Anne Marie Waters
March 11th 2020
The Court of Appeal has ruled that people must state their sex (i.e. male or female) on their passports. This may sound like common sense has at last prevailed, but upon reading the court’s judgement, it is clear this is unlikely to last. The fact that our courts are even entertaining the concept of “non-binary” shows how far in to science-fiction we have fallen.
The case began with an attempted judicial review of the government’s requirement that sex be stated on passports. This was dismissed by the High Court before Christie Elan-Cane took it up with the Court of Appeal. Elan-Cane is “non-gendered” and insists that there ought to be an ‘X’ option available on passports. The government said otherwise and the Court of Appeal has agreed.
This will now go to the Supreme Court, and given the language of the Court of Appeal, the chances are it could succeed. The core of the problem is the notion that sex and gender are separate and distinct. The ‘thinking’ being that a person’s sex is biological, but their ‘gender’ is somehow separate and can be decided upon by the person in question. This is of course completely absurd, and a recipe for chaos, but the Court of Appeal, despite ruling in favour of the government, doesn’t seem to think so. The language used by the court is nothing short of alarming.
Christie Elan-Cane had argued that the refusal to provide an ‘X’ option on passports amounted to a breach of the right to a private life under the European Convention on Human Rights (the sooner we are rid of this, the better). Elan-Cane was represented in court by the enormous law firm Clifford Chance, whose lawyer stated: ‘This is an important case in the anxious context of the proper understanding and respect for the intimate, human rights of the affected class – persons whose gender identity is neither, or neither exclusively, male nor female.’
So for clarity, a major law firm in one of our most significant courts, has matter-of-factly made the case that it is entirely feasible for a person to decide they are neither male nor female. Apart from the tiny number of people born without a clear biological sex, this is demonstrably untrue. We are born male or female. That is biological fact, but our courts are pretending it isn’t.
Lady Justice Eleanor King delivered the ruling at the Court of Appeal: “There can be little more central to a citizen’s private life than gender. In this case, however, the passport issue cannot reasonably be considered in isolation, given that the driver for change is the notion of respect for gender identity across the board. The court finds that there was no positive obligation on the state to provide an ‘X’ marker in order to ensure the right of the Appellant to respect for private life. Therefore, the current policy of HMPO (Her Majesty’s Passport Office) does not amount to an unlawful breach of the Appellant’s Article 8 private life rights.”
Note the words “respect for gender identity”. This is the driver of the problem, it is its source.
Our society has fabricated something called “gender identity” and for some reason, it has been taken seriously. All contenders for Labour leader are fully on board with the concept, and the Mayor of London has even tweeted that ‘all gender identities are valid’.
Wikipedia’s entry on this is fascinating. It states:
“The distinction between sex and gender differentiates a person’s biological sex (the anatomy of an individual’s reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics) from that person’s gender, which can refer to either social roles based on the sex of the person (gender role) or personal identification of one’s own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity).”
We are therefore told, all of a sudden, that gender means something completely different to what we once understood. Most of us thought that sex and gender were interchangeable, but we were apparently wrong. We’re now to believe that “gender” actually refers to our “role” in life. It declares that women and men have a certain role to perform. As part of that role, we are expected to behave a certain way, or dress in a certain way, and if we don’t, we no longer qualify as our sex.
If a man or woman doesn’t fit in to the narrow confines set down by the gender activist, they are no longer legitimately male or female. So, if a girl is a bit of a tomboy (like me) or a boy doesn’t enjoy sports and instead prefers art or fashion, he is not in fact male.
This is an extraordinary limitation on our individuality and it is profoundly damaging to our basic self-image.
When I was a child, I was a tomboy. I liked my Barbie doll, but I also liked climbing trees and kicking a football, and nobody ever told me that I wasn’t a real girl as a result. I never thought I was a boy and I never wanted to be a boy, I never thought about it, I was just me.
Thankfully, I was a child of the 80s, when sanity and reality were still ‘a thing’. I am terrified at the thought of growing up today, because I know that extremist activists would be welcomed to my school to tell me I was in fact a boy. It would have confused me deeply and shattered my concept of myself. That is exactly what is happening to children today.
Kids are now taught that their sex and gender are separate, and if they don’t fit in with the behaviour restrictions placed upon their sex, then their gender doesn’t “align” with their sex (that’s the lingo).
In other words, if a girl isn’t wearing pink and spraying glitter, she’s really a boy … but a boy stuck in a girl’s body.
This is child abuse and nothing less.
To deliberately and wilfully confuse children, to deliberately and wilfully tell them that they cannot be an individual of either sex, and to tell them that sex and gender are separate, has created a world where children no longer understand themselves, and they have become burdened with enormous “decisions” about their identity when they ought to be playing with their pals without a care in the world. It is shameful.
Even more shameful is our court’s willingness to entertain the very concept that sex and gender are separate, or that people may “decide” they are neither of the two sexes.
Our legal system is built upon objectivity, without it, we are lost. All of this is happening because bullying transactivists and revolutionary left-wingers want us to be lost. They seek to bring down all that is true and functional and replace it with disarray and endless confusion. They seek to destroy society and rule over the rubble – just as left-wingers have sought time and again. This time they may actually succeed.
If we can ‘decide’ to opt out of reality, of biology, and then impose this on children, we are lost. When our courts agree that all of this is legitimate, we know there is a long way back.
But there is a way back. For Britain is utterly determined to fight back against this assault on the truth, this assault on science, and this assault on children. Transactivists are using children, confusing and stereotyping them, to push a radical political agenda. They are winning because they are merciless in their punishment of those who won’t concede.
There is only one way to deal with bullies and that is to push back, to stand up to them, and that is what we at For Britain do best.
Anne Marie Waters