Has @ons thought this through ?....
The history of sex and gender is that once you unclip from reality things unravel much further than the officials that did the un-clipping anticipated, and each place which is unclipped accelerates unravelling elsewhere
The history of sex and gender is that once you unclip from reality things unravel much further than the officials that did the un-clipping anticipated, and each place which is unclipped accelerates unravelling elsewhere
https://twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1359875526261882887
In this case ONS say "sex" in the census can be what it says on your passport.
Meanwhile Christie Elan Cane is going to the Supreme Court to argue for "X" passports. It's not inconceivable that they might win
elancane.livejournal.com
Meanwhile Christie Elan Cane is going to the Supreme Court to argue for "X" passports. It's not inconceivable that they might win
elancane.livejournal.com
Currently changing sex on a passport requires a doctor's note that a person is changing gender permanently.
An X passport wouldn't require this. It could just require ticking a box saying I would like X on my passport.
An X passport wouldn't require this. It could just require ticking a box saying I would like X on my passport.
Because an X passport doesn't really mean that a person is "non binary" but just that they do not want their sex recorded.
It's not at all inconceivable that 10% upwards of younger age cohorts would tick this box because "gender is a spectrum "
It's not at all inconceivable that 10% upwards of younger age cohorts would tick this box because "gender is a spectrum "
So the ONS might think they are making a controlled step for a small group of individuals suddenly find they have lost the clarity on sex for a significant slice of the population, and they can't claw it back.
What then?
What then?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
