Non Binary passport appeal on Mon

@EmbarrassingAdmissions before concluding that it was necessary to include sex on passports I’d want to know to what extent the sex stated on a person’s passport is relied on as a source of data, and for precisely what purposes the data is needed.

If sex wasn’t included on passports at all then I can’t see how that would make it easier for a person to evade being identified as someone with a history of offending.

[quote Helen8220]@AssassinatedBeauty that’s true, but I’m interested in that wider discussion, and thought people might have views. It feels like many of the objections raised in this thread to allowing a non-binary option on passports would be relevant to removing sex/gender from passports altogether[/quote]
We don't live in a world that is free of oppression on the basis of sex class. There are regular euphemistic warnings for some areas.

We need data to see who is given intimate searches. You might recall the early reports of women who complained of being groped by TSA workers and its contractor checkpoint staff during security checks. There have been complaints relatively recently from men about the invasiveness of some enhanced levels of search (both physical and virtual imaging).

We need to know if some demographics of people are disproportionately in danger when travelling in some countries. Who is targeted for some restrictive activities and who isn't?

Yes - the externalities recorded on a passport are those that were considered immutable to change and suited therefore to validation by an 'approved professional who could attest to them' and something feasible to eyeball by border staff.

There has been some recent coverage of the loophole of changing name/sex to evade linkage to a history of sexual offences. I'd be concerned that some men who are on a watchlist for CSA in other countries find it easier to abuse any loopholes.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jan/09/tougher-travel-bans-should-be-imposed-on-uk-sex-offenders

If, as a global community, we move to biometric passports, they're feasibly going to be considerably more intrusive.

[quote Helen8220]@AssassinatedBeauty that’s true, but I’m interested in that wider discussion, and thought people might have views. It feels like many of the objections raised in this thread to allowing a non-binary option on passports would be relevant to removing sex/gender from passports altogether[/quote]
Passports are identification documents primarily used to identify people when travelling internationally. If you want to argue for removing the sex marker from passports you need to think about why it's there in the first place and if it would aid identification of individuals by its removal.

But I don't think that's what this person wants. This individual wants to be recognised as a person with no sex.

It’s not the lack of the description - it’s some people’s desperation to have ‘the right’ descriptor on the passport.

Their ‘truth’ isn’t necessarily everyone else’s.

@AssassinatedBeauty that’s true, but I’m interested in that wider discussion, and thought people might have views. It feels like many of the objections raised in this thread to allowing a non-binary option on passports would be relevant to removing sex/gender from passports altogether

@Helen8220 that's not what's being asked for here though. This case is about allowing some people to choose to have an X in the category of sex rather than M/F. Based on their own feelings about their sex.

If it was about removing the category of sex altogether then that's a whole different set of discussion points.

Why even bother having name or date of birth? Or a photo (who look like their photos anyway)?. Why bother at all...

If we stopped including sex (or gender) on passports at all, what do you think would be the harm? Are people ever asked to produce their passport to prove their sex/gender to anyone?

When will the ruling happen (and can they say ‘look, person, give it a bloody rest - if you don’t like what it says on your passport... DONT LOOK’)?

If the Supreme Court rules that X should be allowed on passports, the defence say the criteria for applying X hasn't been determined and would need to be, regardless of what the appellant says (they say no issues), it will impact on other areas and there will be consequences both for trans/non-binary and women, which at this time, are unknown. Do you have areas you feel will be impacted?

I feel that the lawyers taking this case have a hidden (well, not so) agenda, but it is possible this could backfire. However, if the Court finds for the appellant, do we guess at a slurry of cases and a big lobbying action to get self i-d

I think the suggestion that trans come under X is an interesting one and would impact that group because their aim is to become the sex they transition to. Third spaces would definitely have to be considered. Birth certificates would have to be amended. Any laws regarding sex would have to include X (however defined). What terminology would be used for X, just non-binary? If a person put X on their passport this time, could they change next time, or would this be irreversible? Job applications. The EA10. SO much stuff

Removing this option, but allowing them to self-id as "x", gives them what they want, ie: to not be a man, while still protecting single sex spaces for women and girls.

It doesn't give many of them what they want, no, because it isn't about just not being a man.

Women and children are not protected when men's sex is concealed.

I agree.

Unfortunately we have a fight on our hands from TW who want to self-id as women. Removing this option, but allowing them to self-id as "x", gives them what they want, ie: to not be a man, while still protecting single sex spaces for women and girls.

All people are female or male and sex matters in life and law. Government should not issue inaccurate birth certificates and passports as this is detrimental to its citizens and potentially to those in countries they travel to.

TW who feel/believe they are not men, but as we know cannot become women, can identify as "not a man" but women can retain our single sex spaces.

As official documents are changing, Government can monitor the numbers of people identifying as "x", put in service provisions for the number of x's in the UK and "x" can be used in crime statistics etc. "X" could maybe (not thought through the implications) become a protected sex based characteristic.

So what else can we exclude from passports?

• I don’t like my middle name. It’s embarrassing and in the lingo of ‘the yoof’, triggering.
• I don’t like being 50. Also triggering.
• I used to) get daft comments on my PoB and DH gets racially profiled as a result of his PoB (‘random’ additional security checks my arse - if it was random why is it every single time?). Effing annoying.

If passports were to be redesigned like this, I very much doubt that birth certificates won't come under pressure as another move in this multi-dimensional Dentonesque chess.

This has already started in some states and countries where sexless/ 'non-binary' birth certificates are issued.

non-binary person would still have a birth certificate with their sex on it which they could use to validate any request to access single sex services/spaces.

If passports were to be redesigned like this, I very much doubt that birth certificates won't come under pressure as another move in this multi-dimensional Dentonesque chess.

If a UK citizen is arrested, held by police, searched by border guards or hospitalised overseas then sex as recorded on their passport is potentially very significant. That there are two sexes, female and male is a universally accepted reality.

It's an interesting thought @JamMakingWannaBe but a non-binary person would still have a birth certificate with their sex on it which they could use to validate any request to access single sex services/spaces.

If a person has an "X" on their passport, and this is recognised as their sex (not their gender) doesn't that then exclude them from single sex spaces?

A third space would therefore be required which could be used by all those who don't identify as their birth sex.

A UK passport doesn't have your title on it. Just your surname and given name(s). And your sex.

I'd have little issue with an argument that there is no need for sex to be recorded on a passport, but that's not what this case is about.

Need seems pretty marginal to me. You could certainly debate whether it needs to be there.

Glib answer from the UK's point of view would be "because international agreements require it". What I've not been following is what exactly they require - presumably there aren't any international rules for how you choose "F", "M" or "X", or we wouldn't be debating this locally?

Another possible answer would be "as proof of legal sex, for situations where it matters". Except they let you falsify it even without GRC, as I understand it.

It would be nice to discuss it universally, rather than trying to get the typical non-binary "I need to be able to put X because I'm not like everyone else" dispensation.

Maybe the UK could decide to put "X" in everyone's passport?

Ask a silly question but why do we need our sex on our passports? Ditto title why? I'm a person, it has my legal name recorded, not sure why I needed to distinguish other facts???