SC decision on gender neutral passports
Patricia Jackson 15 Dec 21 13:13
Reply |

Surprised we haven’t had a post on this yet ;)

That it's not a breach of human rights law not to give a non-binary sex/gender option.  The reasoning seems to be that binary sex choices is legitimate because its a objective factor going to identity that can be verified via documentation.  Therefore the primary purpose of it in this specific case, identification of the individual, is best facilitated by binary male/female rather than a more nuanced gender spectrum. 

That it's not a breach of human rights law not to give a non-binary sex/gender option.  The reasoning seems to be that binary sex choices is legitimate because its a objective factor going to identity that can be verified via documentation.  Therefore the primary purpose of it in this specific case, identification of the individual, is best facilitated by binary male/female rather than a more nuanced gender spectrum. 

And this is important for passports but not for the purposes of medical records or crime statistics because...?

If people wish to record their sex as neuter does that have certain implications? I like to call a speyed a speyed. 

At least the SC has not become captive to the Woke Mob.

Unlike the medical profession who now refer to "pregnant people" rather than "pregnant women" for the sake of the trans men* and non binary people who are apparently OK with using their bodies to gestate and birth babies but get terribly triggered by the word "women", and the police and press who see no issue with recording and reporting the crime of exposing one's penis as a crime having been committed by a woman.

Incidentally, the number of trans men who have ever given birth in the UK is two. One of these is Freddy McConnell, who famously decided to have his second baby in Sweden after losing a legal battle to be recorded on the birth certificate as the child's father, so why the UK should give a shit what Freddy thinks is a mystery. Also, why isn't deliberately and repeatedly getting up the duff grounds for having one's GRC revoked?

And this is important for passports but not for the purposes of medical records or crime statistics because...?

Jesus wept, I just explained it.  On passports its used as a tool to confirm a specific person's identity.  Is the person in front of me named in a passport as a women got a birth certificate or gender recognition certificate indicating that they are indeed a woman or not.  In police and health situations, verifying the identity of an individual is not the primary purpose, or indeed often relevant, although both their origional biological sex and/or their current gender can be in some specific circumstances, for instance if its clinically relevant or for statistical purposes.    

There are 200,000 people in the Tory party apparently but an estimated 700,000 trans peoples the UK. Trans people in the UK outnumber tory party members by ~3.5 to 1. They and their allies should immediately join the conservatives and use their voice to put an end to the endless unscientific reactionary bigotry they have to endure.

Is there any need at all to specify sex or gender in a biometric passport?

Surely we can now drop this old fashioned idea of how a border force officer should be checking someone's identity

It's a row that seems so unnecessary now we can identify someone from their eyes without having to speculate what genitals they have under their clothes.

Is this something that the UK can decide unilaterally. Presumably there are international treaties governing what information passports must contain to allow entry into other countries some of which might not go for this sort of thing. They might even be arrested on arrival which would lead to a whole load of paperwork for the Consul.    

Unlike the medical profession who now refer to "pregnant people" rather than "pregnant women" for the sake of the trans men* and non binary people who are apparently OK with using their bodies to gestate and birth babies but get terribly triggered by the word "women", and the police and press who see no issue with recording and reporting the crime of exposing one's penis as a crime having been committed by a woman.

None of which does any harm or has any real relevance whatsoever.  Women have for a very long time worked very hard, and rightly so, to quite significantly change language use (amoungst many things) to accomoidate and facilitate feminist goals, and lots of people, especially bigots, found that very challenging, and still do.  I find it both disappointing and ironic that when it is their turn to accept changes in language to facilitate to position of another marginalised minority, so many women, but most vociferously again the bigots, collapse in tears of furious outrage.

Just goes to show what I always say, humans are all the same, no matter what the group some are simply wrong-uns 

On passports its used as a tool to confirm a specific person's identity.

Surely insisting on having M in the passport of someone who looks like a woman and has a feminine name, or F in the passport of someone who looks like a man and has a masculine name, is asking for confusion.

In police and health situations, verifying the identity of an individual is not the primary purpose, or indeed often relevant, although both their origional biological sex and/or their current gender can be in some specific circumstances, for instance if its clinically relevant or for statistical purposes.

Yes, in police and health situations they have decided to prioritise the feelings of a tiny minority over the feelings of others, and indeed over accuracy.

None of which does any harm or has any real relevance whatsoever.

Erm, I think the women who disagree with you and consider that it is harmful vastly outnumber the people whose feelings this is being done to accommodate.

It must be discriminatory in some way to have to put your age on your passport. What if I don't accept the idea of birth at all. It's just an arbitrary medical convention and our souls can be much older of course.    

I don’t have a view on whether the passports should be changed but I don’t believe it is the Court’s business to effect that change - that is for Parliament. 
 

