The Supreme Court rejected the gender neutral appeal in the passport

Christie Ellen-Kane took the case to the UK Supreme Court in March 2020 after the British government failed to recognize gender neutrality in passports.

Born a woman, Christy Ellen-Kane has undergone several surgeries – including double mastitis and subsequent hysterectomy – and identifies herself as a “non-sexual” person.

It has been campaigning for 25 years for “gender X” to be allowed in passports, arguing that the UK document application process, which requires individuals to declare themselves male or female, violates the right to privacy guaranteed by the Convention. European Union for Human Rights.

Its chairman, Robert Reid, said his appeal was “unanimously rejected” by the Supreme Court.

Reid noted that there is no ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that establishes the obligation to recognize gender other than male or female, and that authorities are not required to issue passports without any reference to gender.

The head of the court also stressed the need to “maintain a consistent approach to government and the legal system” that so far recognizes only women and men.

“I’m sorry to let everyone know that justice is not available today. This case will now be taken to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (France),” Christie Ellen-Kane wrote on social networking site Twitter.

The London-based Employers’ Network for Equality and Content states that at least a dozen countries, including the United States, Canada, Germany and Argentina, but also India or Pakistan, have the “X” or “Other” option in their passports.

Read more: Boris Johnson faces conservative uprising in British Parliament