Surveying Identities: Liberty vs. Social Reform

Over the past few years, I have followed the storyline of our national gender dysphoria with a combination of dismay and amusement. The left’s reshaping of our culture to fix a problem that most of us didn’t know we had is only slightly more absurd than the hysterical fulminations of the right.

I have kept my opinions about these things to myself. I grew up in surroundings that were passively respectful of alternative lifestyles, but sexuality of any sort was not discussed in polite society (with the notable exception of standup comedy). As a product of that environment, I have resisted commentary–until now.

I recently hit my tipping point while helping a family member choose an insurance plan on healthcare.gov (aka Obamacare) and was offered an option to participate in a demographic survey. The stated purpose of the survey was to “help promote culturally affirming, patient-centered care.” That sounded ok to me. I’m all in for culturally affirming, patient-centered care. Who wouldn’t be? I clicked my mouse and plunged into the survey.

One of the first questions asked for my family member’s “sex assigned at birth.” Hmmm. I haven’t seen the question asked that way before. Some of the options presented were also unfamiliar. They listed female and male, of course, but also “a sex that’s not listed” and “not sure.” I definitely had not seen those options before.

The next question asked for “gender identity.” Didn’t I just answer that question? The field of answers included the old standbys: male and female, as well as transgender male and transgender female, with the additional choices of “a gender identity that’s not listed,” “not sure,” and “prefer not to answer.”

The survey then asked about sexual orientation (even the government conflates gender with preference). Surprisingly, it was at that point that they demonstrated restraint. Their alphabetical options weren’t as detailed as the ones I’ve heard on public radio, but when Uncle Sam asked for that information, it was disquieting.

I should note here that I have historically held more libertarian views on social issues than my former Republican cohorts. I don’t do so because I advocate or approve of any particular personal behavior. I support the more libertarian view because my approval or disapproval of my neighbor’s identity and private behavior should not be my concern. More importantly, government should not be in the business of approval or disapproval either.

If a behavior harms children or vulnerable adults, that’s a different story. The state has a right and duty to ensure the safety of those individuals. That should never be in dispute. Beyond that, I see no role in the Constitution for the government to regulate morality.

In my mind, churches are a perfectly appropriate place to sort out issues of morality. Religion can offer a great deal of insight into human interaction and norming among voluntary associations promotes cohesion within a community. We have language in place to ensure that those associations are voluntary, so it follows that adhesion to their teachings should also be voluntary. We run into trouble when those beliefs are codified into laws that conflict with our constitutional privacy rights.

I am forever a fan of the Fourth Amendment, which ensures that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects…shall not be violated.” When I see the government mining information about identity and private behavior “voluntarily” on a government-mandated form, that raises gigantic red flags for me.

To be fair, there was a time when people were stigmatized and even arrested for private activities that ran against community norms. Until 1973, homosexuality and cross-dressing were listed as diseases in the psychiatric community’s “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (commonly known as the “DSM”). Then, as recently as 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that the state has a right to protect public decency and morality “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition.” That decision was overturned in 2003, but I don’t question whether reforms were needed to protect privacy and equal rights. I’m just wondering if we have gone a bit too far. Could messing with our pronouns be a sign?

If there are wrongs to be righted, so be it. Let’s get it done. I don’t want anyone’s liberties compromised because they make us uncomfortable. My concern is that in our effort to correct past injustices, we run the risk of compromising our rights to privacy, as well as the once-common practices of discretion and modesty.