Log in

Nov. 24th, 2015

Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure


Within three weeks of tabling by Norman Lamb MP on 5 November, EDM 660 has already achieved the support of 30 MPs across all of the more significant national and regional parties in the UK. I have received notes of encouragement and support from MPs who were signatories to EDM 47 in the last session who cannot sign EDM 660 because they now hold Leadership or Shadow Cabinet positions. An excellent start especially given there was a mini-recess shortly after tabling.

EDM 47 achieved 80 signatures in the last parliamentary session and it is possible, highly probable even, that EDM 660 can exceed 100 signatures despite that tabling took place more than halfway through the current session.

With deepest thanks again to Norman Lamb for taking on the mantle.

The W&E Select Committee will publish its findings from trans* equality inquiry in due course and there was never a better time to keep up the pressure on Government and HM Passport Office.

If your local representative MP is not on the list of signatories then please contact them and urge that they support the motion

Let’s aim for EDM 660 to reach 50 signatures before the Xmas recess (17 December 2015)!

All MP contact details can be found here: http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

On a principle of legitimate identity as a fundamental human right.

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered


Nov. 6th, 2015

Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure


With many thanks to Norman Lamb MP for tabling new parliamentary Early Day Motion (EDM).


That this House recognises the support expressed during the last parliamentary session to address the issues faced by people whose identities are neither male nor female; believes that people are compromised and diminished as a result of inappropriate gender references on their personal identity information; acknowledges that all passports issued by HM Passport Office are currently gender-specific and it is therefore not possible to obtain a British passport that contains no reference to gendered identity; understands that the International Civil Aviation Organisation standard specification for machine-readable travel documents (ICAO Document 9303) permits X (unspecified) alongside F (female) and M (male) under a mandatory sex category; notes that citizens of Australia and New Zealand are able to obtain a non gender-specific X passport and that India, Nepal and Pakistan make provision for their citizens when neither M nor F are appropriate; further believes that similar provision is needed in the UK where current discriminatory policy denies non-gendered and bi-gendered people a legitimate identity; and therefore urges that the Government and HM Passport Office make non gender-specific X passports available in the UK to people who do not identify with a particular gender.

This is the latest of a series of parliamentary EDMs tabled by Liberal Democrat MPs over three sessions. EDM 47 was tabled by Julian Huppert in the last session and gained the support of 80 MPs. It is fair to say the consciousness of government was awakened. Now we need for EDM 660 to achieve not less than 100 signatures!

Time again to contact your MP! I am asking everyone who is affected by this issue, everyone who knows someone who is affected by this issue and indeed everyone who cares about this issue to contact your local parliamentary representative and urge them to express their support for this issue by signing EDM 660.

You can find your local MP’s details here http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/.

Footnote: 28 October 2015, fourth oral evidence session for government trans* inquiry. When asked by Chair Maria Miller whether my earlier comment about the discredited trans* equality action plan being “all plan and no action” was fair, Equalities Minister Nicky Morgan responded that it was not.

Well she would, wouldn’t she?

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Oct. 15th, 2015

Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure


I survived my appearance before Select Committee earlier this week. To be fair, it was not a bad experience and the committee were engaging on many issues raised during two panel sessions that took place that morning.


It is too soon to speculate on whether this really is the overdue breakthrough on ‘X’. I have been let down too many times in the past to get my hopes up but feeling more confident that Government is finally getting the message with regards to the extraordinary level of ‘specific detriment’ one suffers when one’s identity is not recognised as legitimate.

In the meantime my intention is to proceed my legal case against HM Passport Office for its disgusting mishandling of ‘X’ Passports on the basis the issue could be buried along with the fundamental rights of those affected by this issue.

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Oct. 11th, 2015

Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure


I’ve been invited to attend the third oral evidence session for the Commons Select Committee trans* inquiry scheduled to take place on Tuesday 13 October 2015. I am on the second of two panels sitting in the course of the third session which is due to start at 10:30am with the second panel at 11:30am approximately. The earlier panel will discuss how current law impacts upon trans* equality and the second panel are there to recount our ‘personal experiences’ of being trans* in the UK.

