Much as it tires me to discuss it, some people are insistent on making the transgender issue into another one of those stupid political litmus tests. Candidates for Secretary of State are being asked to take positions on the vital issue whether transgendered individuals should be allowed to have the sex on their drivers licenses changed from M to F or from F to M.
According to this article, the issue was injected into the race by Paul Scott:

Gary Glenn, leader of a Midland-based anti-gay group, believes Lewis’ license should still bear an “M” instead of an “F.”
The issue could become a political hot potato in this year’s campaign to replace Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, who is leaving office because of term limits.
The Secretary of State sets the policy that decides when and if a person can change the gender designation on his or her driver’s license.
The issue surfaced recently when Paul Scott, a Republican candidate for Secretary of State, announced that one of his top priorities will be to “ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance.”
That drew objections from the transgender community, which asked why Scott would raise an issue that has been settled since 2005.
“Harm will only come from changing this rule, and this rule is causing no harm at this time,” said Lewis.
Lewis argued people whose driver’s licenses do not reflect their gender are in danger of being mistreated. In some cases, their treatment needs have been ignored by paramedics or they have been abused by police officers, she said.
Scott, a state representative from Grand Blanc, said he did not intend to provoke controversy. His pledge to deny gender change requests “may have been inartful,” he said.
“I just wanted people to know what my position on the issue is,” he said. “If I am elected, I will follow Michigan and federal law.”

Well, if he did not intend to provoke controversy, he certainly has. He continues to push the issue, and as a matter of fact it came up at a meeting of State Convention Delegates last night. (Scott, by the way, was a leading proponent and sponsor of Michigan’s smoking ban.)
While I find the transgender debate annoying (and personally, the idea of such surgery gives me the creeps), I think that if someone is that unhappy with his or her sex as to go through surgery and hormones to become a member of the opposite sex, the state has absolutely no business interfering. Saying “NO” to a bona fide request to change someone’s sex on a drivers license strikes me as unreasonably petty and downright mean.
Moreover, what a drivers license says has absolutely nothing to do with “protecting bathrooms.” An objection raised last night involved the use of rest rooms by members of the opposite sex, and it was pointed out quite eloquently that if someone looks like a woman, that person is most likely going to use the women’s rest room, and if the person looks like a man, the men’s room. What do the people who are freaking out want to do? Have bathroom ID checkers at the doors? And even if they did such a ridiculous thing, suppose the bathroom police discover that someone who looks for the world like a woman is actually a man. What then? Do the activists want to force this man who looks like a woman to use the men’s room? Precisely what social goal is that supposed to advance? Protecting children? How is a child more protected by seeing someone who looks like a woman using the men’s room than a woman’s room?
Can anyone explain? I’m all ears.
It strikes me that because transgendered people are going to use public bathrooms, social decorum and common sense should dictate that they use the bathrooms most appropriate to the sex that they resemble. If the state starts insisting that persons born male who look and act like women are stuck with legally remaining men, and persons born female who look and act like men are stuck with remain legally female, the results might be very different than what they had in mind.
To illustrate the nature of the problem, I just Googled “transsexual” and decided to use the first picture that came up.
It’s a girl named Kim who used to be a guy named Tim:
KimWhoWasTim.jpg
OK?
So can someone please explain what’s “conservative” about wanting her in the men’s room?
A hell of a way to run a litmus test.