12 April 2018
Clifford Chance is going to court to fight for a gender-free UK passport.

Having won a judicial review, next week the Magic Circle firm will argue in the Administrative Court that Her Majesty's Passport Office is breaching the right to private life under the European Convention on Human Rights by requiring applicants for passports to declare their gender as either male or female. 

Acting for Christie Elan-Cane, whose 'Non-Gendered' campaign seeks legal recognition for individuals who don't identify as either sex, Clifford Chance and barristers from Blackstone Chambers successfully argued last year that the case should be heard for inclusion of a third, non-gender specific 'X' option.

    Back off its undetermined bits. 

The firm will argue that the government's m/f-only policy is "discriminatory and irrational" and therefore unlawful. Australian and New Zealand passports already include an X option, as do those for Canada, Denmark, Germany, Malta and Pakistan. More countries, including India, Ireland and Nepal, provide equivalent third options.

The X-Men-Women-People's lead partner is Narind Singh, who told RollOnFriday that X-passports were "a crucial step" in the protection of the human rights of a group of people who "otherwise face an unacceptable choice between forgoing a passport, and making a false declaration, and using a passport which misrepresents their identity"
Tip Off ROF


Anonymous 13 Apr 18

It is very useful when researching family history however to have a male of female indication and most people are male or female and it certainly helps police catch people knowing their gender so I suspect if we allow a few who have had surgery to change sex or say X that should be enough.

Anonymous 13 Apr 18

@ anon 11:01 - Awww, do the different people make the bubby feel insecure? There there, here's a cookie.

Anonymous 13 Apr 18

Wow, if lawyers are posting on here, I am saddened. Sex and gender are different. If you don't know that, time to take your ignorant arses back to law school.

Anonymous 13 Apr 18

Not so 11.01. A person could also, at the very least, be intersex. Categorising people into only two sexes is scientifically wrong even before we discuss the nature of the concept of gender.

Anonymous 13 Apr 18

Are genderless people sexless? If so are biologically ugly people who identify as good looking allowed to force authorities to use a picture of Brangelina on passports? This case is ridiculous.

Anonymous 14 Apr 18

How useful for idenitfying an individual is a characteristic they share with 4 billion others? Not much.

Anonymous 16 Apr 18

Maths question for anon 10:29 - how many characteristics which are distributed 50:50 in the population like sex are needed to create 8 billion possible and equally likely combination of characteristics?

The answer is 33, which is, I suspect, rather less than the 4 billion you thought it would be.

Anonymous 17 Apr 18

The typical lawyerly flourish "idiocy delivered with arrogance". Maths is none of those things - it's just maths. It doesn't care whether you find it convenient or not. It is true regardless. Maths is one of those things which you will need to shape your beliefs around, because it won't shape itself around your beliefs.

Anonymous 18 Apr 18

Great to see CC taking on this case. Whatever the insecure, reactionary ghouls of the Discussion Forum might claim, there is no need to state biological sex on a passport, while gender is an identity, and is entirely the choice of the individual. The state has no legitimate interest in requiring people to declare their gender either, still less to choose between two poles. Sorry, difference-haters, but the world's moved on without you.

Snowflakes 1-0 Trumpites

Anonymous 18 Apr 18

Lawyerly flourishes are what life's about. Crushing your opponent with elegant words is cool. Maths isn't. Back on the actual point in hand, there are lots of bits of identifying information that would narrow down a person's identity. That doesn't mean we need all of them on a passport.

Anonymous 18 Apr 18

And there we have it. Anon 02:54 refers to those who do think that the state *does* have a legitimate interest in recording biological sex on passports as "haters" and "Snowflakes." This is the real bigotry and demonisation - it's far too easy, and it reflects poorly on the strength of the more rational arguments in this case.

Anonymous 19 Apr 18

anon @ 22:17, difference-haters are characterized thus because their view that sex should be stated on a passport is indefensible on any sensible ground.

The snowflakes are my people mate, the haters are yours. We're winning.

Anonymous 19 Apr 18

Here is why biological sex is a good biometric identifier in conjunction with other identifiers.

1) it is readily discernible requiring no specialist equipment, apart from the case of the 0.1% of the population whose chromosomes are neither XX nor XY (source: wikipedia). In many of the other cases, the genitalia present will support an unambiguous classification as either male or female. In the very few edge cases, rather like a mixed race person, an arbitrary decision needs to be made which will *affect a person's passport* not the way they live their life. This case doesn't involve an intersex individual anyway.
2) it is an identifier universally understood around the world.
3) It is discernible from birth.
4) It is extremely difficult to convincingly fake or change, notwithstanding well publicised antics with burkas.
5) Certain legal rights and privileges including differential pension rights or maternity leave are granted to members of only 1 sex.
6) Various international standardisation agreements on the content of passports include reference to sex (look on Wikipedia for a list).

The tribalism "your people", "We're winning." Two words for you. Trump. Brexit. That's what happens when you sling mud to repress reasonable, liberal people raising reasonable concerns. Learn to defend your ideas without resorting to name calling.

The law is full of arbitrary decisions including legal voting, smoking and drinking ages, legal age of criminal responsibility, pension retirement age. The only way you can run a state which differentiates between classes of individual is to classify individuals either whimsically or consistently. Consistently is objectively fairer.

Roll On Friday 20 Apr 18

I identify as devastatingly handsome and incredibly charming. I would like this recorded on my passport so I can present government-issued proof to anyone who disagrees.

Please note that comments are subject to moderation.