UK Supreme Court: No to gender-neutral passports

plodder

"I’m making the point though LB that the people who’s argument generally consists of “sex based upon science” and “biological reality” and all the rest of it, are unlikely to have ever opened a science textbook in their lives. They are perfectly willing to lean on scientific evidence when it suits their opinions, and reject scientific evidence when it doesn’t suit their opinions."

That's hardly a fair argument though. It could just as easily be thrown at the other side of the debate. What's the actual truth regardless? Science tells us that sex is highly predictable based on genetics. But, that's off topic here. I don't have any real problem with gender neutral passports, so long as we're saying it's gender and not sex.

This is what is being talked about? An 'x' in the sex column instead of 'm' or 'f'?

On many forms when the question about your nationality comes up I'm unsure what to put. If you grew up in a country other than the one you were born in you might understand my dilemma. I was always told you can choose and put whatever you like. Great, I thought, it doesn't really matter.

This activist pictured above decided instead that the option to choose whatever they liked made them feel, "it felt like I was in prison". I can't understand this and it seems like just something to say to get what you want.

I would have preferred not to answer the question at an early age, but being forced to put one or the other had no effect on me whatsoever and I never felt like I was in prison because of it.

If people can be non binary and need an 'x' for the sex column, why can't people opt for no nationality and also be able to fill in 'x' in that entry? I'm not advocating for x to be accepted as a nationality but highlighting the ridiculouslness of wanting the same for the sex column. You can have one or multiple nationalities but why not none? I can opt for an EU passport and say I'm British, but why can't I opt for an EU passport and say I'm not any nationality? Why do passports require a nationality at all? Am I being discriminated against?

The universal declaration of human rights guarantees a person the right to renounce their nationality but without one stateless people have no legal protection and no right to vote, they often lack access to education, employment, health care, registration of birth, marriage or death, and property rights. Clearly stateless people are being discriminated against, attacked, there are systemic injustices against them.

Here's the UN calling for the genocide of stateless people. https://www.unhcr.org/en-ie/ending-statelessness.html

Timberrrrrrrr

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118363798#Comment_118363798

Genocide? Seriously?

Annasopra

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118363819#Comment_118363819

No. You cant take that seriously. The UN didnt call for genocide ffs.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118360393#Comment_118360393

It’s an entirely fair point because it’s exactly what they do. Consider another example of racial purists who rely on DNA profiling as evidence of their racial purity, who undermine their own argument about the validity of the testing when someone gets a result they don’t like. Essentially, there’s something wrong with the test -

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/12/us/white-nationalists-dna-tests.html

How many people who make the argument about the importance of biological markers, do you imagine have ever undergone sex testing themselves? I would suggest the answer is not too many of them, if any at all. If they had, they’re much more likely to receive results which they won’t like.

It’s true that’s irrelevant here though, but the reason it’s irrelevant is because legal documents such as birth certificate, marriage certificate, passports, etc - they’re all documents which record biographical details, not biological details. They are biographical details which are self-reported, and the certificates provide supporting evidence. It doesn’t mean for example that in countries where same-sex marriages are not recognised in law, that a couple are not married. Their marriage is not recognised under the laws of that country, in the same way as X on a passport under the Sex/Gender heading has legal recognition in some countries, and no legal recognition in other countries.

What’s happening in the UK is that people are campaigning to have alternatives to the binary classification of gender recognised by the Home Office in the UK in the same way as it is in countries like Australia -

https://www.passports.gov.au/getting-passport-how-it-works/documents-you-need/sex-and-gender-diverse-passport-applicants

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118362988#Comment_118362988

I don’t think even a second reading of my previous post would be helpful here, because I never said it doesn’t matter. I did say -

Those documents are perfectly legal, and can indeed be used as supporting documentation for a range of purposes, one of which includes either applying for a new passport, or changing the name on your passport.

I also said -

Identification mismatching on documents doesn’t render those documents legally invalid. It just means the people to whom you are presenting those documents does not consider them valid proof of identity for the purposes for which you are intending to use them. Happens regularly with banks, doesn’t mean the documents are illegal, it just means they are insufficient evidence of proof of identity according to the bank’s policies of what they will and won’t accept as evidence of proof of identity

And gave the example of a case in the UK where a woman who wanted to change the name on her bank account was met with opposition in spite of the documents she presented being legally valid. As it turned out, it was the bank employee who was unaware of their employers policies.

