UK Supreme Court: No to gender-neutral passports

Liberty_Bear

Funny thing is

Gay bloke myself, I remember having to justify my existence twenty years ago to someone...can empathise fully as to why my personal choices appear to be an object of fascination..what gives

Ten of Swords

@85603 do not post in this thread again

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118334551#Comment_118334551

I'm gay myself.

You are on one side of the argument and I'm on the other. That's fine, and that's healthy - and that's part of a democracy.

In fact, some might say that being gay has nothing to do with this particular question - because being trans- is not a question of sexuality at all.

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118334485#Comment_118334485

Biological sex is not necessary displayed on a UK passport, so the question of how many biological sexes there are, or whether any particular term is one or not, is entirely moot.

The sex displayed on a UK passport can be self-identified, and does not have to confirm to the individual’s biological sex.

Ten of Swords

@eskimohunt drop the astralgender angle, this is your standard go-to in these threads but it's not relevant here and dragging the thread off topic

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118334640#Comment_118334640

But you are bringing up a legal definition versus a biological definition.

According to your personal definition, how many sexes are there?

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118334654#Comment_118334654

This ruling, this thread, this issue is entirely a legal issue. Mine or anyone else’s opinions on biology are irrelevant.

It’s a simple statement of fact that UK law allows legal self-identification of gender independent of biology.

Liberty_Bear

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118334632#Comment_118334632

Yet 20 years ago we had people tell us that we are leading a lifestyle, that same scenario is raising its head again for trans people. Are we forgetting where we came from? Solidarity ?

Vestiapx

Let people be what ever they wanna be.

Dont let people cheat

If people are allowed to be themselves and to have integrity they grow In to good people

I'm a 40 something man that came from a rought area and learned a but of boxing a bit of judo and a bit of kempo along the way.

As a man I'm like 80 per cent as in I can beat 1 in 5 lads that have a go.

As a woman Im elite

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118334654#Comment_118334654

I have to ask again, how does this impact YOUR life as you claimed earlier in the thread?

joseywhales

You know when Facebook started out and I created my account, I decided to be female, mostly because I thought social media was a joke. But it turned out to be great, over the years, I've had targeted advertising clearly meant for females, I loved that their "clever algorithms" were fundamentally ruined by this. So now I say pick and choose whatever genders you like, what does it matter really? I am still female on that platform if anyone uses it anymore.

Although when it comes to scientifically identifying someone using chromosomes is perfectly valid, along with eye colour, hair colour, height, whatever. It's none of my business what criteria they want to use to identify a unique person.

Shao Kahn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118334752#Comment_118334752

I would contend that state-sponsored lying on official documents, is important to the whole of society.

It has potential knock-on effects for everyone.

What next? You don't wish to identify as a human being, or perhaps not even a mammal? Maybe you have a preference for living as an invertebrate or a reptile? It may seem like I'm joking here, or engaging in mockery - but I'm really not. When you are being given the green light to deny facts/science in favor of people's feelings, you could argue that you've now crossed a line in the sand. Why stop at gender/sex? Why stop anywhere?

And this tired worn out argument of "why do you care?" or "How does it affect you?" is getting fairly old and cliched at this point. The classic tactic used, when people know there is a controversial topic and they want to passive aggressively brow beat and bully people into not giving their opinion. It's a pretty low-ball unintelligent approach tbh.

Shield

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118334434#Comment_118334434

...and I'm sure if we search for long enough, we'll find some other channel debunking Xanderhal, and it just goes on and on. The point that was made by the Supreme Court (at paragraph 21) is that recording the sex of a person on a passport is vital for the listed reasons (@seamus I think this answers your earlier question) and they simply didn't buy the argument that having X as an option under "Sex" outweighed the public policy considerations listed at paragraph 53.

The most important thing of all here is that me and you are having a civil conversation about a disputed topic. You're not flinging names at me and I'm not flinging names at you, and that results in mutual respect even if we disagree. It keeps the conversation moving, and that's absolutely vital if we're to understand each other AND if we're willing to move from our respective positions should one of us prove the other is wrong in some way. I'm far more likely to listen to you and take you seriously because of your approach, so kudos!

