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 the Supreme Court and they are unlikely to put themselves in the position of being a laughing stock. They are also unlikely to make a law allowing for non binary as this could raise so many issues including a route to self id, which the government have said they will not do.

I found, what I heard, to be very muddled and straight out of the SW book of UK Law.

@HDDD

I looked this up as it was on BBC Radio 2 news. I was half-listening but the report said the person appealing today had had two surgeries, the second on the NHS, and the fact that the NHS was happy to do the surgery to make them non-binary but that they weren't recognised as x was ? can't remember the wording, but that it didn't stack up. Then googled and found a piece where this person said we are all a little bit intersex and society needs to catch up. I'm a bit baffled to be honest. And curious about the surgery the NHS performed, and why.

IIRC there was a double mastectomy followed by a hysterectomy, the latter was on the nhs.

Christie Elan Cane comes across to me as someone who has mental health problems and is quite vulnerable.

I'm sure I heard somewhere Clifford Chance (vvv expensive law firm) is acting pro bono. Christie is not financially secure at all.

I think I said it upthread but scanners detect male or female and they don't get confused. If an X is used, then will there be an effort to get scanners re-jigged (bet the military would come down like a ton of bricks on that one)

I'm sure I heard somewhere Clifford Chance (vvv expensive law firm) is acting pro bono. Christie is not financially secure at all. it would be interesting to know who suggested to Clifford Chance that they should take this on pro bono

Interesting that Clifford Chance has taken this on. Clifford Chance gave an award of some kind to David Paisley, the actor ('Man at bus stop', as Glinner has it) who was so scared of ribbons in the colours of women's suffrage that he had to move to a safe house. Apparently.

@highame

I'm sure I heard somewhere Clifford Chance (vvv expensive law firm) is acting pro bono. Christie is not financially secure at all. it would be interesting to know who suggested to Clifford Chance that they should take this on pro bono

Wouldn't it just.

Christie Elan Cane comes across to me as someone who has mental health problems and is quite vulnerable.

Having watched the beginning of the youtube video linked above, made by Elan-Cane, I’m inclined to agree. Elan-Cane comes across as a very damaged individual to me.

We seem to be living in a world where the focus has shifted from repressing/hiding damage as was often the case in the past, to glamourising and celebrating it, denying that it’s actually damage, presenting it instead as a state to be aspired to.

The concept of actually acknowledging and healing damage - without blame attached to the person who's been harmed, but with a clear vision that harm has indeed taken place and needs to be addressed - seems to have been discarded as dull and passé.

What we have now is actually just a variation on the old stiff upper lip mentality - it’s still ultimately focused on denial of real pain and unwillingness to accept or embrace the healing process.

The same way that transgenderism is a variation on traditional patriarchal structures that depend on and reinforce sexist stereotypes and the oppression of women.

It’s really not progress.

The big law firms are all at it. So ‘diversified’ up it makes your eyes water. I’d they think there’s money or clients in it, they’d sell their own granny.

I wonder whether the learned judges were in receipt of the training from Gendered Intelligence that we're not allowed to know details of for...reasons....?
Or whether they are familiar with the trans section of their Bench Book that (according to an excellent analysis by a barrister) is full of fake facts and opinions presented as facts. More Stonewall law - ie the law as we would like it to be than what it actually is.
Terrifying thread about the capture of the judiciary here:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4291072-Policy-Exchange-Why-the-Equal-Treatment-Bench-Books-needs-urgent-revision

Elan Cane did seem fragile on that video. I felt sorry for them when they started talking. I don’t understand why they’re conflating sex and gender or why they care so much. Despite the two surgeries mentioned above, every time I look at them or write posts I have to remove the ‘wrong’ pronouns I’ve automatically written. I say that not to be mean but because I feel so sorry for them. They can’t stop how people see them - and why does it matter??

In the lack of any logical reason, I can only think this action is not for its own sake but to further push the law towards gender trumping sex. I do wish somebody would stand up and say “No - Sex is what we’re talking about. You don’t need a special answer for Sex nor is your dress preference, hair style, hobby choice, job, anything to do with this.”

We’re pretty much all ‘non-binary’. Nobody gives a shit about clothes and the rest. That’s completely separate from Sex.

@highame

This is the Supreme Court and they are unlikely to put themselves in the position of being a laughing stock. They are also unlikely to make a law allowing for non binary as this could raise so many issues including a route to self id, which the government have said they will not do.

