Why the UK government’s mixed signals on gender-neutral passports are so dangerous

Jun 30, 2018 by Jill

from Christian Concern:

Carys Moseley looks at the UK government’s case for rejecting gender-neutral passports, which recently won in the High Court, and finds that despite coming to the right conclusion the submission as a whole suggested that elements within the government are still open to the idea. This is despite the Home Office admitting that it would be a global security problem.

Last week the High Court rejected a challengeby Christie Elan-Cane, a person who was born female but who identifies as ‘non-gendered’, to the lawfulness of HM Passport Office’s policy to require male or female gender on UK passports. Elan-Cane wanted the right to have a passport marked ‘X’ instead of M (male) or F (female). Justice Jeremy Barker ruled that current policy was not unlawful.

Kate Gallafent, representing Elan-Cane, argued that the policy breached the claimant’s right to private life under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rightsand the right to non-discrimination on grounds of sex or gender under Article 14.

Elan-Cane first approached the government in 2005 when plans for ID cards were being floated. It was discovered that the International Civil Aviation Organisation, which is the UN agency responsible for international travel specifications, permitted member countries to allow X instead of M or F. At the time only India and Malaysia allowed this.

Read here