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118335374#Comment_118335374

"When you are being given the green light to deny facts/science in favor of people's feelings, you could argue that you've now crossed a line in the sand."

But we do this every day, People of faith go to churches/mosque/synagogue or whatever and pray to a "god" even though there is no scientific proof of any "gods" existence.

We don't deny them thier beliefs, should we tell them all to stop? Tell them not to be silly and that there is no magic sky fairy watching over them? I mean why not? Why should we "deny facts/science in favor of people's feelings" right?

But we don't do that, We allow them thier beliefs because that's thier belief and its nothing to do with anyone else, I would say a person choosing to identify as invertebrate or a reptile is a lot less dangerous to society than some of the religious zealots out there.

So again I ask, and yes you can claim its "old and cliched at this point" but How does it impact yours or my life if someone chooses to put an X on thier personal private document?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118335912#Comment_118335912

The religion analogy is perfect, but not in the way that you seem to think.

As with religion, the State should be secular - and not favour one form of belief over another; that this is a personal matter and people are fine to believe whatever they like in the comfort of their own homes.

The same is true of gender self-identification. The State should not favour one form of belief over another, but let people believe whatever they want to believe about their identity. The State should remain objective and not elevate subjective belief over objective biological fact.

That's why it's so important that passports do not bend to the pressure of allowing subjective belief to override biological 'Sex' - and it's 'Sex' that's listed on passports, not 'Gender'.

Gregor Samsa

That's why it's so important that passports do not bend to the pressure of allowing subjective belief to override biological 'Sex' - and it's 'Sex' that's listed on passports, not 'Gender'.

The heading on that section of the passport is irrelevant. One of the judges in the ruling even said the two terms were interchangeable. It's an academic argument, but not one that has any application in the real world, as language is fluid. It's the reason that even you use the qualifier "biological sex" in many of your posts.

And in any case, that section of the passport does not record biological sex, so that argument is totally irrelevant. The right to have your subjectively-defined declared sex on your passport is already enshrined in UK law and practice. The case and ruling was simply about what terms could be used in one's subjective declaration.

Now, the question is: what happens next. Inaction, most likely in the short term. But longer term.

Which do you think is the most likely scenario? Objectively, I mean - not what you'd like to happen in an ideal world. What will happen in this world?

A) The current legal practice of subjective self-identification of sex, limited to the options of male and female, is rolled back and only biological sex is recorded.

or

B) The current legal practice of subjective self-identification of sex is expanded to include a gender neutral option.

To me it's obvious that B is most likely.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336092#Comment_118336092

On the census (an official government document) they ask your religion, you can put any of the listed religions or none, you can even put in a made up religion (Jedi or pastafarian) and its recorded without the world caving in.

Someone claiming (on an official government document) to be a Jedi does not impact your life in any way so why would someone having an X on thier passport impact your life as you previously claimed? I've asked you this question several times now but you continue to dodge answering it, whys that?

Shao Kahn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118335912#Comment_118335912

You are attempting to conflate two different things here.

We don't have official state-sponsored documents acknowledging the existence of someone's "god". We simply acknowledge, as a society, people's right to believe in their "sky fairies" (your words).

I'm not suggesting we should prevent anyone from believing what they want to believe, or living how they want to live.

But if your particular gender identity cannot currently be proven factual through science, then I don't see how an official government document can acknowledge this. Your date of birth is not a record of which date YOU choose, it's a factual record of the actual date you were born on.

If you want to go around identifying as 20 year old, when you're actually a 65 year pensioner, knock yourself out. Enjoy your life as a 20 year old. But this doesn't mean your government should grant you the right to lie about your age on an official document.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336294#Comment_118336294

(a) won't happen, because it needs to account for trans men and trans women.

But (b) shouldn't happen. There is no reason to include self-identification on passports for anything other than male or female, because those are the only two "real world" sexes/genders that objectively exist. As you say, sex/gender is considered the same from a legal standpoint, but what do we do about those who claim to be sexless or without gender? Where does this stuff stop? It's a very slippery slope that will spread into every other area of society where these differences between people has a real-world impact.

This isn't just my view; it's also the view of actual prominent trans women - such as Blaire White, Rose of Dawn, and Debbie Hayton.