Interesting that he asserts sex and gender are used interchangeably:
 

‘“There is no legislation in the United Kingdom which recognises a non-gendered category of individuals,” the Judge said.

He said legislation “across the statute book” assumes all people can be categorised in two sexes or genders – “terms which have been used interchangeably”.’

The fact that they are used interchangeably is one of the main problems.  Aided and abetted by the ridiculously named Gender Pay Gap Regulations.

Yup.

Should never have been allowed to happen.

The Blair government dropped a bollock on this one by using the words "male" and "female" to refer to genders in the GRA.

As if those words mean something different in humans to what they mean in all other species.

Surely insisting on having M in the passport of someone who looks like a woman and has a feminine name, or F in the passport of someone who looks like a man and has a masculine name, is asking for confusion.

have you changed positions on this hotblack?

you get that trans people change their names and appearance right?

Octoman - you dont need to put your age if you dont want to. Something like "on the cusp of the Age of Aquarius" would do. Dont feel constrained by linear time either.

Struggling to recall the last or indeed any time a customs officer checked my genitals or my chromosomes when going through passport control. I don't think the automatic scanners do either. I wonder how intersex people manage it? 

Xi jinping could give a press conference, in which, while hooked up to a lie detector, he could state (in every single language, with translators to verify it) that it is an entirely man made virus, made and released by the Chinese, on purpose, and the Guardian would STILL not believe it, purely because Trump said it was a possibility.

We're all a little bit hotblack in the sense that nobody actually believes trans women are women, I suppose.

Shame the guidance on completing the sex and gender identity questions in this year's census was totally incoherent, eh?

What Occam said. How many times do we have to go over this?
 

Intersex is a euphemism for wide range of developmental disorders. All intersex people are either male or female. It may be difficult to tell from an external examination only, but all humans will be one or the other.

There has never been a single recorded case of true hermaphroditism in mammals. 

use their voice to put an end to the endless unscientific reactionary bigotry they have to endure.

What, you mean like the unscientific reactionary bigotry you endlessly spout at natal women?

700K men who like the idea of eschewing male gender stereotypes? I could believe it. 700K people with gender dysphoria? Questionable.

unbelievable that the “reality matters”, “believe science” crowd are coming out with crap like “intersex people don’t exist / are really just either men or women”

quite the turnaround - it’s almost as if they don’t have a fvcking clue what they’re talking about 

I think what happened was, an important letter arrived, but he left it in the microwave for too long

There are worse people to be compared to than Flanders tbf. Albeit would be surprised if Chill shared his religious convictions.

Why is it that bigots seizing on "gender critical" theory and "biological facts" as a sort of semi respectable (maybe, if you're a moron with Nazi inclinations) life raft for justifying their knuckle dragging phobias  really seem to struggle with what evolutionary biology and neuroscience actually tell us?

"Humans are a [set in stone*] dimorphic species - its a biological fact" HEH! So erm  Darwin and the messiness of random mutation and natural selection aren't accurate? Really? Hmmm. What subsets of humanity does that thinking appeal to?

*unlike every other species on the planet for some reason.

While there are reports of individuals that seemed to have the potential to produce both types of gamete,[181] in more recent years the term hermaphrodite as applied to humans has fallen out of favor, since female and male reproductive functions have not been observed together in the same individual.
 

Chill didn’t get to the biology bit of his own source clearly.

Gamete production and the associated development paths is what sex is. 

Explain why intersex people are not male or female.  Counter the exhaustive list above.
 

I can make it easier for him - what sexes other than male and female are there and what are the roles of these supposed additional sexes when it comes to sexual reproduction? 

We are waiting, Chill.
 

It’s almost as if you haven’t got a fooking clue what you are talking about and are merely parroting fashionable nonsense. 

what are you on about asimov? intersex people display both male and female biological characteristics (whether chromosomes, hormones, genitals and reproductive organs etc)

the links are literally just above on this thread 

Why is it that bigots seizing on "gender critical" theory and "biological facts" as a sort of semi respectable (maybe, if you're a moron with Nazi inclinations) life raft for justifying their knuckle dragging phobias  really seem to struggle with what evolutionary biology and neuroscience actually tell us?

You know how it's generally a good idea to finish primary school before you embark on a PhD?

Well, before we get into an in depth discussion about people with DSDs and whether they are male, female, both or neither (and indeed what they have got to do with trans people, to which the answer is "fook all"), perhaps you should explain what you think the words "man" and "woman" actually mean, if not "male person" and "female person".

Because this is something that those who scream "bigot!" at anyone who wishes to exclude male people from women's prisons, sports and rape counselling groups seem singularly incapable of doing.

PS - gender critical is not a "theory". Gender identity is a theory. There is no evidence that it actually exists, and quite a lot to suggest it doesn't.