Personal experiences!!!!

So much detriment – and with so little time! Where do I start?

I shall undoubtedly find a few specific examples to provide for the benefit of the Committee but how does one cram more than 20 years of social invisibility, exclusion and marginalisation while having one’s identity and one’s very existence denied by one’s own democratically elected government into a quartile section of one hour?

It will be an interesting experience, given that I’ve been critical of Committee Chair, former Equalities Minister Maria Miller on many occasions in the past and I take nothing back.

I’ve been far too busy to get anxious and, cannot believe I am saying this, I am looking forward to it!

The oral sessions are broadcast live on Parliament’s own TV channel. I understand that Tuesday’s session should be available for replay shortly thereafter http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/women-and-equalities-committee/news-parliament-2015/evidence-transgender-inquiry-third-15-16/.

I will update here when I get a moment after (if?) I emerge from the other side.

I want to thank again my friends at K&L Gates who arranged for submission to be presented on my behalf due to the fact I was about to go away when the inquiry was announced at short notice.

And many thanks to everyone who’s been supportive during a particularly frantic period.

Until then, will leave you with transcript from a floor debate that took place in the Commons in January 2014 when Maria Miller, responding as Equalities Minister for the former coalition government, was asked what assessment she had made of the feasibility of issuing non gender-specific official documents to people who do not identify as a particular gender. The question was asked in the context that it corresponded with the tabling of a series of parliamentary EDMs in support of ‘X’ Passports that were signed by a number of Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs during the two previous parliamentary sessions (signatories that include the current leaders of both parties). Looks familiar? http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2014-01-30b.1003.6

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered


Sep. 3rd, 2015

Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure


I have many reservations about the current Commons Select Committee inquiry into trans* equality. Not least because the inquiry is led by former Equalities Minister Maria Miller who oversaw the previous coalition administration’s abandonment of trans* issues.

After having been vocal in my criticism of Maria Miller on many occasions in the past, I am not about to lie and say that I have confidence this inquiry will properly address the issues that seriously blight the lives of many trans* people in the UK. Or that the procedure is anything more than lip service and a general repetition of HM Passport Office’s fake ‘review’ over the issuing of non gender-specific ‘X’ Passports in the UK.

This inquiry was announced without warning or fanfare, with little time given to respond and, crucially, the inquiry was right in the middle of the holiday season and its announcement came just as I was preparing to pack my bags and leave dismal London for a week in sunny Sorrento.

It was extremely fortunate that my friends at esteemed law firm K&L Gates offered to step in and present an excellent submission to the Committee on my behalf for which I thank them very much.


More recently it was announced the government inquiry would be divided into four separate and specific categories: Healthcare, Hate crime and transphobia, Issues affecting trans* youth and Issues affecting trans* people in the criminal justice system.

Aside from a complete lack of any reference to non-gendered issues (and I would estimate a considerably higher percentage of trans* people would identify themselves as being neither male nor female than would ever get caught up within the criminal justice system), the most basic and fundamental right of legitimate identity appears nowhere in any of this. Neither does there appear to be scope for discussion on the amendment of discriminatory legislation, nor is there real scope for the depathologisation of trans* issues (unless someone can raise under the ‘Healthcare’ category).
There is no reference to endemic trans* joblessness, nor trans* homelessness and the obvious connection between the two that ultimately leads directly to some trans* people ending up in the criminal justice system.

This is uninspiring to say the least.

I may ultimately be proved wrong in that my suspicions concerning the credibility of the process are unfounded but that remains to be seen. An exercise in listening or lip service? To reform or renege?

Over to you, Maria Miller………

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Aug. 27th, 2015

Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure


A brief update on the situation concerning NatWest’s ongoing failure to facilitate personal online banking facilities for its non-gendered customers https://www.nwolb.com/default.aspx?refererident=0F78B987E37AFE40D6F95643E49A2CC5E1211DA7&cookieid=101173&noscr=false&InnerPage=OLE&CookieCheck=2015-08-27T12:45:02.

