Follow @fairplaywomen for live tweets and reaction from the Supreme Court today. Judges hear an appeal to allow people who identify as non-binary to put an X in the sex box on their passport /1
All sounds pretty harmless doesn't it. But beware. It has the potential to undermine women's rights because it opens the door to people claiming they are 'sexless'. /2
We've seen this before with transgender issues. The concepts of gender identity & sex get conflated.

It starts out with "a man can identify as a woman". Next its claimed that humans can *actually* change sex and a penis can be a female sex organ. And only transphobes disagree /3
It starts out with the idea that "a woman is anyone who feels like a woman". Next thing we are told is that sex is just a feeling not a biological reality, and only bigot disagree /4
And now, its the idea that some people can identify as neither male or female. That's fine, but not when that turns into the claim that some humans don't have a sex at all, when clearly everyone does /5
X on passports is the first step the state agreeing some people don't have a sex. Why does this matter to women and girls?

Sex based rights depend on everyone having a sex and following rules and customs based on sex /6
Women need to undress in private and in safety - so we need a policy that clearly says NO MALES in women's changing rooms.

Women need access to sports that are fair and safe - so we need rules that clearly says NO MALES in women's sports /7
All that gets undermined if some males can say they don't have a sex - so these rules don't apply to them. They don't even have to try to look like women. Just keep their beard and say they aren't men now! /8
This case isn’t really about an individual’s right to present as non-binary on a passport.

It's using the courts to force the UK to reshape how society operates.

It that's going to change then we all need to be part of that debate /9
We need to understand pros and the cons. The winners and the losers.

This must be done through public consultation and parliament and NOT by order from a court.

Read more here /10

fairplayforwomen.com/non-binary-the…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with FairPlayForWomen

FairPlayForWomen Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @fairplaywomen

13 Jul
#XPassports
TODAY TWO
Follow this thread for live tweeting of the government defending its position to refuse X on passports at the Supreme Court.

You can also watch the proceedings here. Starts 10.30am /1
supremecourt.uk/live/court-01.…
Sir James Edie QC is speaking for the government. (The same Sir James we beat in the ONS case but we won't hold that against him :-D) /2
JEQC: Does respect for private life (Article 8) impose a positive obligation on the state to take action? If so then EVERY country that doesn't allow X in passport is in breach. The fact they don't is because there is a wide margin of appreciation (leeway) for each state /3
Read 35 tweets
12 Jul
#Xpassports
Discussions begin round Human Rights Article 8 (right to private life). Court has previously agreed that Article 8 IS engaged. Refusing X on a passport does interfere with human rights. The issue before the court is whether this interference is justified /1
Appellant QC raises the issue of how human rights leads to positive obligations on the state. What is the margin of appreciation when considering the impact on wider society? Wide or narrow? /2
Appellant QC argues there is a positive obligation on the state to 'recognise' a non-gendered identity. The UK gov has not yet accepted this obligation. Therefore refusal to allow an X on a passport is a lack of recognition rather than an implementation issue. /3
Read 77 tweets
12 Jul
Today the Supreme Court hears an appeal to force the UK gov to allow people who identify as non-binary to put an X on a passport.

We told @GBnews why this would harm women's rights /1
@GBNEWS Gender identity always gets conflated with sex. The idea that humans can be 'sexless' has implications for all of us /2
@GBNEWS If some males can say "I don't have a sex. I can opt out of sex-based rules" that messes things up for everybody /3
Read 4 tweets
11 Jul
**NEWS THREAD**
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear an appeal to force UK gov to record X on passports. This would be a first step towards state-recognition of non-binary identities. If the appeal is won it threatens women's sex-based rights. Here's why/1
fairplayforwomen.com/non-binary-the…
In April, Fair Play For Women instructed barrister Jason Coppell QC to seek permission to intervene at the Supreme Court. You can read our full submission to court here /2

fairplayforwomen.com/wp-content/upl…
We argued that refusing X on passports is justified because of the wider impact on society and in particular women's rights. X conveys the ideological message that humans can be sex-less. That some people are neither male nor female. Sex isn’t universal. This matters because.../3
Read 15 tweets
9 Jul
A complaint has been submitted to @IpsoNews about the misuse of the word "female" in this headline. /1

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9…
Zoe Watts has been convicted and jailed for making homemade bomb and weapons. It is widely known that Watts was born male and now identifies as a woman. The birth sex of Watts would have been easy for a journalist to find /2
There is plenty of public domain information available, including previous reporting by other newspapers. Watts has also run transgender awareness courses for the police. By making their trans history public Watts also makes their male birth sex known /3
lincolnshireunison.org/assets/downloa…
Read 9 tweets
7 Jul
Thank you to @GBNEWS for inviting @AskNic from @fairplaywomen to talk about the MOJ's transgender prison policy and its impact on women.

You can watch the full interview here /1

vimeo.com/manage/videos/…
@GBNEWS @AskNic "nobody is arguing that transgender prisoners shouldn't be in women's prisons because they are transgender, its because they are male. There are reasons we keep other males out of female prisons and all those same reasons apply to males who identify as women" /2
@GBNEWS @AskNic "The judge has decided...that we do need to consider the rights of transgender women - even if they are sex offenders - to live alongside women. Although its lawful I think we need to ask ourselves as a society is it right" /3
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(