It never crossed my mind that a decision I’d made thirty years ago would entirely change the future course of my life and affect the lives of thousands of people as countries around the world adopted inclusive policies where identity other than gendered male and female were accorded legal recognition and neutral identity documents such as a passport were issued on a basis of need.
It is unfortunate for me that I live in the United Kingdom [UK]. A country that brags LGBT inclusivity on the world stage that has shown zero empathy for the fundamental issues at stake and where I – as a person of non-gendered identity – remain unrecognized by law and none of my personal documentation is accurately reflective of the person I know myself to be.
My disclosure on national prime-time TV – naïve and downright reckless as it might now appear – was that I might raise awareness of my identity in a way that felt ‘safe’ and distanced from those I most wanted to understand the issue. I did not even have a name for the person I’d so recently grown into being which is why I’d settled on ‘androgynous’ – a description that underwent not-so-minor changes until I’d learned to define not just my identity but the need for me have legitimacy in a gendered society that neither recognized my existence nor offered provision and protection.
Now, after thirty years, I’m done with explaining because anyone who wants to chisel away to the bare bones of what continues to motivate me just hasn’t been listening.
I’ve often heard it said that we need to “start the conversation” around the terms of existence outside the gendered societal structure. Well, I started that conversation three decades ago. Just me and very few others in various parts of the world who could not pigeon-hole ourselves into either of gendered society’s accepted male or female roles.
I’ve thought about this more recently following the UK Supreme Court judgment handed down in December where my appearance and the surgical procedures undergone more than 30 years ago were unnecessarily and inappropriately referenced in what read as a damning personal critique.
The engagement of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] at an earlier stage of litigation had set a new precedent in that a person’s non-gendered identity held the same protected status as male and female gendered identities in accordance with Convention rights.
And yet my fundamental right to be issued with documentation that affirms my identity was ignored in a judgment that failed to take on board the effect – the negative impact – on a person’s life when their identity is not accorded even that most basic level of recognition. The Supreme Court ruling was an abomination. The judgment was wildly out of touch with decisions and progress that is taking place right now in other parts of the world and a ruling that I am certain will be regarded in future years as a stain upon the UK’s justice system.
The case can now be progressed to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg which has jurisdiction while the UK remains within the Council of Europe and bound by Convention rights.
That the UK Supreme Court rejected my appeal did not surprise me. The livestreamed two-day hearing was an indicator of where we were heading although I’d tried to stay positive throughout the lengthy wait for a decision. It had felt at times during the hearing that my motivation indeed my credibility to have instigated these legal proceedings was being questioned by some on the bench.
In marked contrast the government’s position against ‘X’ Passports went unchallenged even when the flippancy of its legal representative spilled over into outright contempt for the significance of the issue in hand.
I was prepared for the inevitable negative outcome but many people were shocked by the tone and dismissive language used in the judgment. It read as something that could have been written by HM Government. The UK’s highest court was using language more generally used by moral crusaders, bullies who believe they have a divine right to determine how others should live and feel. The wording appeared designed to have a crushing effect and to kill the prospect of further progression stone dead. A shortsighted approach to a genuine and legitimate human rights issue that had evidently made no impact. It was an almost inevitable outcome that now propels my legal team and me all the way to Strasbourg when I’d needed so much for this stage of my life to be over.
My Claim against the UK Home Secretary was filed in 2017 however the pre-action process began in 2013 and was dragged out at every step of the way by HM Government. The government’s response did not surprise me one bit because I’d spent the previous eight years actively lobbying and cajoling parliamentarians and inevitably was invited to meet with government departmental representatives.
There was always a palpable element of sadism in the UK Home Office’s responses to the issue. My interactions with other government departments were variable however my interactions with HM Passport Office [HMPO] and the UK Home Office [within which HMPO was an executive agency and is now incorporated into] were never anything other than extremely negative.
Representatives of HM Government would assert with a cocky degree of confidence that policies that completely ignored my existence would be maintained in the knowledge that I was powerless to gain any kind of traction in my effort to gain legal recognition of my identity nor even the very basic provision of a gender-neutral passport despite that I’d jumped through every hoop they put before me throughout the time I was working all hours to the detriment of my health in a demeaning process of ‘engagement’ that proved in the end to be entirely pointless.
In more recent years I’ve watched as other countries’ domestic policies became more inclusive of people in my position who, with increased visibility in recent years, have demanded change. I’ve watched. I’ve felt joy for citizens of those countries and at the same time joyous emotions tinged with bittersweet due to my having made no progress in the UK. I contrast the attitudes of governing administrations at federal and state level in these inclusive, progressive countries and the positive outcomes from legal action brought by citizens in countries whose governments had failed to act.
The fact is that I’ve been failed over a number of years. I was failed by HM Government. I was failed by a justice system that should have upheld my Convention rights and protected me.
Time and again I’ve raised the hopes of others who’ve grown in visibility to an extent that only the most blinkered of governments can ignore – only to then have to deliver crushing news that once again ‘X’ PASSPORTS are not [yet] coming to the UK.
So, I am NOT in the market for a ‘conversation’ about my right to exist. What I want is legitimate identity and fundamental civil rights that M/Fs can take for granted within a so-called free society.
Is that really so very hard to understand?