RBS, parent company of NatWest, informs me that a software fix to remove NatWest’s unnecessary requirement that personal customers should enter a gender in order to register to receive online services was implemented in July but the fix had led to unforeseen problems relating to other areas of the online service and that the fix was promptly withdrawn.

I have been given a firm commitment by RBS that the bank will continue to work to resolve the issue however no specific date has been given as to when resolution will be achieved, except that more analysis needs to be done before another attempt to implement the essential change can be made, and that reimplementation will most likely not be until 2016.

I have responded and made clear to RBS the further delay in provisioning non-gendered customers’ access to its online banking services is unacceptable although, after having experienced several years of blanket negativity from previous executive administrations to do anything at all, I do believe there is now a genuine desire on the part of the current administration at RBS to resolve this issue.

I have also proposed that RBS remove ALL requirement for non-gendered customers to declare a gender across the board in its provision of goods and services, ie. that existing customers can amend records held by the bank and remove any inappropriate gendered reference they were forced to provide when the account was opened (as gendered trans* customers are able to amend their personal details), and that new customers are provided with alternative options such as “Other” or “Prefer not to say”.

Or, and this is my preference, that RBS should completely remove the irrelevant question of gendered roles from its banking procedures altogether because gender should not even enter the equation when it comes to provision of goods and services from within the commercial sector.

Contrary to protestations often made by banking organisations, there is absolutely NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT for banks to record their customers’ sex or gender (or lack thereof).


There will be an update very soon on legal challenge against HM Passport Office’s failure to conduct a proper review and its mishandling of ‘X’ Passports.

And a forthcoming update about that inquiry.

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Jul. 16th, 2015

Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure


It’s been quite a while since I posted – not much to say after devastating general election results that swept away much of the hard won support for ‘X’ Passports as the gateway to addressing the wider issues surrounding the legitimizing of non-gendered identity. While continuing my efforts and looking for inroads where the issue can be progressed under an overtly hostile right-wing administration for whom the T in LGBT is a minor irritation that can be ignored. It is not that I am having to start over again because the government cannot claim to be unaware of the issue. But it is a fact that many of those with the worst record on LGB (never mind the T) are still around and in positions of greater power and many allies who might (eventually) have challenged the Government over its abysmal failure to meet commitments that were made to the trans* community are gone. And with the truly dreadful Maria Miller chairing the parliamentary Commons Select Committee that was set up to scrutinize the work (pour over the failings) of her former department governing the ‘equalities’ portfolio, it does appear the lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

I do not relish the prospect of future engagement with people who occupy extraordinarily privileged positions of power and have knowingly and willingly been prepared to condemn those in my position to social invisibility and a life spent on the margins because (i) they are inherently deeply transphobic and (ii) they lack the intellectual capacity to grasp the issue.

Prior to GE 2015, it had not been my intention to follow-up EDM 47 that achieved the support of 80 sitting MPs in the last session. But a week – or a month or two – is a very long time and with some hesitation considered we do need to keep the momentum and build upon what was achieved. There will be another EDM tabling and I will again be asking everyone to get behind and contact your parliamentary representatives and aim once more for 100+ signatures. More to follow very soon.

HM Passport Office has not provided a substantive response to submission of the Clifford Chance Report earlier this year and we are in the process of moving on to the next stage. I am very pleased to inform that Blackstone Chambers are now involved and I’m confident we can launch a successful legal challenge against the UK passport authority’s failure and its mishandling of ‘X’ Passports. Again, more to follow in due course.

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Apr. 30th, 2015

Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure


I recently submitted questions to the leaders of both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in Q&A sessions for PinkNews. The leaders’ responses have been published and are predictably very much in line with what was said by representatives of both parties during PinkNews Debate on 19 March 2015.

For the Conservatives, the question and response from David Cameron:

Q – Christie Elan-Cane (Gender X passports): If you win a further term in government, what, if anything, would you do in order to rectify the situation for non-gendered and bi-gendered people in the UK who were desperately hoping the coalition government would follow the lead taken by governing authorities of Australia and New Zealand and permit the issuance of non gender-specific ‘X’ Passports to those who require them, and were very badly let down by your government in its first term of office as proposals in favour of ‘X’ Passports and the fundamental needs of those who require ‘X’ Passports were ignored?  Are you prepared to personally look towards addressing our situation, starting with reversal of the decision to reject provision of ‘X’ Passports?
A - I understand the concerns of people who want to have their gender recorded differently on their passport, but this is a complex issue, particularly given the risk that people might encounter difficulties with entry restrictions into other countries. We would want to consider these issues carefully, and study the experience of those countries which have done it before making any proposals for change.


