BS: More good news from the High Court!!

Subject: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 01:50 PM

"Gender neutral" passport refused - great decision!!!

Subject: RE: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 02:06 PM

My first reaction was that it must fail because passports are international documents so it depends on everyone else recognising it. But that was before I discovered it was internationally recognised.

In which case, I see no reason to object to it in itself. I can see that by allowing it there may be an unanticipated knock on effect on security exchanges and who knows what else, but that doesn't alter the principle it should be ok.

Subject: RE: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 02:21 PM

But how can any person alter their DNA? A male would have XY chromosomes and a female XX. That defines their gender beyond doubt.
How they identify themselves is their own business, not relevant to a Passport.
If ever DNA ID became possible, they'd be scuppered wouldn't they?

Subject: RE: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 02:38 PM

If DNA I'd became possible, they would be scuppered wouldn't they?

Not really. Assuming these things are computerised the DNA would be represented as a string of numbers covering a significant number of characteristics. It is not essential that gender is one of them. that would be a international decision.

Subject: RE: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 03:33 PM

Ah I see. But surely having 'male' or 'female' instantly narrows the field by a half?

Subject: RE: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: DMcG
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 03:53 PM

Yes it does. But other factors divide it more efficiently Hair colour, eye colour for example. And of course while the normal position is XX and XY, there are others, like XXY.

This 'categorisation strength' is quite subtle. In some cases a characteristic will divide things into very unequal sets: a two state characteristics could divide the people such as 95% - 5% so it is great for narrowing to the 5% but pretty useless if the person concerned is in the 95%. So sometimes you want to split things into roughly equal sets and sometimes in very unequal sets.

I am wracking my brains a bit, but unfortunately I can't remember the details. There was an AI researcher in Australia whose name started with - I think - H some 30 years who did a lot of work with determining efficient characterisation rules on large datasets.

However, all that is by the by. In this case, it boils down to if the international rules allow an ungenedered declaration, is there any reason to disallow it apart from the one given, which is essentially that we didn't allow for that elsewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 03:59 PM

I'm at a total loss to understand why anyone would have the slightest interest in how anyone else identifies in terms of gender. Nobody's business but their own, AFAIC.

Subject: RE: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: Jos
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 04:23 PM

"A male would have XY chromosomes and a female XX. That defines their gender beyond doubt."
Well, it may not be quite so simple. I found a World Health Organization website (http://www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html#Hermaphroditism) with the following:

“Humans are born with 46 chromosomes in 23 pairs. The X and Y chromosomes determine a person’s sex. Most women are 46XX and most men are 46XY. Research suggests, however, that in a few births per thousand some individuals will be born with a single sex chromosome (45X or 45Y) (sex monosomies) and some with three or more sex chromosomes (47XXX, 47XYY or 47XXY, etc.) (sex polysomies). In addition, some males are born 46XX due to the translocation of a tiny section of the sex determining region of the Y chromosome. Similarly some females are also born 46XY due to mutations in the Y chromosome. Clearly, there are not only females who are XX and males who are XY, but rather, there is a range of chromosome complements, hormone balances, and phenotypic variations that determine sex.”
...
“‘True’ hermaphroditism is a genetic condition in which affected individuals have both mature ovarian and testicular tissue. There are no published population-wide estimates of the frequency of true hermaphrodites. The autosomal inheritance of this condition suggests that genes controlling sexual development and differentiation are not limited to the sex chromosomes.”

Subject: RE: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: Vashta Nerada
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 04:30 PM

Only good news in Bonzo's opinion. I agree with Backwoodsman - your personhood doesn't actually have anything to do with your gender. You're an identifiable human even if officials don't take a look between your legs.

Subject: RE: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: Donuel
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 05:38 PM

There are also people who carry chimera DNA ( two sets)
We may come to the point where Passports have our biometric DNA data

Subject: RE: BS: More good news from the High Court!!
From: Senoufou
Date: 22 Jun 18 - 05:53 PM

If Passports had one's DNA data, it wouldn't help much at border crossings, because the Border Officers would hardly have time to collect saliva and analyse it while the enormously long queue waited.

It would only be helpful in individual cases of very important identity verification.
I think fingerprint ID would be helpful. A machine already exists which swiftly analyses fingerprints (one merely places the index finger on the glass)
Amazingly, Cote d'Ivoire already has biometric passports. My husband has to go down to London every five years to have his Ivorian one renewed at his Embassy. They measure his facial features and his eyes are scanned. So it wouldn't matter which gender he chose for himself.