ES News email The latest headlines in your inbox twice a day Monday - Friday plus breaking news updates Enter your email address Continue Please enter an email address Email address is invalid Fill out this field Email address is invalid You already have an account. Please log in Register with your social account or click here to log in I would like to receive lunchtime headlines Monday - Friday plus breaking news alerts, by email Update newsletter preferences

A court battle over gender-neutral passports is set to be heard by leading judges at the Court of Appeal.

Campaigner Christie Elan-Cane is challenging the Government in over the UK's "inherently discriminatory" passport application process, which requires individuals to indicate whether they are male or female.

A judicial review action was dismissed by the High Court last year, but will be put under the spotlight at the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.

Elan-Cane, who identifies as non-gendered, has fought for more than 25 years to achieve legal and social recognition for non-gendered identity.

The campaigner sees the issue of "X" (for unspecified) passports as a key focal point of the non-gendered campaign.

During the High Court proceedings, Elan-Cane's lawyers challenged the lawfulness of the policy administered by Her Majesty's Passport Office (HMPO), which is part of the Home Office, arguing that it breaches human rights laws.

Ruling on the case in June last year, a judge said that although he was not at that time satisfied that the policy was unlawful, part of the reasoning for the decision was that a comprehensive review had not been completed.

Kate Gallafent QC, for Elan-Cane, argued that the policy breaches the right to respect for private life, and the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of gender or sex, under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The policy requires Elan-Cane to "make a materially false declaration in respect of that core aspect of the claimant's human personality or to forbear from holding a passport".

Sir James Eadie QC, on behalf of the Home Secretary, submitted that the policy does not interfere with rights under the ECHR.

He argued that if the policy constituted an interference with Article 8 - the right to respect for private life - it was justified by the need to maintain an administratively coherent system for the recognition of gender, to maintain security and to combat identity theft and fraud, and to ensure security at national borders.

Before the latest round of the litigation, Elan-Cane said in a statement: "Legitimate identity is a fundamental human right but non-gendered people are treated as though we have no rights.

"It is unacceptable that someone who defines as neither male nor female is forced to declare an inappropriate gender in order to obtain a passport.

"The UK Government has consistently and consciously shown a determined unwillingness to accommodate non-gendered peoples' legitimate needs."

Anne Collins, of law firm Clifford Chance, said: "This case raises important questions regarding the right to respect for individuals' gender identity for those who do not identify exclusively as male or female, including members of the trans community, intersex people and those who identify as non-gendered.

"X passports are crucial to the protection of the human rights of this group of individuals, and Clifford Chance is proud to be working with Christie to appeal the High Court's decision on the issue."