I’m afraid I got no sense of any real commitment to address the issues surrounding non-gendered identity in this response and neither did I detect a will to deliver what is required on ‘X’ Passports. Others may disagree but it is the result of my having been kicked in the teeth far too many times, not least by the coalition government, while fighting to achieve legitimate identity that most people can take for granted that I cannot see this as anything other than out of sight and out of mind.

And Ed Miliband’s response for the Labour Party (with thanks to PN for presenting my lengthy question to the Opposition Leader in full):

Q – Christie Elan-Cane (Gender X passports): Labour Shadow Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper recently responded to a question at PinkNews Debate that concerned non gender-specific ‘X’ Passportsand the wider issue that surrounds ‘X’ Passports, i.e. the current lack of recognition and provision in general for non-gendered people in the UK.
It was acknowledged that existing ‘equalities’ legislation is out of date. Yvette Cooper pledged the Labour Party would conduct a “specific review” of policy and legislation governing trans* issues. I would argue that existing legislation has always failed and does continue to fail those of us whose identities cannot be defined as either male or female.
My question therefore, would Ed Miliband care to elaborate on the proposed measures outlined by the former Shadow Home Secretary, and would he confirm whether there is definitive intention that the Labour Party, if elected to govern, would not just ‘review’ the situation but would commit to change existing discriminatory passport policy and implement the issuing of ‘X’ Passports to those who require non gender-specific documentation without further delay?
A - We need to go much further to ensure that Britain is a country which respects different identities. It is over ten years since the Gender Recognition Act was passed and our review would take a thorough look at issues surrounding gender identity. The specific issue of ‘X’ Passports will form part of that, but I’m not going to pre-empt the conclusions of the review.


So, should the Labour Party win the general election, the most that has been definitively committed is more time wasted on another ‘review’ when what is required is affirmative action right now.

The responses from both party leaders echoed responses from their respective party representatives at PinkNews Debate when I presented an extended question:

Would your party commit to immediately introducing non gender-specific 'X' passports, and what will you do to address the wider issues facing lack of legal recognition for non-gendered people in the UK?

A reminder of PinkNews Debate where I present my question to the panel (at around 01:14:30 into the recording) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7b2L6nZl3uo

The Liberal Democrat Party and the Green Party both gave their unequivocal support for the introduction of ‘X’ Passports and this is indeed backed up through inclusion in their manifestos.

There is no such commitment from either of the two main political parties. There is a common perception that a left leaning Labour government would be more empathetic towards the issues I raise. Indeed EDM 47 was widely supported by Labour MPs from the backbench. The leadership however does not necessarily adhere to causes supported by the backbench and the leadership response is just too non-committal. There is a recognition that the legislation that they introduced (the Gender Recognition Act 2004) is out of date. But the Act was badly flawed in the first instance and this discriminatory and thoroughly nasty piece of legislation completely failed many of the people for whom it should have been there to protect. And I can never forget – nor can I forgive – the determined effort of the last Labour government to introduce compulsory ID cards at all cost that would have criminalised anyone who was not prepared to accept gendered references on their personal identity documentation. It will take a hell of a lot of effort for Labour to put this right.

David Cameron repeating the Conservative line that caution must be exercised because of the possibility that not all countries would recognise the validity of an ‘X’ Passport. This repetitive mantra has been expressed by the Home Office and by HM Passport Office in communications with myself and with other people as it has been repeated fervently in response to written and oral questions from a number of MPs. That travellers who hold ‘X’ Passports will (it is hoped) encounter problems when trying to use the document for the intended purpose. To those who know only too well the problems that occur through not having one’s identity recognised within either the law or society, that this potential ‘risk’ is being used by political leaders as an excuse to deny the provision of non gender-speciifc documentation is patronising and offensive in the extreme. It is as though we are being denied legitimate identity and are forced to accept inappropriate gendered references on our personal documentation by the governing bodies of the state for our own good!