The Quintessence Model

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118334434#Comment_118334434

None of that means that sex isn't binary, or sex is a spectrum.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336393#Comment_118336393

"We don't have official state-sponsored documents acknowledging the existence of someone's "god".

Actually you do

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ireland

"The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion."

https://talkabout.iclrs.org/2020/10/31/god-in-the-irish-constitution/

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial…"

"Later, in Article 6, the Constitution clarifies and restates this hierarchy: “All powers of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, derive, under God, from the people.” The people are in charge but subject to God. The Constitution also mentions “Almighty God” in oaths to be sworn by the President, the Council of State, and the judiciary.

Article 44, on religion, begins: “The State acknowledges that the homage of public worship is due to Almighty God. It shall hold His Name in reverence, and shall respect and honour religion.”

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118334434#Comment_118334434

"The Karyotyping looked at the XX and XY chromosome - within that it found approx 97.5 % conformed to the standard XX/XY chromosome however that leaves approx 2.5% who are not, in the grand scheme of things that is still a sizeable amount of the population on the grand scale."

Most people with non-normal sex chromosomes, ie. other than XX or XY, are still predictably genetically male or female.

That's because it's the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, and more specifically the SRY gene, which determines sex. So, for example, people with Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) are male, and people with Turner syndrome (X) are female. Those syndromes are not evidence of a sex spectrum.

The actual number of exceptions to this classification is much smaller. Less than 0.2% afaik. So, sex is genetically predictable for over 99.8% of the population.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336092#Comment_118336092

The state defend the right to practise your religion under article 44 of the constitution, hardly staying out of it!

nolivesmatter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118328333#Comment_118328333

“We might not have the science behind it yet, but we will.”

That’s the key issue for most people. When/if you get that science behind it a lot more people will be in agreement with you.

Gregor Samsa

@eskimohunt : There is no reason to include self-identification on passports for anything other than male or female, because those are the only two "real world" sexes/genders that objectively exist.

But how is a person with XY chromosomes legally self identifying on their passport as a female any more objectively true than someone identifying as gender neutral?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336519#Comment_118336519

And that's exactly where the State should be - pretty much out of it, allowing people to believe what they want to believe.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336566#Comment_118336566

That's where we draw the line.

For instance: we know that trans men / trans women undergo an immense amount of surgery / life-changing treatments etc. to live as the opposite sex. That should be acknowledged on passports simply because trans people exist and it doesn't harm the male/female binary to include M or F on passports.

With self-identification, that's exactly the other way around: where genders are listed which are not verifiable in reality (everything other than male or female) are said to exist as an identification. Male and female are at least realities that exist; agender or neutrois etc. are not verifiable; they're more of a personality description than anything to do with sex.

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336683#Comment_118336683

There’s no requirement for surgery or life changing treatment for trans person to legally identify as either male or female in the UK.

the requirements are:

1. Being over 18
2. Being diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
3. Living as your acquired gender for at least 2 years.
4. Intending to do so for the rest of your life.

Apart from the age limit, the remaining 3 criteria are ultimately based on self-identification already.

So I ask again, how is a person with XY chromosomes legally self identifying on their passport as a female any more objectively true than someone identifying as gender neutral?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336776#Comment_118336776

It's a question of boundaries.

So based on your logic, you could also ask the question: what's stopping someone from self-identifying as a rhododendron plant?

You see the issue?

We have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise we're opening a Pandora's box.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336619#Comment_118336619

"allowing people to believe what they want to believe"

Why can't you do that?

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336796#Comment_118336796

If someone chose to identify as a rhododendron plant, how would it impact your life? Again you made the claim it would but refuse to explain how.

Gregor Samsa

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336796#Comment_118336796

But we’re not talking about identifying as a rhododendron plant. We’re talking about gender neutrality.

Someone asks you if you want tea or coffee. Your reply that you don’t want anything. They refuse to acknowledge your response, and insist that you declare whether you want tea or coffee. But furthermore they say that if you want you can ask for tea and get coffee, or ask for coffee and get tea. But you simply cannot get nothing, and the reason is that they’re afraid that someone will ask for a rhododendron plant.

