The UK Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Christie Elan-Clan's appeal in a bid to get a passport with an 'X' gender marker. The judges ruled that Elan-Clane's right to private life was "outweighed by considerations relating to the public interest".

Elan-Clan commented on the ruling:

"It's wrong that if someone is neither male nor female that we are forced to have an inappropriate gender...on our documentation".

"It's demeaning, it's dehumanising, it's insulting".

The Supreme Court backed the government's arguments against 'X' passports on the grounds of security, cost and "maintaining a coherent approach to issues of gender across the law".

Christie Elan-Clan was appealing a previous verdict of which they were still required to hold a male or female marked passport. Elan-Clan was born female but has since undergone several operations which achieved the desired status of "non-gendered".

The Supreme Court pointed to the lack Elan-Clan's experience of being harassed at borders as a result of their passport gender.

From 1995 onwards, Elan-Clan has been in contact with the Government Departments seeking to persuade the government that a passport should be issued without the necessity of making a declaration of being either male or female, allowing a person to make their gender as unspecified.