At least we are no longer being referred to by Conservatives (and, in one instance, by a LibDem peer) as “insignificant” in number (an unquantified assumption that is almost certain to be false), and with the deeply unpleasant subliminal inference that we are insignificant as individuals. The perception that we were not important enough to really matter was made very clear. Representatives of the former government and HM Passport Office have since modified their tone however the excuses continue and our fundamental rights and needs as human beings are ignored. Without social visibility and provision in order to exercise our right to legitimate identity, we are non-citizens in this country. It has finally been accepted that we do exist, even the PM has acknowledged the issue to a certain degree, but we do not exist on paper!

Yes, we know there are countries where the regimes are truly repugnant even by UK standards. We are hardly likely to want to travel to those countries – but we would however like to be able to travel to places that we do want to visit and not feel embarrassed and misrepresented by our own identity documentation that we are required to present.

I have not fought for the ‘right’ to carry an ‘X’ Passport for all these years and not given a moment’s thought to the potential for encountering difficulties if, when it comes to using the document, I find its validity is questioned at other countries’ international border control.

And for this reason I have sought to engage with parliamentarians from other countries and push towards an international consensus on the recognition of the ‘X’ Passport as a valid travel document, both in terms of countries making provision for their own citizens and at international border control where the document is presented by inbound travellers.

I have effectively been doing the work that government and HM Passport Office should have done!

The fundamental right of legitimate identity for citizens who do not define as either male or female, validated through the provision of non gender-specific documentation by national governments, has been recognised by some within the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and I anticipate there will be an official statement to that effect in due course although I am not able to provide further details at present.

This right was more recently endorsed by the Council of Europe where the Parliamentary Assembly voted to adopt a resolution that specifically recommended that member states should consider including a third option in identity documents (Resolution 2048 (2015), Clause 6.2.4) http://assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/Xref-XML2HTML-en.asp?fileid=21736&lang=en


The Clifford Chance Report strongly presents the case for ‘X’ Passports in the UK. The report was delivered by courier to the Executive Office of HM Passport Office on 24 February 2015 http://www.cliffordchance.com/news/news/2015/03/clifford-chance-submits-report-to-hm-passport-office-calling-for.html.

HM Passport Office has so far failed to provide a proper response to my legal team. An update on further steps being taken will appear in due course.

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Apr. 28th, 2015

Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure


I have written before about the remarkable achievements of the Blue Diamond Society in Nepal.

After the terrible events of this week, Blue Diamond Society is struggling to provide assistance to Nepal’s LGBT citizens that includes the recognised “third gender”.


Funds are urgently required. Here are Blue Diamond Society’s bank details for those in a position to donate http://www.bds.org.np/donate-us/.


A curious quote from Colm Howard-Lloyd of LGBTory that relates to his party’s commitment to review the provision of non gender-specific ‘X’ passports for people who do not define as ‘M’ or ‘F’.

….our commitment to review the provision of gender neutral passports and other measures in support of transgender and intersex people….


I have never met Mr Howard-Lloyd although have been reliably informed by a mutual acquaintance that he is onside. LGBTory however, unlike its Labour and Liberal Democrat counterparts, did not respond once to my communications in respect of rallying support for EDM 47. And out of 80 signatures just four were Conservatives http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/47.

The Conservatives might now be attempting to backtrack after the outrage over their mishandling of this issue and with political and legal challenges directed at HM Passport Office, the most high profile being EDM 47, but I cannot allow either the party or its representatives to rewrite history.

There was no commitment under a Conservative led government, just a sham ‘review’ by HM Passport Office used as a means to close the door permanently on ‘X’ passport provision in the UK.

The facts as follows:

As part of the now discredited trans* equality action plan it was agreed that a review would be undertaken by former Identity and Passport Service (now HMPO). This would run from Jan 2012-Feb 2013.