We’re not back to anything as we’ve never left the point where the information which is contained on a passport should be an accurate representation of the persons identity. As it stands in the UK, the current options do not allow for an individual to accurately represent their identity, because they are restricted to one of only two options. That’s precisely what has created the current clusterfcuk.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118364578#Comment_118364578

Who is they exactly? It’s a bit of a stretch to compare “racial purity” with beliefs around the dimorphic nature of biological sex. Are you actually hinting that people who believe there are only two sexes probably also believe in racial purity, and are therefore white supremacists? Otherwise, what have they got to do with each other?

That Australian government page you linked to is interesting because it’s a great example of where this fuzzy thinking around sex and gender can lead:

“The gender markers we use are: M (male), F (female) and X (non-binary/indeterminate/intersex/unspecified/other).”

The X is conflating two completely different things: gender which can be non-binary, and sex which for over 99.998% of us is observed at birth and is binary. The tiny tiny number of intersex people can still be accommodated in that binary even if their sex that was observed/assigned at birth turned out to be wrong.

You also made the point that very few people who believe in biological markers have been tested themselves. That’s true because for almost all of us, we don’t need to be tested. We know what sex we are already.

I think it is bogus science that has led us to this ‘sex as a spectrum’ situation where it’s widely believed that the number of exceptions to the sex binary is much greater than it really is.

ah sure its all normal and grand..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10335475/A-transgender-father-gave-birth-son-revealed-nurses-misgender-him.html

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118364809#Comment_118364809

’They’ is the people whom I was referring to in my earlier post whom I characterised as follows, a characterisation which you pointed out was unfair in your view, and so I explained my reasoning for it -

the people who’s argument generally consists of “sex based upon science” and “biological reality” and all the rest of it, are unlikely to have ever opened a science textbook in their lives. They are perfectly willing to lean on scientific evidence when it suits their opinions, and reject scientific evidence when it doesn’t suit their opinions.

The reason I made the analogy between people who argue biological purity, and people who argue racial purity, is because essentially their arguments are the same, and their same arguments are undermined by the results of tests which they claim support their argument, as evidenced by the fact that the assumptions they long believed about themselves turned out to be undermined by their own standards of evidence.

The point isn’t that anyone decides whether they need to be tested or not, it’s that those people who argue with claims that science proves them right because chromosomes, have never actually subjected themselves for sex testing. They’re relying on their own instincts and senses as much as anyone else is. As much as to say that they have no interest in science, they’re only interested in evidence which supports their point of view. It’s fine to say you know what sex you are already, but without supporting evidence by way of sex testing, your declaration is as legitimate, or indeed illegitimate, as anyone else’s declaration of what they know of themselves to be true.

The binary classification of sex as it pertains to humans still holds in terms of scientific knowledge and medical standards, as distinct from other sex determination and classification systems used to classify other species in biology besides humans (there’s a few), so I don’t imagine anyone need get their knickers in a twist just yet about the end of human civilisation as we know it.

The point I was making in giving the Australian passports as an example is that just as Lord Reed suggests - In law, sex and gender are terms that are used interchangeably, and it’s accepted that both mean and refer to the same concept. That’s all that’s relevant in the context of legal recognition of sex or gender, as opposed to the idea that the appliance of science (and badly at that), is the only relevant criteria in determining standards which have no basis in science, but are entirely based upon classification standards created by humans, in much the same way as laws are created which govern a society.

Let’s not pretend that science invented laws too, or that people didn’t determine sex for themselves long before science was ever developed. Most people still use the same crude techniques to determine sex as opposed to any notions of compelling the entire population to undergo sex testing, because that’s the only way you could be absolutely certain that what you’re filling out on your passport is biological fact, and not just what you believe about yourself.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118366140#Comment_118366140

More false pseudoscientific hogwash; the same kind of verbal acrobatic nonsense we see with theological students trying to explain the Holy Trinity.

Dogmatism and adherence to a belief, in spite of the best available evidence, is one of the strongest hallmarks of religion. Not science, religion.

