Non Binary passport appeal on Mon

I see the QC is now arguing that sex = gender.

If non-binary were to become recognised in law, I suppose they'd want the right to enter whichever single sex space they wanted (which of course would be women's because the nasty men would tease them...)

Passports include information on sex, not “gender” (you’d need hundreds of options, right?)

And either fluidity that doesn't need to be verified anywhere or a huge number of passports for some people.

It's erosion through attrition and the simple fact that most people have no idea what's going on nor any understanding of the ripples and consequences.

I find this case a little bizarre. Gender isn't in UK law in the way Elan Kane wants. This would mean using the court to place something into UK law that hasn't been approved by parliament. I am probably wrong but that's how I see this

I think you’re right. Passports include information on sex, not “gender” (you’d need hundreds of options, right?)

The BBC radio report on this just blithely mentions “gender” on passports, but that’s only the case if you actually mean sex, but you think sex sounds a bit rude.

That ambiguity is what’s being exploited over and over again in the drip-drip-drip campaign others have mentioned. Most people just assume gender is a polite word for sex, but there’s also the idea that gender is a social construct (as of course it is: stereotypically feminine or masculine behaviours) and, under the radar, gender ideologues are elevating “gender” to an essential innate soul so before you know it, actual sex classes are erased.

It's interesting, a key part of the argument is that an X marker is less of a change than an M to F or F to M markers.

It's like a constant drip drip dismantling sex and reality in law.

How is this case being funded?

I find this case a little bizarre. Gender isn't in UK law in the way Elan Kane wants. This would mean using the court to place something into UK law that hasn't been approved by parliament. I am probably wrong but that's how I see this.

I wonder if Denton's are her/his (now that has just cause me confusion) legal's.

As soon as my DD could speak she could tell men from women, no matter what they wear or what they look like.

She didn't have much hair as a toddler and we were in the supermarket when another toddler commented about her. Other mother took one look at DD's blue shoes and sparse hair and said "boy, darling". Other toddler said no, not boy, girl. Mother continued to argue and Other child getting a bit upset so we had to step in, smile brightly and say "yes she is a girl".

Children aren't fooled by clothes and presentation like adults.

The Appellant filed judicial review proceedings challenging the Government’s passport policy. The judicial review was dismissed by the High Court and Court of Appeal. The Appellant appeals to this court.

www.supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-2020-0081.html

Elan Kane seems to be conflating sex and gender

Thanks for posting that video. Elan-Cane is not just conflating sex and gender, but sex and 'gendered role'. I don't think sex was mentioned at all in that, but I lost count of the times 'gendered role' was mentioned.

Elan-Cane just seems to be saying that a dislike of gender stereotypes means that someone is not male or female.

Same person who tried to have this done before?

Does Elan-Cane not understand the difference between sex and gender? Or does Elan-Cane just think that per is special and unique in rejecting gender stereotypes?

Elan Kane seems to be conflating sex and gender IMO, and thinking that if one is a particular sex one must act/dress a certain way. Here is a video from them themselves or perselves maybe:

.

This is why Elan-Cane thinks that per is not a woman/female.

"I have rejected the gendered role (mis)appropriated to me on my birth certificate although the gendered role remains on my birth certificate and is a factor on other items of personal identification as though it were fact. I do not feel a sense of identification with the other socially permissible gendered role that is strong or certain enough to make me want to transfer and become identified within that role... I use the title ‘Pr’ which is an abbreviation of Person and pronounced “per”. I also use ‘per’ (pronounced as spelt) as the third person singular pronoun for non gender-specific"

gender.wikia.org/wiki/Christie_Elan-Cane

Lots of us reject the gendered behaviours which are deemed to be suitable for people of the female sex. Some of us just call ourselves feminists.

Or does Elan-Cane think that per is actually not a woman/female? I won't say what sort of belief I think that is because this post would be deleted.

Does Elan-Cane not understand the difference between sex and gender? Or does Elan-Cane just think that per is special and unique in rejecting gender stereotypes?

So who will be giving evidence if there are no interveners allowed?

[quote Imnobody4]The case is being live streamed starting at 11.00. according to per's twitter feed.
www.supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.html[/quote]
Brill, thanks for this I was just looking to see what time the hearing was due to start as I couldn't see a specific time on Twitter.

'That declaration starts an automatic assessment/confirmation of their Sex whereas it wouldn’t have been at the forefront of our minds if they hadn’t mentioned it'

I was recently in a coffee shop and a young person, maybe 13 yo or so, came in with who I took to be mother. Young person was wearing more makeup than I've ever seen on someone of that age before. I immediately realised here was boy wanting to be a girl. I wouldn't have noticed this person if it hadn't been for the makeup.

well yes. even if the world goes mad and this happens, 'non binary' individuals will still be male or female…..the whole thing is just so fucking pointless

What’s sad is that by making this such a focus, Elan Kane only emphasises their actual sex. The same with people who declare themselves non-binary. That declaration starts an automatic assessment/confirmation of their Sex whereas it wouldn’t have been at the forefront of our minds if they hadn’t mentioned it.

It’s the Identity Ideology equivalent of saying “Don’t think of an elephant”.

I pointed out that her friend may have been non-binary, but that they were certainly an adult human female. She got annoyed with me, but it is just a fact of life.

Facts don't care about your feelings, as the phrase goes...

I remember that case.

IDing is taken very seriously. You actually now have to physically prove you are doing it. There are large personal.fines and the threat of disciplinaries etc.

It can be hard enough as it is when you are looking at a photo that's several years old or the person has gained/lost weight, grown a beard etc

To add the ability to borrow your sisters ID and claim a trans ID ( so not accusing trans people of lying but it opens the opportunity for others to present fraudulent ID)

We are meant to make it harder to get served /commit fraud etc not easier.

As someone who has to regularly ID people I can tell you I don't give a crap what the ID says. It's not a value judgement . I dont giggle or take the piss if its a provisional as opposed to a full.license. i dont yell the details across the room.fir a laugh.

I literally do not take any notice beyond checking the picture matches the person, it's an approved form of ID and obviously the birth date.

Its having tickets on yourself again isnt it. Thinking people care beyond just doing their job.

You are forgotten straight after.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-54026453

There was a bloke who went to great lengths to present as a lizard. He was in the US, had lots of surgery and tattoos and piercings. He eventually looked very striking, but, he wasn't what he believed he wanted to be.

There was a UK based woman who believed she was a cat. Similar issue but with fewer permanent adaptations but a big old tail that attached, I expect, in the usual manner.

Neither of these people were what they genuinely wanted to be. And I have sympathy for that. However, reality persists.

Life is happier if you recognise that (in my case) I am not 6'4" tall but some inches are mysteriously invisible to others, I am just short and fat. Yes, if I was tall I'd be the right weight for my height, yes I'd love to wear flowing bias cut chiffon, but, I can't. Well, I could, but I'd look fucking ridiculous. It's better to accept that than to persuade the whole world that I belong at London Fashion Week, modelling some sample on one calf that I lump down the cat walk.

If this person has X, can I have A or a number or an emoji?

Probably not. The ICAO international standard for machine-readable passports specifies that the Sex field has three valid values, M, F, and X, where X means Not Specified.

I can’t understand why authorities would even consider tampering with Identity documents and medical records. If this person has X, can I have A or a number or an emoji? What does this mean for doctors who have to treat x people or passport control who have to recognise that you match that document?

We’ve had 10 years of austerity followed by a blackhole of covid 19 crisis debt and we’re following this through the courts with public money.