I found, what I heard, to be very muddled and straight out of the SW book of UK Law.

We'll, that's very reassuring. Thanks.

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

You and all of the rest of us.

Just sharing this.

twitter.com/freddymcconnell/status/1414580735776808962?s=21

@BreatheAndFocus

If your identity is neither male or female, which is, I believe what Elan Kane is claiming, great - knock yourself out. But a passport has Sex on not Gender and is a factual document.

If we allow someone to put their identity on it instead of factual information, why shouldn’t I be able to choose what age my passport shows? I’d also like a more exotic place of birth.

Reality is always there. You can’t stop other people seeing it.

And going with the id card thing too, I would want one passport to show I'm over retirement age and one to show I'm 10 years younger than reality. One for vanity and one to claim state pension even though I'm not really entitled to it.

The fact that pers preferred pronoun is "per" raises a few questions. Would per be offended to be pronominalised as "they" or "xe" or "zi"? Or is that OK as it's not actually misgendering (those are rival gender-neutral pronouns)?

Apparently it is not ok (according to at least some of the pronoun-holders) and we have to remember which ones are they, which are per, which are xie, etc.

It says here medium.com/the-spiritual-anthropologist/forcing-everyone-to-memorize-neopronouns-is-ableist-570cf2297677 "there’s really no standard for pronouns that are inclusive. That’s a problem. Saying the wrong pronoun can be offensive."

I wonder just how far we can go to indulge this sort of thing - it seems to be getting out of hand.

[quote OhHolyJesus]Just sharing this.

twitter.com/freddymcconnell/status/1414580735776808962?s=21[/quote]
“It may be found to be a legitimate aim that falls within the margin of appreciation not to fail to meet a negative obligation in the domestic court if one were to go down the route of re: Bob’s your uncle.”

Opines Freddie the renowned print journalist in a devastating insight into the legal machinations of gender politics reduced to a Twitter comment .

Sorry, Freddy.

I'm loving "pronominalised" which is a word I'd never heard!

2018 thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3285565-High-court-refuses-gender-neutral-passports

Fairplay For Women live tweeting (day 2):

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1414877533032656909

From 2018 thread above, I wrote and remain of the same opinion,

"The purpose of a passport is to travel to other countries.

Identifying males and females may be of significance in some important situations.

All countries understand sex.

Gender ideology is not universally recognised or understood.

It is possible on passports to add additional significant information.

It goes on a particular page.

To not recognise the wider implications of changing the way that such an important document as a passport records or removes the factual status of sex is naive at best and dangerous at worst.

My thoughts are that with regards passports then sex indication matters more. Since their primary purpose is for international travel rather than id, I think there are a number of circumstances when the treatment of women / men would be different. Whilst I agree it is good that gender stereotypes are being broken down, this is happening differently throughout the the world.

There are other forms of id eg driving licences which can also be used for employment purposes where removing sex markers perhaps would be better changed"

I find the QC for the government far better to listen to than yesterday, which had too much waffle and emotional baggage flying around

Anya Palmer (Barrister),

"Quick thread on Elan Cane case. Everyone, even EC, seems to agree (at least in theory) that sex and gender are different. If what EC wanted were for nobody's passport to record sex, that would be one thing, and that should be considered on its merits as it affects all of us.
Personally I think there would be serious implications for not recording sex, because passports are not just used for international travel, they also serve as one of only two forms of valid photo identity in a country that does not have ID cards.
And sex is real, and there are many, many circumstances where sex matters. But that is not EC's case.
And if what EC wanted were for everybody's passport to record "gender identity" in addition to sex, that would be another thing that should be considered on its own merits.
Personally I believe the state recording people's beliefs on their passport would be a very slippery slope indeed. And I don't believe in gender identity and I would object to being asked to state one. But that is not EC's case.
What EC wants is for EC and others like EC to be allowed to answer one question (what is your sex?) with the answer to another question (what is your gender identity?) as if one can be a substitute for another. It's special pleading of the highest order. It should be resisted."

twitter.com/anyabike/status/1414581737632509956

Sex Matters.Org live tweeting from the appeal case (with legal commentary),

twitter.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1414897581482774529

Yogyakarta Principles has just taken a real knock and may not recover before a judiciary - my hope. The appellant should never have brought that up