The equality campaigner Christie Elan-Cane has lost a high court challenge calling on the UK government to offer gender-neutral passports.
Elan-Cane has said the UK’s passport process was “inherently discriminatory” to non-gendered people who are not able to use their “legitimate identity”.
Mr Justice Jeremy Baker did rule the government’s policy as unlawful, saying: “It will be necessary for the government to consider to what extent if any, in an age of increasing social and legal awareness and acceptance of the importance of issues relating to diversity and equality, the recording of an individual’s sex and/or gender in official and other documentation is justified.”
Currently, all UK citizens have to identify as either male or female on their passports.
Elan-Cane has been fighting on the issue since 1995 and said the court ruling was ignoring “denied civil rights”.
“I am bitterly disappointed that my case for the judicial review of the UK government’s discriminatory passport policy was not upheld. Not just for myself but for everyone who is compromised by this policy,” said Elan-Cane.
“The UK’s passport application process requires applicants to declare whether they are male or female. It is inappropriate and wrong that someone who defines as neither should be forced to make that declaration.”
Currently, ten countries offer a third option for passport holders. The list includes Australia, Denmark, Germany, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, India, Ireland, Nepal and Canada.
The “X” on passports from these countries stands for unspecified for people who do not identify as either male or female.
Elan-Cane was represented by law firm Clifford Chance.
“Gender identity is a fundamental part of an individual’s intimate, personal identity and X passports are a crucial step in the protection of the human rights of this group of individuals, who otherwise face an unacceptable choice between forgoing a passport, and making a false declaration, and using a passport which misrepresents their identity,” said Narind Singh, a partner at the firm.
“We are considering with Christie the possibility of seeking leave to appeal today’s judgment. We will continue to assist Christie in this fight. We welcome the court’s ruling that Christie will be entitled to scrutinise the outcome of the review that the government is undertaking, and we will continue to assist Christie to hold the government to account.”