And like all mainstream religions, science is held hostage - manipulated, contorted, and twisted beyond all recognition to support the theory. Because all that matters to some, is "the Theory", and not the facts.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118366217#Comment_118366217

Riiiiight…

Ok Father Eskimo 😒

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118368603#Comment_118368603

Forgive me, I assumed you were being reasonable and that I must be picking you up wrong, that you couldn’t actually be suggesting that presenting conflicting evidence wouldn’t be an issue.

Of course it would be an issue, it’s for this very reason that the gender recognition act exists in Irish law so that people may apply for a certificate which provides evidence of their identity when applying for things like passports, driver’s license, and yes, opening a bank account, changing their bank account details, or applying for a mortgage or a loan.

In those circumstances yes, presenting their old birth certificate and their new passport as evidence of their identity IS going to cause issues. It doesn’t mean either form are legally invalid, it simply means that for the purposes of identification, the bank may refuse the application because the forms identify two different individuals!

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118368625#Comment_118368625

Omg like… read the post again. I wasn’t making any correlation between sex and race. I was pointing to the fact that for racial purists, some of them were surprised by the results of a test which they were sure would confirm their identity.

In the same way - biological purists who advocate that the only way anyone can be certain of their identity is by means of sex testing - they too might well be surprised that the test results would not confirm what they always believed about their own identity. It can happen in the most unexpected and unfortunate circumstances, and it has real-world consequences -

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

https://amp.scmp.com/news/people-culture/article/3125197/woman-china-went-doctor-about-hurt-ankle-only-be-told-she-was

I’m neither rubbishing the generally accepted practice of visual observation to determine sex, nor am I rubbishing science. My point is, and always has been, that for the smart alecs who bleat on about chromosomes and “biological reality” and all the rest of it, it is THEY who are talking rubbish, because science does not support their opinions. They’re willing to accept evidence which supports their opinions, and unwilling to accept the same standard of evidence when it conflicts with their opinions about “biological reality”.

The point being that they themselves would be unwilling to undergo sex testing, because of the possibility of discovering something about themselves that conflicts with what they’ve always been comfortable in believing about themselves, and if they’re not willing to undergo sex testing to verify their identity, then they cannot expect anyone else should have to undergo sex testing in order to verify their identity. Self-identification is sufficient for everyone, and it holds everyone to an equal standard.

That’s why the challenge in the UK was taken, because the UK Home Office only allows for a choice between two gender identities on it’s passport forms, and anyone else is compelled to lie about their identity in order to satisfy those conditions if they wish to apply for a UK passport.

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118366140#Comment_118366140

"The binary classification of sex as it pertains to humans still holds in terms of scientific knowledge and medical standards, as distinct from other sex determination and classification systems used to classify other species in biology besides humans (there’s a few), so I don’t imagine anyone need get their knickers in a twist just yet about the end of human civilisation as we know it."

I agree on the binary classification of sex

"The point I was making in giving the Australian passports as an example is that just as Lord Reed suggests - In law, sex and gender are terms that are used interchangeably, and it’s accepted that both mean and refer to the same concept."

But, if sex is binary as you said above, then how can it refer to the same concept? Gender is non-binary, but sex is binary. How do you reconcile that? A good example of that muddle is associating that X with intersex people. It's much more likely that intersex people will identify as, and should be recognised as either male or female, not as something in between.

Also, you seem to be saying that if we take biological sex seriously, then all of us needs to be tested, so our sex can be "proven". Well, most of us are "assigned" a sex at birth. That's a test we know to be 99.998% accurate.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118373743#Comment_118373743

And a Merry Christmas to you too 😁

It doesn’t really require careful reading to understand that I was speaking of sex and gender being used interchangeably within the context of law, which is what this case was concerned with.

In science, sex and gender refers to two different concepts - sex within the context of biology, and gender within the context of psychology - the scientific study of behaviour and the mind. There is some attempted overlap between the two different concepts within the context of evolutionary psychology, but the concept of evolutionary psychology itself has largely been dismissed as pseudoscientific nonsense, quite rightly IMO as it is still largely dependent upon its proponents ideas of promoting sex stereotypes upon which ideas about gender are based.

