High court refuses gender neutral passports

[OunceOfFlounce]

Seems like a little reason to be cheerful this Friday perhaps?

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-44575229

Gender is irrelevant. Sex is relevant.

The full judgment is worth reading. The Government Equalities Office said that sex and gender are often used interchangeably in law as I keep saying. I am in good company.

Good!!

Doesn't make you, or them, right. That's the whole bloody point.

There has to be clarity or we just continue to fall into an almighty mess of nobody knowing what laws actually mean.

Remember, such waffly shite is ALREADY causing lots of large organisations to misinterpret the Equalities Act. That alone is worth a wider debate!!

I don’t mind who looks through my bag (and I don’t think sex is relevant, personally, but it might be important to someone of a different background)

... but if they insist on putting a finger up my bottom, I will insist that the finger belongs to a female person!

An ‘F’ marker to proves my legal right to that.

Safer for all to have bio sex, F/M and then an extra symbol for those who present unusually (at their request) to avoid unnecessary indignities

Agree

"Remember, such waffly shite is ALREADY causing lots of large organisations to misinterpret the Equalities Act. That alone is worth a wider debate!!"

They are right about the Equality Act though.

They are right about the Equality Act though. How? When they replace Sex with Gender?

Changing words in laws could be fun though...

"How? When they replace Sex with Gender?"

Read how sex is used in S7 and the associated examples

No. You explain why you are deliberately misrepresenting bits and pieces of theAct to make your point.
S7 is quite clear - it's about Gender Reassignment - changing attributes of sex, a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

Nowhere in S7 does it mention the sex of an individual.

Gender reassignment

(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.

(2)A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

(3)In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a)a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b)a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons

Thank fuck for small mercies, and some common sense!!!

KLM offer an "unaccompanied minor" service for children as young as five and part of that service is that your child's seat will be next to a window and the immediate neighbour will be female. I was once asked to swap with my boyfriend on a flight, and when I asked why (I was curious), the hostess said that only a woman could sit next to an unaccompanied child, so I had to sit next to the teen girl occupying the window seat. This is a sensible policy because of the increased risk that men as a class pose to children.

In order to plan seating in order to offer that service, the airline needs to know the sex of passengers, otherwise they risk seating a lone kid in a row otherwise full of an all-male sports team or stag party, which becomes much harder to resolve than asking a couple to trade seats.

Removal of sex from passports could result in airlines being forced to withdraw Unaccompanied Minor services, which would hurt families who can't afford to fly a chaperone with the child.

Haxxor, that is a really interesting point.

Could I please use it for the additional info parts of my giant equality act reform proposal-in-progress?

I think some real world examples as to why your birth sex is relevant will be very useful, especially when talking to MPs.

HaXXor, and at one time those sensible and fair points about the disadvantage and unfairness of a change on others would be rightly considered important. But these [undefined] activists actually do not give a crap about how getting what they want will affect others. They want what they want, dammit.

Sure, no problem. I suggest that you contact KLM, Delta, Air France et all, and ask for their internal policies on this. "What a Mumsnetter remembers from her flight" isn't exactly a quotable source.

And I hit peak man again as this jackass puts his feelings above the safety of hundreds of children by challenging Virgin Australia's policy. And British men have done it too.

Makes me question whether these men genuinely don't understand why safeguarding procedure have to be in place, they understand but their hurt feelings trump everything or if they want to reduce safety for children?

haXXor Thats a really interesting point.
Men talk about how personally they take it, how hurt they feel, and how they frame it as discrimination.
Their complaints completely overshadow the child protection policy.

Maybe we could collate a list of similar policies? Would it be worth starting a thread?

A quick google of sexual assault aeroplane indicates that men are all too willing to sexually assault adult women sitting next to them. Why would they not sexually assault a child?

Upstart, yes, that would be interesting reading. It would also be interesting to see where TRA demands would deliver MRA demand by sleight of hand.

Orthodox men routinely get women seated next to them removed.

www.nytimes.com/2015/04/10/us/aboard-flights-conflicts-over-seat-assignments-and-religion.html

Sex is relevant on identifying documents such as passports because, well, it assists in identifying a person. Which is the point.

I’m so sick of fatuous needy twats who cannot see that what they need is therapy.

Picasso, I have no problem with orthodox jewish men asking to move, but they have no justification asking women to move. Asking a woman to sit next to a child is for safeguarding, religion doesn't come close to that level of importance. The haredi men can move.

Given other countries already allow something which is obviously international in scope I am struggling to see how adding the UK to the list would cause the problems people on this thread are claiming.

Given other countries already allow something

I'm struggling as to why "other countries" is any sort of explanation? Can you elaborate, or does "other countries" stand alone as an overwhelming justification for global group think?