Non Binary passport appeal on Mon

At some point doctors must be challenged as to what they mean by a "permanent change of gender" and government must be challenged as to the acceptance of such a claim and the legitimacy of those providing it.

Yes. This has to be the next thing.

Because if changing your gender means being ceded all the rights based on sex, then there has to be a discussion of what constitutes sex.

It's the bottom line for all of this.

Did he just say that it is gender identity recorded on a passport though recorded under the “old fashioned term” sex? Or did I misinterpret what he was saying?

At some point doctors must be challenged as to what they mean by a "permanent change of gender"

What is the definition of a 'change of gender', permanent or otherwise? How does a man 'live as a woman'?

Since people are claiming that they can 'change their gender' or 'live as' the opposite sex, we could really do with a definition of exactly what this entails.

So would I need a new passport if I began to question my gender identity? I mean, these things are not set in stone, as we all know.

Also, I thought he was inferring the judge's use of 'widely shared' was a dry comment on the widely and interminably publicised opinions. Which is often the case when people are pushing an opinion. In Maya's case I'd go with widely held, myself.

Either sex is relevant on a passport and it should be factual or it isn’t relevant and it should not be present, but it should not be recorded incorrectly under any circumstances.

From yesterday's live tweeting by Fairplay For Women,
"QC explains HMPO guidance. "option open to those without a GRC and without gender reassignment surgery". Requires only "letter from doctor saying change of gender is permanent"

At some point doctors must be challenged as to what they mean by a "permanent change of gender" and government must be challenged as to the acceptance of such a claim and the legitimacy of those providing it. For example, in light of the forthcoming GMC Tribunal for Dr Helen Webberley's fitness to practise, has she provided such letters?

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4288795-Helen-Webberley

Either sex is relevant on a passport and it should be factual or it isn’t relevant and it should not be present, but it should not be recorded incorrectly under any circumstances.

@BreatheAndFocus the fact is that this is now confusing other organisations. Filling in a student record the other day and the questions were

"What is the gender (as in on your passport)

And then

"How do you identify?"

It's not gender on my passports, it's sex.

This comment was on the Freddie thread linked above
"but you do have to admire the skills of some of the Judges in throwing judicial shade in subtle ways such as Choudary calling Forstater's views 'widely shared' rather than 'widely held' the TERFs missing that point." What are they saying?
Well if there was a point in that word choice I guess I did miss it. 'Held' can mean 'ruled' in a legal context, but that's not what the judge meant. He just meant lots if people also believe this.

Anyway. It will be a really scary thing if the court agree that because the NHS did a hysterectomy, then the state should allow ppl not to disclose their sex on a passport. The surgeon who made the decision that it was in the best interest of the patient to have a particular treatment was only weighing up a clinical decision. They did not know they were deciding how the state should administrate passports. The same argument can be made about general legal recognition of non binary if it is allowed here. It will be really worrying if that argument gets any glimmer of positive reaction in the judgement, whichever way it goes.

I'm actually about to renew both my British passports (have two due to visa issues)...

I may see if I can state my sex as male in one and female in the other whilst doing the applications...

Thanks Breathe that was brilliant 🤣

As you didn't put a grin emoji after your comment Toffeebutter, the place where the principles were put together I believe, nothing to do with Yoga

What EC wants is for EC and others like EC to be allowed to answer one question (what is your sex?) with the answer to another question (what is your gender identity?) as if one can be a substitute for another. It's special pleading of the highest order. It should be resisted

Exactly that - well said, Anya. I’m fed up with this twatwittery.

On a lighter note, it reminded me of this sketch:

Who on earth decided that planning policy on the basis of yoga was a good idea?

Yogyakarta Principles has just taken a real knock and may not recover before a judiciary - my hope. The appellant should never have brought that up

Sex Matters.Org live tweeting from the appeal case (with legal commentary),

twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1414897581482774529

Anya Palmer (Barrister),

"Quick thread on Elan Cane case. Everyone, even EC, seems to agree (at least in theory) that sex and gender are different. If what EC wanted were for nobody's passport to record sex, that would be one thing, and that should be considered on its merits as it affects all of us.
Personally I think there would be serious implications for not recording sex, because passports are not just used for international travel, they also serve as one of only two forms of valid photo identity in a country that does not have ID cards.
And sex is real, and there are many, many circumstances where sex matters. But that is not EC's case.
And if what EC wanted were for everybody's passport to record "gender identity" in addition to sex, that would be another thing that should be considered on its own merits.
Personally I believe the state recording people's beliefs on their passport would be a very slippery slope indeed. And I don't believe in gender identity and I would object to being asked to state one. But that is not EC's case.
What EC wants is for EC and others like EC to be allowed to answer one question (what is your sex?) with the answer to another question (what is your gender identity?) as if one can be a substitute for another. It's special pleading of the highest order. It should be resisted."

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1414581737632509956

I find the QC for the government far better to listen to than yesterday, which had too much waffle and emotional baggage flying around

From 2018 thread above, I wrote and remain of the same opinion,

"The purpose of a passport is to travel to other countries.

Identifying males and females may be of significance in some important situations.

All countries understand sex.

Gender ideology is not universally recognised or understood.

It is possible on passports to add additional significant information.

It goes on a particular page.

To not recognise the wider implications of changing the way that such an important document as a passport records or removes the factual status of sex is naive at best and dangerous at worst.

My thoughts are that with regards passports then sex indication matters more. Since their primary purpose is for international travel rather than id, I think there are a number of circumstances when the treatment of women / men would be different. Whilst I agree it is good that gender stereotypes are being broken down, this is happening differently throughout the the world.

There are other forms of id eg driving licences which can also be used for employment purposes where removing sex markers perhaps would be better changed"

Fairplay For Women live tweeting (day 2):

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1414877533032656909

2018 thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3285565-High-court-refuses-gender-neutral-passports

I'm loving "pronominalised" which is a word I'd never heard!

Sorry, Freddy.

[quote OhHolyJesus]Just sharing this.

twitter.com/freddymcconnell/status/1414580735776808962?s=21[/quote]
“It may be found to be a legitimate aim that falls within the margin of appreciation not to fail to meet a negative obligation in the domestic court if one were to go down the route of re: Bob’s your uncle.”

Opines Freddie the renowned print journalist in a devastating insight into the legal machinations of gender politics reduced to a Twitter comment .

The fact that pers preferred pronoun is "per" raises a few questions. Would per be offended to be pronominalised as "they" or "xe" or "zi"? Or is that OK as it's not actually misgendering (those are rival gender-neutral pronouns)?

Apparently it is not ok (according to at least some of the pronoun-holders) and we have to remember which ones are they, which are per, which are xie, etc.

It says here medium.com/the-spiritual-anthropologist/forcing-everyone-to-memorize-neopronouns-is-ableist-570cf2297677 "there’s really no standard for pronouns that are inclusive. That’s a problem. Saying the wrong pronoun can be offensive."

I wonder just how far we can go to indulge this sort of thing - it seems to be getting out of hand.