The term “intersex” is a bit of a misnomer IMO, as you rightly point out they are still one sex or the other and conform to the binary classification of sex. That’s still distinct from classification of gender, or as you suggest - what people identify as themselves.

Only those people who regard biological sex as the most important factor in determining rights accorded in law based upon biological sex need take a test to determine their biological sex. No such test however is required of anyone in making a statutory declaration of one’s sex or gender for the purposes of applying for a passport or any other area in law where all is required is a statutory declaration of either one’s sex or gender. Simply having one’s sex recorded at birth is not a test, it’s an observation and classification which is based upon sex stereotypes - essentially either an inny or an outy, nothing particularly scientific about it, as the method existed long before scientific evidence began to show that biology wasn’t as clear cut so to speak as was previously considered an accurate means to determine sex.

Even if I were to accept your argument to justify the current situation as being suited to 99.99% of people, it still permits discrimination against the 0.01% who do not acknowledge or adhere to the concept of gender. Think of it as being similar to people who are non-religious. It’s probably easier then to see why for a person who is non-religious, presenting their only choices as being between one religion and another for the purposes of the education of their children, might be an issue. The fact that it suits the majority is not a sufficient justification to deny people whom the current paradigm doesn’t suit, the same rights as everyone has already. Similarly, the same is true of gender. Fortunately for that tiny minority of people, equality legislation prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, which also applies to people of no religion in that they too are protected from discrimination.

The Supreme Court decision in the UK purposely very narrowly interpreted existing legislation relating to Human Rights law in order to come to the conclusions it did, which I do completely understand, though I don’t necessarily agree with their interpretation. Essentially they were of the opinion that given there was no guidance from Parliament, and no guidance from the ECHR in terms of case law which would indicate that they would disagree with the current circumstances, the Supreme Court were of the opinion that the UK was within it’s right to maintain the current system. The UK are not required to go above and beyond what is required of them in accordance with international Human Rights law. They could do, if they wanted, as Ireland has done, but they weren’t required to.

The judgement itself makes for interesting reading, and certainly if you can read the Daily Mail article in the opening post, you can read this -

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2020-0081-judgment.pdf

It’s also worth noting the recent publication of the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee in which they refer to the lack of legal recognition of people who are non-binary in point 222 -

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmwomeq/977/report.html#heading-8

If you imagine there’s any difficulty in reconciling sex with gender in law, or issues with the terms being used interchangeably, then the recent US Supreme Court decision re: Bostock v Clayton County is well worth a gander -

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/attorneys-criticize-conservatives-who-slammed-gorsuchs-landmark-opinion-on-textualism-grounds-saying-the-quiet-part-out-loud/

Because of it’s similar argument against discrimination based upon sex, this case was heard at the same time and the decision of the Supreme Court also applied -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.G._%26_G.R._Harris_Funeral_Homes_Inc._v._Equal_Employment_Opportunity_Commission

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118378705#Comment_118378705

Okay, but it would be strange for words to have different meanings in contexts like law as opposed to science. Law regulates what we do and science affects our lives massively too. So, law is strongly influenced by science. You can’t really separate them. Words have to have the same meaning across any context where they need to be precise and coherent.

For what it’s worth, the reason I replied to this thread was that it was suggested that the number of people whose biological sex is outside the normal male/female binary, could be a few percent of the population. That’s a suggestion I have heard before and I think is based on dubious science. The real number is much much smaller than that. That’s my point. So, I’m not here to argue against gender based rights like non-binary passports. I’m just saying that some of the things people are saying about biological sex aren’t correct. Sex is a highly predictable and stable human characteristic.

Having your sex recorded at birth is a test. It might be primitive but it’s the same test that was once used at the Olympic Games to stop men competing as women and is based on observation of primary sex characteristics and it’s also quite accurate. It’s controversial doing such a test on adults, but not really on new-born babies, though there are better, less intrusive ways of testing for sex nowadays. I guess you don’t need a test for gender because gender is self declared and therefore testing is not necessary.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118379794#Comment_118379794

It’s not strange at all that words have different meanings depending upon the context in which they are used. That some people would wish to limit words to definitive meaning according to their understanding of language is nothing new, but it’s simply a fact of language that words can have different meanings depending upon the context in which they are used, in any language, not just in English, not just in law, and not just in science.

