In a quiet but significant policy shift, Missourians seeking to change the gender marker on their state-issued identification now face substantial obstacles. Earlier this month, the Missouri Department of Revenue (DOR) eliminated a key form that allowed for a relatively straightforward process to update gender markers on IDs like driver’s licenses. The removal of Form 5532 marks a sharp departure from the more accessible guidelines that had been in place since 2016, a move that LGBTQ+ advocates have condemned as a significant step backward for transgender rights in the state.
The Quiet Removal of Form 5532
Form 5532, which was available as recently as August 6, allowed Missourians to change the gender marker on their driver’s license by providing identifying information and a signed statement from a medical or social service provider, such as a doctor, therapist, or social worker. Crucially, this process did not require a court order or proof of gender-affirming surgery, making it relatively accessible for transgender individuals who may not have undergone surgery or who could not afford to pursue legal action.
The following day, however, the form was quietly removed from the DOR’s website. In response to inquiries, DOR spokesperson Anne Marie Moy confirmed that Form 5532 was “no longer needed” and that customers are now required to provide either medical documentation proving they have undergone gender reassignment surgery or a court order declaring their gender designation. This abrupt change has effectively barred many transgender Missourians from updating their IDs to reflect their true gender.
The Impact on the Transgender Community
For many transgender individuals, having identification that matches their gender identity is not just a matter of personal affirmation; it is a necessity for navigating everyday life. IDs are required for countless interactions, from renting an apartment to applying for a job, and mismatched identification can expose transgender people to harassment, discrimination, and even violence.
Katy Erker-Lynch, Executive Director of PROMO, Missouri’s largest LGBTQ+ rights advocacy organization, expressed deep concern over the policy change. “To add a surgery requirement is outrageous,” she said. “Missouri just made it very, very difficult, if not impossible, for transgender minors, low-income trans folks, and those who are incarcerated to receive any gender-affirming care. But now they’re saying, to change your gender marker, you have to receive gender-affirming care.”
The surgery requirement is particularly problematic because many transgender individuals do not undergo surgery for a variety of reasons, including financial constraints, personal choice, and medical considerations. The new policy effectively excludes these individuals from having IDs that accurately reflect their gender identity, forcing them to carry identification that does not represent who they are.
The Context Behind the Policy Shift
The DOR’s decision came on the heels of a controversy involving a transgender woman at a gym in the St. Louis area. Earlier this month, the gym became a flashpoint for protests after it was revealed that a transgender woman was using the women’s locker room, sparking outrage among some conservative politicians. State Rep. Justin Sparks of Wildwood, who held a press conference in response to the incident, claimed that his constituents were “uncomfortable and scared” by the woman’s presence in the locker room. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey also weighed in, launching an investigation into the gym’s policies.
Although the DOR did not explicitly link the policy change to the gym incident, the timing suggests a connection. Erker-Lynch believes the DOR’s decision reflects a broader climate of fear and intimidation in Missouri’s state government. “I think the DOR’s decision reflects what we’ve seen in Missouri, which is a state and state departments run by fear and intimidation,” she said. “The timeline certainly suggests that.”
RELATED: Transgender Woman in Gym Locker Room Sparks State Investigation
Legal and Social Implications
The new policy is likely to face legal challenges. Similar surgery requirements in other states have been contested in court. For instance, in Alabama, a federal judge ruled in 2021 that a 2018 policy requiring proof of surgery to change the gender marker on IDs was unconstitutional. The judge argued that the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment by making the content of people’s driver’s licenses dependent on the nature of their genitalia. Although Alabama has appealed the decision, the ruling sets a potential precedent for challenging Missouri’s new policy.
PROMO and other advocacy groups are currently gathering stories from Missourians affected by the change as part of their “The ID for Me” campaign. The goal is to document the struggles faced by transgender individuals under the new policy and to build a case for potential legal action.
The Broader Impact on Transgender Missourians
The removal of Form 5532 and the new requirements for gender marker changes have left many transgender Missourians in a precarious position. For those who cannot meet the new criteria—whether due to financial constraints, lack of access to surgery, or the refusal of a court order—living authentically becomes a legal impossibility. This policy change not only undermines the dignity of transgender individuals but also places them at greater risk of discrimination and harm.
As Erker-Lynch pointed out, “Missouri continues to prove it is a state committed to fostering the erasure of transgender, gender-expansive, and nonbinary Missourians.” By imposing such restrictive requirements, the state has effectively turned back the clock on the progress made in recent years toward greater inclusion and recognition of transgender rights.
The Bottom Line
The changes to Missouri’s gender marker policy are a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges faced by transgender individuals in securing their rights. While the new requirements pose significant barriers, the transgender community and its allies remain resolute in their fight for equality. Efforts like PROMO’s “The ID for Me” campaign are trying to raise the voices of individuals affected by the policy change, and legal challenges could emerge soon.
For now, transgender Missourians are left navigating a more hostile landscape, one where their very identities are called into question by the state. The need for empathy, understanding, and solidarity has never been greater as the community continues to push back against policies that seek to marginalize and erase them.
In this challenging moment, it is crucial for allies, advocates, and all Missourians to stand with the transgender community in demanding a return to more just and equitable policies—policies that recognize the humanity and dignity of every individual, regardless of their gender identity.