My MP Simon Hughes challenged former Home Secretary Theresa May in a Written Parliamentary Question to publish the outcome of a highly secretive internal review (highly secretive = no review actually took place). This was after the former Identity and Passport Service had informed me, via Simon Hughes, of an unequivocal rejection of ‘X’ passports on the grounds there was effectively no requirement. The letter dated 09/04/13 was extremely offensive and the author appeared to go out of his way to be offensive. The letter was signed by former IPS CEO Sarah Rapson but it was later admitted had been written by a senior policy adviser.

Simon Hughes’ WPQ was tabled to the Home Secretary 21/05/13.
A reply was received on 13/06/13 by former Immigration Minister Mark Harper who undertook to publish the ‘review’ outcome in the parliamentary Library**:

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department
(1) if she will place in the Library a copy of the outcome and recommendations of the review undertaken by the Identity and Passport Service into the use of gender markings in the British passport; [157340]
(2) which external stakeholders have been consulted by the Identity and Passport Service into the use of gender markings in the British passport. [157342]

Mr Harper: The then Identity and Passport Service (now Her Majesty’s Passport Office) undertook an internal review into the use of gender markings in the British passport. The review primarily consisted of consideration of existing available material, together with liaison with a number of domestic and international stakeholders. As the nature of the contact with those stakeholders did not indicate any intention to publish their views, I will seek agreement from those stakeholders for their views to be published and, upon receipt of this consent, will place a copy of the full review in the Library of the House**.

I have, however, today placed a copy of the letter sent to the right hon. Member on 9 April 2013 that sets out the findings of the review and the agreed course of action to retain the existing use of ‘M’ and ‘F’ markings only in the passport. This letter has been redacted to remove personal information.

Several months passed before a hastily cobbled together document was placed in the Library of both Houses and published on the Parliament website.

Publication of ‘review outcome’ was preceded by a floor debate on 30/01/14 where Hugh Bayley MP (Labour) asked former Culture Secretary Maria Miller What assessment she has made of the feasibility of issuing non-gender-specific official documents to people who do not identify as a particular gender.

The response from Maria Miller: Non-gender is not recognised in UK law. The Equality Act 2010 protects people from discrimination if it arises from their being perceived as either male or female. We recognise that a very small number of people consider themselves to be of neither gender. We are not aware that that results in any specific detriment, and it is not Government policy to identify such people for the purpose of issuing non-gender-specific official documents.


And a WPQ from Stephen Doughty (Labour) to the Home Secretary on 03/02/14 To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment she has made of the introduction of gender non-specific passports; and what discussions she has had with international counterparts on this matter.

The reply from former Immigration Minister Mark Harper on the same day: Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO) undertook an internal review into the use of gender markers in the British passport. I am today placing a copy of that review in the Library of both Houses….


Later that week Mark Harper was sacked as Immigration Minister over a seemingly unrelated incident.

The publication of this document dispelled any doubts held by some as to the integrity of the ‘review’ process



While in between parliamentary sessions (and governments) at Westminster, a motion has been tabled in the Scottish Parliament in support of EDM 47 and the need for ‘X’ Passports.


For those reading this from north of the border, requesting you contact your local MSP and urge their support.

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Apr. 23rd, 2015

Fighting for legal and social recognition outside the gendered societal structure

Council of Europe adopts Resolution

Following on from yesterday, I am very pleased to report the Parliamentary Assembly has voted in favour to adopt a resolution on discrimination against trans* people in Europe, with 68 voting in favour, 23 against and 12 abstentions.

There was a proposed Amendment to remove Clause 6.2.4 which explicitly calls on member states to
consider including a third gender option in identity documents for those who seek it;

This amendment was thrown out with only 36 voting in favour as opposed to 60 against and 4 abstentions.

Here is the full text of Resolution document, which is ground breaking in many respects.


It is my hope and intention that national governments of Europe and around the world should not just ‘consider’ including a third option where it is perceived as necessary to provide an indication of a person’s gender but that it is recognised unequivocally the requirement to include a non gender-specific third option for all areas of identity documentation is ESSENTIAL.

The denial of existence is the worst act of discrimination by the gendered majority against the non-gendered

Latest Month

November 2015


RSS Atom
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow