Elan Cane appeal unanimously dismissed by Supreme Court judges

I would be amazed if they get anywhere with Strasbourg. In fact they may even end up with a judgment that confirms the SC decision and applies it across Europe.

[quote nauticant]12 ... The other comprised individuals who did not consider themselves to be either male or female. There had however been very few requests for an “X” provision, other than from the appellant. There were no calls for change from gender representative groups or civil liberties groups (para 2.6).

Expect to see more requests.

Also, this matter isn't finished yet: twitter.com/ChristieElanCan/status/1471059390182608898[/quote]
Oh ffs!

12 ... The other comprised individuals who did not consider themselves to be either male or female. There had however been very few requests for an “X” provision, other than from the appellant. There were no calls for change from gender representative groups or civil liberties groups (para 2.6).

Expect to see more requests.

Also, this matter isn't finished yet: twitter.com/ChristieElanCan/status/1471059390182608898

Excellent decision, common sense prevails and the pandering stops.

Good. Another example of how society is being expected to change to the detriment of the majority - in particular women and children - by pandering to the vanishingly small number of individuals with an unhealthy focus on their identity issues and a lack of care / concern for the general population.

TLDR:

Get over yourself

excellent.......just made my day, some of your highlights from the judgement.

If ever you think gender identity isn't going to have much of an impact, think again!

Pleased to see this.

I particularly like this part in Para 3 of the jusdgement @nauticant linked to above.

"The term “gender” is used in this context to describe an individual’s feelings or choice of sexual identity, in distinction to the concept of “sex”, associated with the idea of biological differences which are generally binary and immutable".

One sentence nails it perfectly.

This misrepresentations have already begun:

Compare:

The judges ruled that Elan-Cane's right to private life was "outweighed by considerations relating to the public interest".

twitter.com/rachelmsavage/status/1471059550606397442

with

In relation to the first of these issues, notwithstanding the centrality of a non-gendered identification to the appellant’s private life, it is difficult to accept that a particularly important facet of the appellant’s existence or identity is at stake in the present proceedings. That is because it is only the designation of the appellant’s gender in a passport which is in issue. This was explained at para 36 above.

www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2021/56.html

Thomson Reuters have their own Ben Hunte.

The SC recognised that legislation does draw a distinction between male and female. It was the only sensible result and it was unanimous.

This is an interesting line from the judgement:

"In 2014, HMPO completed an internal review of gender marking in passports. It noted that there had been very few requests for a non-gendered ("X") marking, other than from the appellant, and that UK legislation, including discrimination and equality legislation, is based on the categorisation of all individuals as either male or female. It stated that recognising a third gender would put HMPO "in isolation from the rest of government and society"

When it's put like that, the craziness is clear. If you identify as non-binary, and the state were to recognise that formally, would you then lose any and all protection under equality act provisions for sex or sexual orientation?

Gosh, wouldn't it be so much easier to have not changed 'sex' to 'gender' in the first place?

Good.

"The need for balance to be struck between competing public and private interest" .

Yes, that ^^

Exactly that.