A paper in Housing Policy Debate, “Gender Marker Laws and Access to Emergency Rental Assistance for Transgender Renters in the United States During COVID-19,” evaluates the relationship between state-level gender marker laws and the experiences of transgender and gender nonconforming renters in applying for emergency rental assistance (ERA) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gender marker laws govern the processes for changing an individual’s gender identity markers on identification documents and other official records. The paper finds that residence in a state with laws requiring proof of sex-change surgery, a court order, or an amended birth certificate was associated with a lower likelihood of receiving assistance among transgender renters who applied for ERA.
People who are transgender, nonbinary, or gender nonconforming often face barriers to changing their gender identity markers on official documents, especially driver’s licenses. State gender marker laws for driver’s licenses vary widely: some states only require individuals to submit a form to change their gender, while others have more onerous and complex processes that might require amended birth certificates, a court order, proof of sex-change surgery, or certification from a medical provider. Because driver’s licenses are widely used to verify one’s identity when applying for social safety net programs like the pandemic-era ERA program, these barriers to amending driver’s licenses can, in turn, limit gender minorities’ access to these programs.
The study used quantitative data collected between 2021 and 2022 through the U.S. Census Bureau’s Household Pulse Survey and qualitative data on state gender marker laws from the National Center for Transgender Equality. The author first grouped states into one of four categories based on the complexity and clarity of their policies on changing gender markers on driver’s licenses. Using the survey data for respondents who self-identified as a gender minority and had applied for ERA, the author then examined the relationship between respondents’ ERA application status and the gender markers law category assigned to the state in which they resided. “Gender minorities” included individuals who responded to the survey’s questions on gender with the options “transgender,” “none of these” (i.e., not male, female, or transgender), or indicated that they currently identify as a gender different than their sex at birth.
The analysis revealed that transgender or gender nonconforming individuals in states with burdensome processes (e.g., those requiring medical certification from a limited number of medical professionals) were around 8.2 times more likely to be rejected or still waiting for ERA compared to those living in states with relatively easy processes. Applicants living in states with the strictest processes (e.g., requiring proof of surgery, an amended birth certificate, or a court order) to change the gender marker on a driver’s license were 9.2 times more likely to be rejected or still waiting for ERA.
The study recommends that policymakers consider accessibility to transgender and gender nonconforming individuals when creating housing policies, including the use of measures that improve flexibility in documentation on ERA applications, such as removing driver’s licenses requirements. The author suggests that additional research is needed to understand the mechanisms by which strict or burdensome gender marker laws create barriers for gender minorities in accessing social safety net programs, as well as to identify the most effective policies for addressing these barriers. The author notes that a limitation of this study was the ambiguity of the gender identity options used in the 2021-2022 iteration of the Household Pulse Survey. While lauding the progress made by the Household Pulse Survey since that time, the author asserts that continuing to expand the available response options for gender identity would improve inclusivity and visibility for gender minorities.
Read the article at: https://bit.ly/4d7CJ8s.