Elan Cane appeal unanimously dismissed by Supreme Court judges

[ConservativesForWomen]

www.supremecourt.uk/press-summary/uksc-2020-0081.html

"The central question is whether HMPO's policy breaches the UK's obligations under the Convention. There is no judgment of the European Court of Human Rights ("the European Court") which establishes an obligation to recognise a gender category other than male or female, and none which would require the Secretary of State to issue passports without any indication of gender. In fact, there does not appear to have been any case before the European Court concerned with the application of the Convention to individuals who identify as non–gendered."

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

Yes, that ^^

Exactly that.

Good.

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

@Shedmistress

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

Indeed. What a waste of time and money.

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?

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

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.

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.

Pleased to see this.

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!

TLDR:

Get over yourself

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.

Excellent decision, common sense prevails and the pandering stops.

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

@aliasundercover

TLDR:

Get over yourself

Pretty much

[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!

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.

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.

@Mochudubh

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.

The Supreme Court said that sex was immutable?! The transphobes

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

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

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.

Didn't the ECHR get us into this mess in the first place, by ruling that our government had to allow males to be women? Didn't they rule that not allowing men to colonise womanhood somehow breached their human rights?

@ChazsBrilliantAttitude

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.

I'd be interested to know why you say that. I thought the ECHR was more captured by gender ideologues.

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.

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.

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.

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.