Maya Forstater

I wld say, if it can change they are conceding that info on sex is not needed. In which case: wld be better then to take off that data field or allow redacted or 'X' version. Keep 'sex' on docs where it is needed. Use Ms/Mr to indicate how pple want to be referred to

I suspect, rather than conceding that sex is not needed at all, the home office are adopting an "acceptable level of data corruption" by allowing a limited proportion of people to corrupt their own data. It's relying on a double standard I think sex is still valuable ID data.

I think to avoid fudging this we as a society will need to be clearer where sex matters (and therefore the information shouldn't be corrupted) and where people have a right to privacy about their sex (and it shouldn't be recorded)

Absolutely agree. And it's just occurred to me how obvious it is that 1. The govt KNOWS they need SEX data on passports 2. Is prepared to make these concessions: a. Pretence that it is gender data b. Acceptable limits of data corruption based upon this exact case. Here's why:

IF they genuinely wanted to record 'feelings' data on passports, which is what they claim the data currently represents (For what possible practical use?) they would not be contesting this case.

Because feelings and self-perception cannot be used for any meaningful data purpose on passports. There would be no benefit in legally compelling everyone to record a binary of male or female feelings and no reason to contest the X option.

The fact they ARE contesting it tells me that the M/F passport data is serving a tangible, useful purpose important enough to defend its continuation in court. Govt argue, unconvincingly, that the passport data is 'gender' as an appeasement to identity, because they made this bed

...and now they have to lie in it. But what they actually RELY upon, is a critical mass of the population having their SEX recorded accurately, such that the SEX data is useable with only minimal data corruption.