sides passionately defending their positions. As the legal landscape evolves, it remains to be seen how other states will approach this sensitive and complex issue in the future.