Would that not be an absurd situation to be in?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336619#Comment_118336619

putting it into the constitution of the country is hardly 'pretty much out of it'

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336853#Comment_118336853

Things don't have to impact your life in order to have a reasoned, sensible opinion on a matter.

My opinion has no impact on your life, but you have an opinion on it nonetheless.

The principle is the same.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118337628#Comment_118337628

So you admit that when you said it would impact on your life that you were actually lying? Nice we could finally clear that up.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118337676#Comment_118337676

Not at all.

There is a direct impact, which is negligible. And there's a long-term, societal impact of deconstructing everything we know to satisfy the demands of fringe, subjective, unfalsifiable beliefs.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118337877#Comment_118337877

What's the direct impact on your life? For someone who harps on about "cancel culture" on other threads you sure have no issue cancelling things that you don't approve of.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336462#Comment_118336462

…

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118336853#Comment_118336853

It would if the State had to treat the person as a plant. I assume for instance that you can’t arrest, under existing laws, plants for murder; so if the state decided a person was a plant we couldn’t arrest him as a murderer. Of course we could then change the law to make plants persons but that would mean jailing trees that fall on cars, or leaves that cause train derailments. Which is in nobody’s interests.

Ten of Swords

Mod - Stop discussing other users and lets get back on topic please

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118345186#Comment_118345186

Read that again. Really...Read it and take a while to think about it and If you really think it makes sense then ask me again and I'll answer.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118345337#Comment_118345337

What I wrote makes absolute sense, if you believe that the state should recognise the right of people to be plants. I honestly don’t think you know what you are arguing about.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118345877#Comment_118345877

The state recognises a person's right to identify as a Catholic, that person has the right to wear religious symbols, they have the right to go to a building and listen to others talk a out an invisible being, they themselves will talk to this invisible being.

They will make life decisions based on thier belief in this invisible being and can often be found reading books or posting about this invisible being on social media. I do r believe in any invisible beings holding sway over my life and therefore cannot understand why they would identify as being a follower of said invisible bring, tha said I still have no issue with them doing it because it doesn't impact t my life.

The same can be said for someone wanting to identify as a plant, let them at it, it doesn't impact you or I in any way.

nolivesmatter

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346006#Comment_118346006

Letting them at it would be one thing. But anyone wanting to be recognised legally as a something would be requiring others to participate in that. And you could argue that participating in a delusion that they are a plant may not be the right thing to do.

But this is a bad analogy anyway, as I don’t think you’d get anywhere near as many people who would support it as they would a gender neutral passport.

Edit: Just to add, I do understand the ‘live and let live’ point you seem to be coming from, and I agree with that for the most part. I just think the law should be based on the science evidence, whichever way it is or if it changes.

Ten of Swords

Mod - A large number of off topic posts have been removed for discussing posters (which there has ALREADY been a mod warning for) and for dragging the thread off topic

As this is becoming a recurring problem, people who persist with this can expect a threadban at a minimum, possibly a forum ban too.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118346006#Comment_118346006

But we're talking about passports here and legal identification, not some generic interest in doing whatever you want to do in life.

No passport requires the user to identify their religion. You can change religion anyway, but you cannot change sex.

And ultimately, that's what the passport entry is about, the "Sex = ______________".

So, to this end, how many sexes do you believe there are?

Ultimately, this is the most relevant part of the question because this passport entry is about "Sex = __________", and nothing else.

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118348627#Comment_118348627

Still waiting for you to answer my question, how (as you claimed earlier) does someone having an X on thier passport impact you personally?

Answer that question and then we can move on to your questions.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118348682#Comment_118348682

Okay, it has zero impact on me personally.

Now, how many sexes (not 'genders') do you believe there are?

That's what the passport entry is about, and nothing besides.

Pussyhands

A rare reminder that the world isn't full of crazyness. Great news.

You wanna be an X or Y or whatever you wanna call yourself, call yourself that. Don't force anyone else to partake.

So many of the twitter brigade on about covid and "trust the science!"...well I'm trusting the science.

I think it would be better for a passport to reflect the Person carrying it.

So, if a passport said female/trans man, it would be preferable, for the people trying to identify others.

Personally, it doesn't affect anyone, in their own life, what anyone else has written in their passport.