Oh dear, Chill. You really are thick. You may or may not have read the links you provided but you certainly haven’t understood them. 

Sex characteristics do not determine sex but are a consequence of it. There are various disorders where a male might display typically female sex characteristics but they are still male. If I pumped you full of oestrogen you might develop lots more breast tissue (a typically female secondary sex characteristic) but this wouldn’t make you a woman you blithering idiot.

If a human is born with one or no legs this is a consequence of a genetic or developmental disorder and is not evidence that humans are not necessarily bipedal. 

Lets start from the beginning - what is the purpose of sex in humans?

 

 

I like Lucy. The following is spot on. 
 

what they have got to do with trans people, to which the answer is "fook all"

lucy we’ve been over this before - your insistence on definitions is pointless because nature doesn’t care what definitions we apply to things

what you’re saying is that things are either Red or Yellow and when someone comes along arguing “this thing has characteristics that are both Red and Yellow, what is the fairest way to deal with it in relation to other Red and Yellow things?” you’re saying “please provide a comprehensive definition of Red and Yellow before making that claim, i believe everything is either Red or Yellow and all things should be treated as if they belong to only one of those categories”

which yes is a “theory” just in the way anything else is, because the world is gloriously complex and some things don’t fit into our simple human categories

Sex characteristics do not determine sex but are a consequence of it.

don’t know what this means - what determines biological sex other than the characteristics of it?

don’t know what this means
 

We know. Until you do understand this simple point you are wasting all our time.

Try some of the very easy questions that have been posed on this thread. We can build your understanding up from there. 

your insistence on definitions is pointless because nature doesn’t care what definitions we apply to things

Nature certainly doesn't care about anyone's imaginary "gender identity", that's for sure.

what you’re saying is that things are either Red or Yellow and when someone comes along arguing “this thing has characteristics that are both Red and Yellow, what is the fairest way to deal with it in relation to other Red and Yellow things?” you’re saying “please provide a comprehensive definition of Red and Yellow before making that claim, i believe everything is either Red or Yellow and all things should be treated as if they belong to only one of those categories”

How can you argue that something has both characteristics of both red and yellow if you refuse to say what you think the words "red" and "yellow" actually mean?

What are the "red" and "yellow" in your analogy? Are you using them as substitutes for "male" and "female" with regard to people with DSDs, or "man" and "woman" in the context of gender identity?

If the former, we know exactly what the words "male" and "female" mean. It is precisely because we are able to define those words that we are able to say that someone with a DSD has characteristics of both.

If the latter, what characteristics of "woman" does a trans woman have?

which yes is a “theory” just in the way anything else is, because the world is gloriously complex and some things don’t fit into our simple human categories

But it is the proponents of gender ideology who want to fit everyone into categories. "Male" and "female" are categories that actually exist in nature, you are what you are and it cannot be changed. Categories relating to gender identity have no actual reason to exist, because as you correctly state, the world is gloriously complex.

 

don’t know what this means - what determines biological sex other than the characteristics of it?

This is just a chicken and egg argument really.

Female sex characteristics such as ovaries, a uterus and a vagina will typically develop in a foetus with a XX genetic karyotype (DSDs aside). But the genetic karyotype is fixed at conception, long before any of those physical characteristics have developed.

How can you argue that something has both characteristics of both red and yellow if you refuse to say what you think the words "red" and "yellow" actually mean?
 

i would be able to do this easily but would struggle to define what “red” means

googling gives me the helpful:

1. a colour next to orange on the spectrum

2. red color or pigment

3. a red thing

i would be able to do this easily but would struggle to define what “red” means

googling gives me the helpful:

1. a colour next to orange on the spectrum

2. red color or pigment

3. a red thing

So how about you stop using crap analogies and define the words "woman" and "man" then?

This is just a chicken and egg argument really.

Female sex characteristics such as ovaries, a uterus and a vagina will typically develop in a foetus with a XX genetic karyotype (DSDs aside). But the genetic karyotype is fixed at conception, long before any of those physical characteristics have developed.
 

This is the point. Sex characteristics are a consequence of the development pathway which is always male or female. Sometimes something goes wrong with the genes or hormones and you get (usually incomplete) development of characteristics associated with the other sex.

For those reasons I don’t think is chicken and egg. 

This is the point. Sex characteristics are a consequence of the development pathway which is always male or female. Sometimes something goes wrong with the genes or hormones and you get (usually incomplete) development of characteristics associated with the other sex.

For those reasons I don’t think is chicken and egg. 

Depends whether by "sex characteristics" you are including the genetic karyotype itself as a characteristic, or only the physical characteristics associated with having a male or a female reproductive system.