There is no real number of people who have disorders of sex development because wouldn’t you know it the terminology keeps changing for one thing, and secondly any figures will only ever be based upon estimates as opposed to actually being able to quantify the number of individuals in any given population with disorders of sex development, notwithstanding the number of people who aren’t even aware of the fact that they have a disorder of sex development, until such a time as it may be inadvertently discovered, if it is ever discovered at all.

Recording sex at birth isn’t a test, it’s simply a record of the details of the birth. The sex testing used at the Olympics was for the purposes of determining eligibility to enter into the womens category in competitions. What you’re referring to wasn’t any more accurate than the observation of one’s sex when they were born. The Barr Body test which replaced it wasn’t particularly accurate either, nor was the DNA testing which replaced that, and in reality it was causing a lot more issues than addressing the single issue it was purported to be addressing, and that’s why it too, was eventually abandoned.

Currently in UK law as I pointed out already, there is no requirement for anyone to undergo sex testing in order to confirm their sex when applying for a passport, and it’s a good thing too that people are not required to undress at the security gates in international airports so the security staff can have a good gawk to determine whether they are or aren’t the sex they claim to be on their passport. That sort of determination merely by visual inspection is the sort of thing that fuels this sort of idiocy -

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59753535.amp

And Mme. Macron is not the first victim of such stupid conspiracy theory nonsense either, Michelle Obama was subject to the same sort of accusatory nonsense a few years back from quacks with similar political views as those of their French counterparts.

One eyed Jack

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118380399#Comment_118380399

You’re right, I can’t see what you’re interpreting as me conceding my original position, would’ve been handy if you’d explained what you were referring to.

In the absence of any explanation, I’ll take a guess that you mean I understand the decision, but like I said - I disagree with the narrow interpretation of law by the Court. They could have easily determined that the appellant had been discriminated against on the basis of sex, as was the conclusion in the case before the US Supreme Court which relied on a fairly basic understanding of sex.

I still say Lord Reeds conclusions were pretty weak sauce, particularly the point where he noted that the appellant still conformed to stereotypes based upon sex -

41. By comparison, the appellant is free to use any forename, and in fact uses a name which is in use for both men and women. The appellant makes no complaint about the law governing birth certificates. In relation to proof of identity, it has been explained that such evidence is not frequently required, and that the appellant is under no obligation to use a passport for that purpose. Perhaps most importantly, there is not the obvious discrepancy between the appellant’s physical appearance and the “F” marker in the appellant’s passport that there was between the feminine appearance of the applicant in B v France and her male identity papers.

Instead of a decision which interpreted the written word as law and all persons are entitled to its benefit, the decision of the Supreme Court in the UK determined that only 99.9% of people are entitled to its benefit, with no legal recognition of people who do not conform to stereotypes based upon sex, as recognising those people in law would create something of an administrative headache for the Home Office.

In a sense though, the Supreme Court has done those people a favour because without exhausting all domestic remedies, they would not have qualified to take their case to the ECHR where a decision may well force the UK to recognise the legal status of people who are non-binary, something which the Women and Equalities Committee have been pointing out for years, something which Caroline Noakes MP has recently come under fire for following the publication of the Womens and Equalities Committee report -

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/23/why-am-i-being-abused-for-trying-to-improve-gender-recognition-process

226. When the previous Government launched its consultation into the reform of the Gender Recognition Act, it explicitly stated that one of its aims was to gather evidence to further advance equality for non-binary and intersex people. The LGBT Action Plan also made a commitment to improve the Government’s understanding of the issues faced by non-binary people. The Government should clarify what the barriers are that prevent it from allowing non-binary people to be legally recognised. The Government should lay out reasons in writing to this Committee at the earliest possible opportunity, within a maximum of 12 weeks. The Equality and Human Rights Commission should undertake research in this area so that proposals to allow for legal recognition of non-binary people can be brought forward during this parliament.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmwomeq/977/report.html#heading-8

plodder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118380353#Comment_118380353

Yes, words can have different meanings but in contexts where they need to be coherent eg in science and law, then they should be coherent and clearly defined. Otherwise, we end up as you suggest, unable to say how many people there are with disorders of sex development, because terminology keeps changing and nobody agrees on what a disorder of sex development is, or even if such a thing exists.

