UK Supreme Court: No to gender-neutral passports

Good.

People are well within their rights to believe whatever they want, but when they start trying to force their version of reality onto everyone else and science and law itself, then we have a very big problem.

Hopefully more of this kind of news follows suit.

I'm sick to the back teeth of hearing about the other side winning small battles here and there.

A concerted pushback is needed against this abject nonsense.

The UK supreme court has not said no to gender neutral passports. They just said there is no legislative backing to them. THis means that the politicians that promote it so much never bothered to legislate for gender neutral passports

Yeah, it's kinda like the gay marriage thing. Or the abortion thing. Lots of them happen in the background without anyone knowing about it. But yeah, let's be against it.

You really have to stop trying to reinforce everyone of your arguments about anything lgbt related with 'as a homosexual'. You do so as some sort of idiotic argument from authority and your anecdotal claims about the LGBT community being in agreement with you, there's nothing to say that you aren't inventing claims. Firstly, it's not a new phenomena for gender to be less clear than simply male and female. The concept of a third gender etc has been recognised across the globe at various points in history including in the present day. Gender is very much so a social construct so it's logical that the definition can be less than rigid.

And honestly, I love it that there are people such as yourself that likely hate that transgender rights and such are very much so viewed in a far more positive fashion light here than the UK.

Again, false.

I completely support transgender rights, and think that any person who feels they were born into the wrong physical body, should transition and live as the person they wish to be. Only a complete idiot would be against that.

But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about non-binary people (i.e. people who say they're neither male nor female).

That is not a biological reality. You are either XX or XY. Even the vast, vast, vast, vast majority of trans / non-binary are either XX or XY. True, a ridiculously tiny number of people have chromosomal disorders, but even most of them align without the non-binary reference.

In fact, many gender critical transgender women - such as Rose of Dawn and Blaire White - could not support trans- rights enough (and more power to them for that), but who are openly critical of gender self-identification, as happens with this passport issue.

So, this idea that it's trans- versus everyone else is wrong.

Many leading trans- voices are against gender self-identification / non-binary passports, too.

You could say, it's a binary issue. Both sides are critical.

If you're suggesting that non-binary philosophy is in the same category of religion, I agree with you.

And just like religion, I don't want individual religious beliefs to dictate the reality and political policy of the rest of society.

The difference is the subject at stake - and how it affects law / society.

So for instance, I've no issue whatsoever in personal religious belief - as you say, Catholic or Muslim or Hindu - it doesn't bother me at all. But if there was a manifest movement where any of these minority groups forced me to adhere to their ways / interpretation of life, then yes, I'd have an issue.

Similarly, I've no issue if someone wants to identify as agender, astralgender, and the infinity number of other genders that could conceivably be created. But I do have an issue if they force me to believe that there are more than 2 sexes, and that if I don't believe that biological reality, then there's something disordered about my thinking. There, I draw a line.

I also draw a line if they want the rest of society / government / science to agree to their anti-biological perspectives.

I hope the distinction is clear.

Jesus.

I've explained this thrice now.

I'm in favour of same-sex marriage, abortion, and trans- rights. I could not agree more with either of these three rights.

What I don't accept is that "non-binary" exists; that special passports need to be created to accommodate the "agendered" in society, and so on.

And again, it's not just my view. Many prominent trans- women (look them up: Blaire White; Rose of Dawn; Debbie Hayton) agree with me and other LGBT people, too.

Furthermore, Olympic athletes who now identify as trans-, such as Caitlyn Jenner, agree with me. The ITV trans- contributor, India Willoughby, agrees with me.

This isn't a "binary" issue.

You have LGBT people; you have trans- people; and you have non-LGBT people agreeing on the same front.

There's nothing surprising about this, either.

The state is accepting the logic, and from it follows many consequences.

That's the problem.

What matters is the question: "Is this right?"; or, "Does this conform to the expected standards of evidence?".

Let me reframe the question: do you think it's acceptable for an Irish passport to have the words "Astralgender" listed on the document?

I'm against "God" in the constitution as I am against "non-binary" appearing there; both are religious ideas, bereft of evidence; and which have no part to play in Irish society at large.

You can believe whatever you want - religious or social. Just don't force the rest of us to believe it. It's really not a difficult thing to follow.

Objectivity and science matters, that's why.

What we call ourselves in our spare time is another issue, and people can do as they wish and I respect that.

But biological sex exists. We can dispense with that reality with abandon if we wish. But we cannot pretend there aren't consequences to throw biology and evidence out with the proverbial bathwater.

Nigel Farage's press secretary is posting about the importance of science and objectivity...

Parodic.

Wrong side.