If you only mean physical characteristics then yes, they are a consequence of sex. But as I understand it, someone with a DSD could develop an apparently normal or almost normal male or female reproductive system despite having an abnormal karyotype, which is why some people with DSDs don't realise they have them.

well i’ve lost you there asimov

from that nhs link above:

Some people have XY (male) chromosomes, but their external genitals may develop in the usual way for girls or boys.

Doctors refer to this condition as 46,XY DSD  

There are several causes of 46,XY DSD. One possible cause is androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), where the body "ignores" androgens or is insensitive to them.

Sometimes a person's body does not respond at all or only partly responds to androgens.

Complete insensitivity to androgens makes a person with XY chromosomes female. Partial insensitivity to androgens can mean that some people are male and others are female.

so it appears the nhs, in certain circumstances at least, use “sensitivity to androgens” as the basis of whether they assign a person to be male or female

is this what you mean? or is this another “characteristic” which is a “consequence of sex”?

so it appears the nhs, in certain circumstances at least, use “sensitivity to androgens” as the basis of whether they assign a person to be male or female

Absolutely nothing is "assigned", by the NHS or any other healthcare professional.

By the way, Chill, in addition to being unable to explain what you believe the words "man" and "woman" mean, if not "male person" and "female person", you still haven't explained why you think DSDs are relevant to a discussion about trans rights.

You do realise that people with DSDs are, in fact, not the same people as the ones complaining about their penises being unwelcome in the women's communal showers, or claiming to be men whilst pushing babies out of their vaginas, right?

hang on both - even occam’s “everyone is either [MALE] or [FEMALE]” table above appears to accept that some people with XY chromosomes are [FEMALE] and some with XX are [MALE]
 

i appreciate you’re eliminating external secondary characteristics for the determination (though occam’s chart seems to use a combination of SRY and testes development to categorize them? i dunno i can’t find the source)

what is the underlying karyotype you’re basing your categorization on?

Yes, Lucy I mean the physical characteristics i.e. secondary sex characteristics.

Completely agree with you here. So nice to see a fellow Rofer that actually understands what sex is. 

i agree trans people and intersex people are entirely separate lucy (though some of the principles overlap and a lot of the usual suspects seem to be very excitable about it)

this is about whether caster semenya should be allowed to participate in sports, and - if not - how we make those determinations equitably

hang on both - even occam’s “everyone is either [MALE] or [FEMALE]” table above appears to accept that some people with XY chromosomes are [FEMALE] and some with XX are [MALE]
 

i appreciate you’re eliminating external secondary characteristics for the determination (though occam’s chart seems to use a combination of SRY and testes development to categorize them? i dunno i can’t find the source)

what is the underlying karyotype you’re basing your categorization on?

How is any of this relevant?

this is about whether caster semenya should be allowed to participate in sports, and - if not - how we make those determinations equitably

No it isn't.

This is about whether Laurel Hubbard should be allowed to participate in women's sports. The answer is a straightforward "fook no".

Caster Semenya cannot help the way she was born, and so the question is far more delicate and complex.

Caster Semenya cannot help the way she was born

lol, so close yet so far.  Can't cure stupid I guess, no surprise intelligence is directly linked to bigotry.

Eh, OK, none of us can help what sex we were born.

Caster Semenya's problem is that she has both female and male sex characteristics and so if she wants to compete in sports she has to compete in either a men's or a women's category despite having some characteristics of the opposite sex. There is nothing she can do about that.

Laurel Hubbard does not have that problem because there are, in fact, sporting categories especially for people of the same sex as Laurel Hubbard. They are called the men's categories.

The fact that Laurel Hubbard is nowhere near good enough to qualify in a men's category should not be the problem of young female athletes.

wait so we are talking about trans rights?

i thought we were talking about how sex is defined wrt intersex people

hubbard isn’t intersex (afaiaa)

Warren - why don’t you tell us again about how poor people are genetically inferior and how people from NZ are genetically superior?

Feelingchill needs to be careful - LP could do him like she did Oofer and make him rage quit the board..

oh no i get you - you think sex and gender are the same so there’s no difference

ok i was only talking about biological sex with asimov

oh no i get you - you think sex and gender are the same so there’s no difference

Er, no. Clearly they are not the same. Only one of those things is actually real.

And lol at Asimov saying he likes Lucy. Why don’t you ask her about her views on people who voted for Brexit and see if you’re still gr8 m8s?

But it is the proponents of gender ideology who want to fit everyone into categories.

everyone wants to fit everyone into categories 

highly disingenuous to imply the gender critical crowd don’t

what we’re arguing is how those categories should be applied to people who don’t neatly fit into one or the other (or should we just tear them down altogether)?

everyone wants to fit everyone into categories 

highly disingenuous to imply the gender critical crowd don’t

Not really.

The categories "male" and "female" exist whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

The "gender critical crowd" couldn't give a shit about any of the imaginary categories.

A trans woman's gender identity is no more real to me than Allah.