Gender identity changes reality bafflement.

Done. I actually self identify as that happening to me although there is no physical reaction. I just feel like I am allergic to peanut butter. So it must be true.

I think we should ban peanut butter because it makes my nephew swell up

It's bonkers and makes no sense. But at the moment they are shouting louder than the 50% of our population whose hard won freedoms are gradually being eroded away.

I don't understand?? Less than half a percent of people are transgender, why should the law be skewed in favour of such a tiny minority of people??

And how can we monitor trans discrimination if they are legally not trans but man or woman on all data?

Agreed. One thing that TRAs really ought to have learnt from previous equality activists is that proper data helps identify issues, effective interventions and success stories. Feminists and black activists will tell them that without being able to name and quantify the problem, policy solutions are nigh impossible.

Similarly how can we review the long term health impact of hormone therapy and surgical intervention without keeping proper records? Not necessarily identifying things that are a risk, but also unexpected benefits (given that so many medical breakthroughs have come about through chance)

Most people I know simply aren't interested.
If you mention how women and girls are being thrown under a bus in terms of their rights, well, it sounds so preposterous that it's disbelieved.
It's only a very few people who will take the time to find out what's going on, but their views are seen as extreme and over-dramatic, so again, preposterous and "tsk, feminists, so militant and on the lookout for another cause" and belittling assumptions that those of us who are worried are mentally ill "are you usually this anxious?"
It doesn't surprise me at all that posts like this are gaining little attention. People are good at ignoring a situation until it becomes too big to control.

I'm so confused as to how this is a good thing for anyone.

And how can we monitor trans discrimination if they are legally not trans but man or woman on all data?

It seems to me that in a situation where an employer has 2 suitable candidates one of whom is female but obviously trans and one who is biologically female an employer will have to find a determining factor other than one being trans or biologically female.

I'm confused with 'female but obviously trans', do you mean a trans man? But they would be counted as a legal man, not a legal woman.

A female who identifies as a female would not be considered trans.

A woman who isn't hired for a role because she is recognised to be a female of childbearing age will have no recourse if that employer can demonstrate that he hires other 'women' (who could be biologically male but not recognised as distinguishable from females any longer, since sex is no longer a protected measure)

Unless you have some inside information to the parliamentary drafts office about legislation which is not even at bill stage you have made that bit up.Sex and gender reassignment are both protected characteristics. If gender reassignment is changed to simply gender "gender"

It seems to me that in a situation where an employer has 2 suitable candidates one of whom is female but obviously trans and one who is biologically female an employer will have to find a determining factor other than one being trans or biologically female.

There may be trans women who pass - on the small screen Paris Lees and Blaire Whyte do but do many? Unless "sex" is deleted from the legislation I think your scenario here is fanciful and alarmist which might explain the lack of uptake.

Btw it is "supersede" not supercede. (Sorry it's a pet hate of mine but if you are aiming for an authoritative tone it grates)

Transgender girl (with moustache!) is crushing his fellow girl competitors...

mobile.wnd.com/2017/06/transgender-girl-track-star-with-mustache-crushes-female-competitors/

Agree jelly. As part of the pushback we need to emphasise female sex rights and challenge this woolly idea. We need to strengthen the sex protection afforded by the EA.

We pretty much have self-identification by the back door already, ACAS suggest it is not the done thing to ask for a GRC and that anyone even 'thinking' about transitioning should be considered under gender reassignment protections.

Can anyone help me with understanding why GRCs would be useful for trans rights after self-identification?

With gender identity becoming a protected characteristic rather than gender reassignment then the protections are already there. You don't need a government certificate to state your religious beliefs, why do you need one for gender identity? Especially if there is absolutely zero criteria other than self-declaration.

Without GRCs it would still be possible to separate by sex as opposed to gender if necessary if someone were behaving inappropriately.

Yes, totally agree with your last post, morningrunner.

It's too long and sounds confusing. I am not surprised people don't 'get it' tbh.

I think you have a good tactic morningrunner - I think it could work.

My pessimism kicks in though, when I think about things like PAT testing - a system that was supposed to encourage people to think about the equipment they were using, and perform simple, sensible checks for themselves, but instead became this weird outsourced behemoth of stickers allegedly certifying the 'safety' of the office kettle - and the health and safety executive chasing after it yelling 'BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT WE MEANT! THIS IS NO SAFER AT ALL!!!' whilst I'm banned from using my brand new laptop cable because it doesn't have a dated sticker on it.

I think it should be "transgender status" rather than "gender identity". Gender identity is too woolly and includes all the special snowflakes.

And it takes the wind out the sails of anyone who dismisses women who are raising these concerns as bigots.

I understand your train of thought, I just disagree that this still won't happen.

I've seen numerous arguments underpinned by this very thing. To no avail.

Because the aim isn't to have protected status, the aim is to be completely accepted as women, partly for validation but now, more recently, because women are a target.

morningrunner

So are you saying the approach to discuss proportionate means and exemptions?

(Sorry, my wifi is shiiiit and losing half my comments).

Because, in theory, I agree. But in practice it doesn't have much of an impact in terms of public opinion.