Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 20:35:12 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

   “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.” ― Jean-Luc Picard, Star Trek: TNG, S02E21

   I received news from my lawyers yesterday just after 2pm GMT that the UK's refusal to legally recognize nonbinary gender is discriminatory, however this discrimination is justified by the difficulty of updates to the legal system and the cost of updating IT systems.

   We believe that the judges erred in their ruling on several points, especially the conclusion that discrimination is justified, and we will accordingly be applying to appeal.

   I'll share our press release when we're done with it.

   This is not over — I remain committed to fight for this until I win.

   (my lawyers have not reviewed this statement)

   • Haelwenn /элвэн/ :triskell: likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 20:52:06 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • Cassian [main]

     @cassolotl yeah, there are some serious holes in the judgement

   • Embed this notice
     Cassian [main] (cassolotl@eldritch.cafe)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 20:52:08 JST Cassian [main]

     in reply to

     @ryanc So bizarre - that's like saying they won't update the marriage laws because there aren't enough people who want to get gay-married, but they now KNOW that there are loads of nonbinary people in existence because they counted us in the last census, and it follows that there would be more "out" nonbinary people in countries where there's legal recognition and acknowledgement. It's just a matter of time before they have to do this anyway, so why would they put it off??

   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 21:09:33 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • Cassian [main]

     @cassolotl Next time you run your gender census can you please ask about whether people want legal recognition?

     I doubt it'd be admitted as evidence in my appeals, but it would be useful for applying pressure in other ways.

   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 21:26:52 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • DuvetGecko

     @DuvetGecko The gender recognition certificate computers already support F/X/M, there is zero cost.

   • Embed this notice
     DuvetGecko (duvetgecko@dice.camp)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 21:26:53 JST DuvetGecko

     in reply to

     @ryanc

     I think I remember a previous case where their excuse was the HMRC computer system not being able to cope with adding an X to the M/F field :/

     The only thing I think it affects is pensions though, which feels like a solvable problem

   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 21:28:03 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • DuvetGecko

     @DuvetGecko Pensions are unaffected by gender, and for new registrations gender for natiin

   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 21:43:22 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • DuvetGecko

     @DuvetGecko They hit it in 2018.

   • Embed this notice
     DuvetGecko (duvetgecko@dice.camp)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 21:43:23 JST DuvetGecko

     in reply to

     @ryanc

     I couldn't remember if we'd hit the equivalence point for retirement ages yet, so (unwisely) presumed that was the excuse. I really don't know why they are being so stubborn about this when other countries are managing perfectly fine.

   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 23:04:02 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • eibhear

     @eibhear The system that handles gender recognition certificates already handles X/F/M, and my barrister closed with that point, and that we were asking for literally nothing else.

   • Embed this notice
     eibhear (eibhear@social.gibiris.org)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 23:04:20 JST eibhear

     in reply to
     @ryanc Claiming that the cost of upgrading IT Systems is a justification for discrimination is ludicrous, and lazy.
   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 23:18:24 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • Jen

     @JetlagJen I think there was something about coherence of the legal system, but presently there is no coherence and they didn't fix that with the ruling.

   • Embed this notice
     Jen (jetlagjen@geekdom.social)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 23:18:25 JST Jen

     in reply to

     @ryanc congratulations on the points won so far, and good luck for the ongoing fight.

     "It's too hard to fix it all" is a rubbish excuse for not fixing anything.

   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Wednesday, 17-Jan-2024 23:20:36 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • Jen

     @JetlagJen Thank you. It's unfortunate to not win at this state, but my lawyers seem optimistic, and the government would have appealed anyway.

   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jan-2024 00:37:18 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • SlightlyCyberpunk

     @admin Many systems that record gender don't need to, and those that don't need to shouldn't.

     My genitals aren't going to match any legacy database.

   • Embed this notice
     SlightlyCyberpunk (admin@mastodon.slightlycyberpunk.com)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jan-2024 00:37:19 JST SlightlyCyberpunk

     in reply to

     @ryanc As a software engineer, I see a potentially much simpler solution here -- just remove it from the output. Is the government going to refuse to let you board a flight if the database says you're male but you're wearing a dress? Are they periodically checking your genitals to ensure they match what is stored in the database? Is there any situation where they actually need to USE that information? Take it off any outputs so nobody can see what's in there, then they can have all the time they need to update the backend accordingly.

   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jan-2024 04:14:26 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • jon ⚝

     @yala The UK government actually has a lot of open source stuff.

     It's more that they've taken the utterly bonkers stance that they would have to change everything all at once.

     Nowhere that has granted legal recognition to additional genders has done things this way because it's not feasible.

   • Embed this notice
     jon ⚝ (yala@degrowth.social)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jan-2024 04:14:27 JST jon ⚝

     in reply to

     @ryanc
     This stands out for me:

     "discrimination is justified by the difficulty of updates to the legal system and the cost of updating IT systems"

     It means legal and informational systems are bound by material constraints, such as availability of labour, coordination costs, modular and standardised architectures, plus regulatory procedures.

     Which all in all makes a strong argument for using FLOSS collaboration patterns to decrease auxiliary costs for all participants in the distributed system.

   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jan-2024 04:15:29 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • jon ⚝

     @yala recognize it for what it is - an excuse

   • Embed this notice
     Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag: (ryanc@infosec.exchange)'s status on Thursday, 18-Jan-2024 04:18:34 JST Ryan Castellucci :nonbinary_flag:

     in reply to

     • jon ⚝

     @yala in the Elan-Cane case they claimed adding an X gender option to passports would cost £2M. Their annual budget is £1,889,000M.

     It is to them as coins dug out of the couch are to us.