Non Binary passport appeal on Mon

[Imnobody4]

Hadn't heard anything about this. Fingers crossed it goes the right way.

12th July an important appeal will be heard at the Supreme Court. A claimant called Mx Elan-Cane claims a non-binary identity and wants an X on their passport instead of Female. Elan-Cane argues this is a breach of their human rights. The UK government claims any such breach is justified because retaining the sex binary is important.

fairplayforwomen.com/non-binary-the-new-wolf-in-sheeps-clothing/

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?

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:

.

Same person who tried to have this done before?

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.

@toffeebutterpopcorn

Same person who tried to have this done before?

Yes.

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

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.

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.

How is this case being funded?

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f728d27a-e28b-11eb-a821-58982b1c936d?shareToken=d5bc4a3b065be5b4bff72b2f23330e9d

First attempt at share token, hopefully it will work

Not in UK law it's not. Have you managed to get on to the proceedings? I can't get the link to work

In logic, False => anything.
As soon as the law was logically inconsistent re mixing sex and gender, it's well nigh impossible to untangle. I wish the judges luck.

The whole thing is bonkers. This gender categorisation- basically a social construct loosely based on modes of dress and stereotypes around personality and interests. Why on earth would we want that on our passports? What is the benefit? Why would we ever want to separate people by this particular form of clan allegiance? Putting X particularly underlines that as X gender doesn't even have a loose association with a sex to borrow credibility from.

@highame

Not in UK law it's not. Have you managed to get on to the proceedings? I can't get the link to work

I've been watching the tweets, not the live stream

The whole thing is bonkers.
Granted. But also what is the point of having a neutral passport for international travel which certifies something which is not universally accepted? Why on earth would you want to travel on a passport which might not be accepted when you present it abroad?

@highame

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.

Elan Kane’s pronouns are per. As in person.

Have now got live Supreme Court. Textbook Stonewall from Elan Kane's lot

Federal law for X markers however, this hasn't been passed it has been mooted I think. Working towards, not doing it. This is all smoke and mirrors

I wonder why ‘person’ and not ‘human’ or even ‘carbon based life form’. ‘Person’ sounds so much more like ‘personality’.

And perself.

Eraldo d’Atri, senior associate at Clifford Chance, the London law firm representing Elan-Cane, said: “This case raises important questions regarding the right to respect for individuals' identity, specifically for those who identify as neither or not exclusively male or female.”
He added that access to X passports was “crucial for the protection of the human rights of this demographic who are otherwise forced to use a passport which misrepresents their identity”.
The legal team pointed out that this month Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, said that a nongender-specific option would be available on US passports.

archive version of share token Times with the unhelpful title: Fight for genderless passport taken to the Supreme Court

archive.is/a7U2B

To state the obvious, few people here have any objection to genderless passports but removing sex markers in favour of gender options is a very different matter.

Plus, beyond this single issue, there is the strategic undermining of the collection of sex class data and the existence of sex classes.

What is is with these law firms? This is a biggy - who is paying for this?