Christie Elan-Cane

NON-GENDERED – Fighting for Legal Recognition

X PASSPORTS

Another grim milestone reached as it is now three years – THREE YEARS! – from the time my Claim was lodged at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. My legal team and I still await communication from the Court as to how the case should be progressed.

On the plus side, if the Claim was ruled inadmissible – most claims are thrown out at an early stage – then we should have been informed within a few months. That nothing has happened must be taken as an indication the Claim will proceed. The down side is not knowing when.

On the basis it can take ten years for a Claim to reach final judgment there is no certainty other than there remains a very long wait for justice. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Justice was denied in the United Kingdom with a judicial system overly deferential to whichever government happens to be in control. I can see no chance of decent government in this country for the foreseeable future. Probably not an exaggeration to say not within my lifetime.

I wish it didn’t have to be this way. In similar cases brought in other countries the relatively uncontroversial decision to issue X PASSPORTS has been upheld by national courts and embraced by progressive governments around the world. The UK is neither a progressive country nor does it have a truly independent judiciary under the current UK Supreme Court presidency. I curse that my Claim took so long to progress through the system that I missed the opportunity to be heard at the Supreme Court under the previous administration. I believe an unbiased lead on the panel would have reached an entirely different conclusion. That X PASSPORTS are a fundamental right. An essential identity document must not require an inappropriate declaration of male or female.

I will, of course, update as news on progress becomes available.

Christie Elan-Cane

3 responses to “X PASSPORTS”

  1. lz Avatar
    lz

    sorry if this is a selfish but it’s been on my mind.

    the recent supreme court ruling on the interpretation of the equality act in my view has potential implications for x passports.

    the ehrc’s interpretation of the ruling is that male and female spaces are for cis males and cis females only, which in respect to toilets means a “unisex” space must be also be provided to meet the needs of everybody and comply with the law.

    surely it can be argued that the passport office similarly must provide male, female, and unisex passports to meet similar needs with respect to gendered spaces and the related categorisation of gender.

    that is to say, if somebody is to be treated as unisex with regards to toilets, changing rooms, sports, hospital wards, any other sex segregated aspect of ordinary life, then it surely sets the precedence that a third category is already acknowledged and required in both law and the needs of ordinary life.

    i already know hmpo’s excuse will be that the uk doesn’t legally recognise any third gender, but its completely irrelevant to the matter as an x passport does not recognise any legal gender, it can be used regardless of legal sex not unlike a unisex bathroom. they also can and do already issue m and f passports irrespective of a person’s legal or recognised sex, and the supreme court and ehrc guidance are clear that rules on single sex spaces are irrespective of any legal or recognised sex.

    the ehrc has also been explicit and open, to the point of bragging, that non cis and non gendered people have a need and a right under the law to have access to unisex spaces. this in my mind both acknowledges and endorses the need and existence of a third category relating to sex, even if that category is unisex and doesn’t legally recognise any specific third sex for the purpose of grcs or birth certificates which again are irrelevant by their own admission.

    to put it simply, where there is this new legal and social requirement for many to be treated as neither male nor female for the purpose of sex segregation, i don’t see any reason why related sex categorisation of people including the issuance of documentation such passports has any special exemption.

    Like

    Reply
    1. Christie Elan-Cane Avatar
      Christie Elan-Cane

      I understand where you’re coming from and you make several valid points. However the difference being that single occupancy bathroom facilities [Universal Toilets] have been around for some time where space is limited [planes, trains etc.]. I’ve campaigned directly to various governing bodies that outdated gendered communal facilities should be phased out and that Universal Toilets must be the model going forward. There are more of them now in various settings such as hospitals and restaurants. I was surprised that even Kemi Badenoch supported them! The provision of non gender-specific passports – X PASSPORTS – is still generally perceived a no-go area by government, at least in this country. All attempts to break down HMPO’s brick wall have been completely exhausted and the UK Supreme Court’s appalling judgment of December 2021 made clear that, despite ECHR Article 8 being engaged in my case, my/our rights are simply not important enough to bring an end to an evidently discriminatory policy. There would need to be a widespread public demand for X PASSPORTS before anything is likely to change under the current government and the demand is not there. Trans men and trans women generally want passports/ID to reflect their aligned gender. It will take either a more enlightened government [a coalition involving Greens and/or Lib-Dems] or Strasbourg upholding my claim and ‘shaming’ the UK into submission to see X PASSPORTS issued in the UK. Both of those scenarios, I’m very sad to say, could be several years away.

      Like

      Reply
      1. lz Avatar
        lz

        i’ve thought about it more and i think spaces themselves arent the important part, its that in their ruling they openly acknowledge and declare sex into three catagories.

        indeed they refused to directly define sex to avoid such arguments, but per their ruling having sex characteristics of the opposite sex excludes one from both male and female single sex facilities, and they conclude sex based spaces therefore require a third space. the state or function of that third space isn’t the important part, its that at least for me as an intersex person who will sometimes be assumed to be trans i find it impossible to see how this doesn’t apply to me. if i’m not male enough for the equality act anymore per the court and now am forced into this vague undefined third category, then how does the same not apply to say the road traffic act regarding sex for driving licenses?

        the underlying argument i’ve seen why i cannot have a third option on documents is that the uk doesn’t recognise a third sex category, but by this ruling on the equality act it clearly now has.
        if my medical record can read indeterminate sex, and the supreme court itself can tell me i’m neither male or female for the equality act, at what point is requiring m/f on a passport incompatible and inconsistent with existing life and law?
        if they want to “other” trans people then they at least should offer me the common decency of doing the bare minimum of complying with their own law when it comes to “other” people like myself.

        Like

Leave a comment