The same fuzziness leads to strange things like I pointed out earlier with the Australian passport office suggesting intersex people might use X instead of M or F for their sex. That’s why we need clear definitions of some things like sex and we shouldn’t be confusing gender with sex.

“Recording sex at birth isn’t a test, it’s simply a record of the details of the birth. The sex testing used at the Olympics was for the purposes of determining eligibility to enter into the womens category in competitions. What you’re referring to wasn’t any more accurate than the observation of one’s sex when they were born.”

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. First you say recording sex at birth isn’t a test and then you acknowledge that sex testing at the Olympics wasn’t any more accurate than observation of sex at birth. But, it’s the same thing - i.e. observation of sex, and is a test. See the following from citizensinformation.ie about birth notification forms which include an objective determination of sex as either male, female, or indeterminate (rarely).

A Birth Notification Form (Form BNF/01) is usually completed with the parent(s) by hospital staff (in the case of hospital births), or by a doctor or midwife (in home births), to guarantee that correct and accurate information is recorded.

You’re also saying sex testing isn’t very accurate. What is that based on exactly? It depends how you define sex. Though you must have a clear enough definition yourself to say that 99.99% is not very accurate. So, I think it's a bit inconsistent to say this, while also saying we don't know how many people there are with DSDs because terminology around the definition of sex keeps changing.

“Currently in UK law as I pointed out already, there is no requirement for anyone to undergo sex testing in order to confirm their sex when applying for a passport”

But, there never has been a requirement for sex testing like that beyond what is in your birth certificate, which I think is or used to be an objective determination of sex. It's not clear to me what the point of biological sex on a passport is, and if it's not needed and there is a strong demand for self-declared gender, then it's fine with me to replace sex with gender, so long as we are clear what it means.

I think it's silly to give credence to conspiracy theories. People deciding themselves whether someone looks male or female is not the same as an objective determination of a person's sex at birth.

AllForIt

Christie says they has no gender at all.

This suggests 'gender' resides in the brain, and has nothing whatsoever to do with one's physical body.

If it's true for Christie then it's true for everyone.

Good luck making laws based on that theory.

That idea is what is called 'Gender Ideology'.

There is no science that shows one has a gendered psychological brain at all, and that's for 'cis' people, no mind for people who say they don't have a gendered brain or one that doesn't match their body.

What is notable about this case is that Christie rejects their female body - but of course there is no such thing as a no-gender body. So they are saying they are something that doesn't physically exist. And I do find it odd they had a hysterectomy to create a no-gender body, something that isn't real. So it's like they are 'genetically engineering' a no-gender body.

I can't fathom what difference it makes what body parts you have even if you think you have no gender, that would compel you to get rid of the sex parts, From what I've read they are not trivial procedures. Something about this just doesn't make any sense.

I see Christie is in a relationship with a man. What drives that if you have no gender. How is she attracted to the opposite sex if they have no gender.

What is far more plausible is that Christie has psychological issues where she rejects her sexed body rather than they have no gender at all.

If you agree they have no gender at all, then you agree with gender ideology. Which I don't.

John Doe1

If gender is just a social construct as they say, why exactly do these people need chemicals put into their body and plastic surgery? Seems a bit contradictory

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118378705#Comment_118378705

Only those people who regard biological sex as the most important factor in determining rights accorded in law based upon biological sex need take a test to determine their biological sex. No such test however is required of anyone in making a statutory declaration of one’s sex or gender for the purposes of applying for a passport or any other area in law where all is required is a statutory declaration of either one’s sex or gender. Simply having one’s sex recorded at birth is not a test, it’s an observation and classification which is based upon sex stereotypes - essentially either an inny or an outy, nothing particularly scientific about it, as the method existed long before scientific evidence began to show that biology wasn’t as clear cut so to speak as was previously considered an accurate means to determine sex.

Even if I were to accept your argument to justify the current situation as being suited to 99.99% of people, it still permits discrimination against the 0.01% who do not acknowledge or adhere to the concept of gender.

The problem with this argument is that, if all non-binary were to get tested and found to be either XX or XY, then you'd be back to square one.