UCLA

Abstract: The social movements literature identifies a dilemma that activists face between principles of affirming and deconstructing identity. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 85 activists from diverse political perspectives, this article shows that, in discussing identity documents (IDs), progressive activists took a practical approach that recognized both the advantages and drawbacks of recognition. They expressed support both for initiatives that would provide additional sex/gender marker options—beyond M or F—on IDs and those that would remove sex/gender markers from IDs altogether. This article argues that progressives readily perceived the drawbacks of recognition in the case of IDs because this context—more than others—cues concerns about state regulation and surveillance. Conservatives, who advocate for limiting government power in other contexts, were less likely than progressives to support the idea of removing sex/gender markers from government IDs, appealing to other priorities to justify this stance. Together, these findings underscore the extent to which expediency motivates social activists. They also show how both political orientation and social context shape preferences for emphasizing versus de-emphasizing sex/gender.