Elan Cane appeal unanimously dismissed by Supreme Court judges

This whole 'gender marker' idea seems to fundamentally mistake the purpose of a passport. There's a clue in the name... it's not a document about how you may wish to identify; its purpose is so that other people can identify you.

What happens to the owners of X passports foolishly bestowed on them by a few other countries if they fall foul of the law when abroad?

www.alignsurgical.com/non-binary/nullification/

The appellant is female.

The appellant has chosen to have cosmetic surgery. The appellant has personal choices about language.

Those do not result in a change of sex, and there is a limit to how far personal preference can be enabled within a society that has to base itself on facts and objective reality. Self expression has its limits.

In the same way as body modification makes you an alien, leopard, tiger or parrot. It doesn't.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10230619/amp/Tattooed-man-wants-black-alien-two-FINGERS-cut-turn-hand-CLAW.html

www.tattoodo.com/articles/6-people-who-turned-themselves-into-animals-through-body-modifications-6017

How is gender 'nullification' any different to those?

Does a non binary person have a sex? If their passport has neither male or female, can you assume anything about their sex? This part of the issue that may cause the ECHR to pause. What are the implications for the individual and the legal system?

NULLIFICATION
While many patients might be interested in transitioning into either a male or female identity, there are plenty of individuals who feel that their gender identity does not quite conform in one direction or the other. Gender nullification surgery can enable non-conforming patients to enjoy a relatively smooth genital area.

Nullification creates a relatively continuous and mostly unbroken transition from the abdomen down into the genital area, enabling gender non-conforming patients to enjoy a body that looks closer on the outside to the way they feel on the inside.

Yes the SC is binding on Scotland and NI too.

Do Supreme Court judgements on such civil / human rights matters apply to the whole of the UK? Including Scotland?

"The Appellant was born female but underwent several operations that were successful in achieving the desired status of "non-gendered."

What does that nonsense even mean?

How does any cosmetic surgery make you "non gendered".

What utter arsewash.

From the judgement:

"The Appellant was born female but underwent several operations that were successful in achieving the desired status of "non-gendered." From 1995 onwards the Appellant has been in contact with Government Departments to seek to persuade the Government that a passport should be issued to the Appellant without the necessity of making a declaration of being either "male" or "female". This could be achieved by a third box being added to the passport application form allowing a person to mark that box with an "X" indicating gender "unspecified".

"Perhaps most importantly, there is not the obvious discrepancy between the appellant's physical appearance & the... marker in the appellant's passport."

Ouch...

That'll be because sex is immutable, I guess

Good!!

Has the SC refused to validate the identity demands of an entitled narc? Good news on a dark and dull day.

Thanks for that explanation, ChazsBrilliantAttitude. Fingers crossed that will be the outcome of a future ECHR case. It should finally put a stop to the activists attempts to enshrine this stuff in law. At least overtly.

Sorry for multiple posts I am thinking this through as I post
Who would be the comparator for equal pay if a person is non binary?
Would it be discrimination if a non binary person wasn’t invited for both cervical and prostate cancer screening?

I suspect that the ramifications of recognising non binary as a category could well outweigh the harm to a specific individual of not recognising it.

If you look at the ECHR cases they relate to people being moved from one category to another ie between male and female - nobody has argued the implications of removing someone from those categories altogether.

My reasoning is that most countries laws will be predicated on the concepts of male or female either gender or sex. To try to be declared as neither may lead to unintended consequences and harms as the individual could lose protections.

Effectively the scale of the change the ruling would bring about would be disproportionate as the whole binary sex/gender split in legal systems throughout Europe would have to be re examined to ensure that no unintended harms flowed from acceptance of non-binary as a category.

fortunately the Maya judgement means they can now say this without taking themselves to court.

According to the BBC:
^Christie Elan-Cane said the case will now go to the European Court of Human Rights.
The campaigner, who has called for legal recognition of non-gendered identity for decades, said on Twitter that the "UK government and judicial system are on the wrong side of history" and "this is not the end".^

The more I think about it, the more sinister I find the whole “wrong side of history” thing. It’s another assertion of power & control - & a demonstration of a profound misunderstanding of the much bandied-about “well-behaved women seldom make history”, too. Blegh.