I’m thinking of applying for an opportunity on the basis of being non-binary

SteakBake I'd be rolling my eyes at such a statement, friend or no

If a friend of mine can use, without any sense of how absurd it sounds, the sentence "As a non-binary individual who has given birth to and breastfed three children..." I think anyone can declare themselves non-binary really.

I'm something of a lurker here but this whole 'non-binary' bollocks has been swirling around my head since filling in the Scottish GRA consultation. The idea that this should be included as a category in the same way as male and female is just soooooo absurd. If this happens (as it might) we should all define as non-binary on census forms, change our passports, drivers licenses etc etc. Expose it for the utter nonsense it is.

Seems like the definition of a man is "someone who is whatever they say they are"; and the definition of a woman is "someone who is whatever they're told they are."

The behaviour of many GC women frequently falls outside 'stereotypical gender norms' IME

Yesss!

I think Stonewall is in severe danger of forgetting about the abuse & violence - physical and verbal - meted out against women who dare to look a bit butch.

And the aggression and anger expressed towards any woman who dares to have an opinion ...

By Stonewall's definitions, any gender critical woman is queer and/or transgender and/or non-binary.

there's nothing wrong with it despite you don't feel gender dysphoria or feel any dissonance with the sex you were born as

Current transactivism rejects the requirement that in order to be considered 'trans' a person must experience gender dysphoria. Current transactivism argues that it's enough to say that you "feel" or "believe" you are female.

If we are applying the idea of "non-binary" to gender (a opposed to sex), then many many women are non-binary. I am. I don't conform to stereotypes of femininity; I earn more than most men; I manage a lot of people, including men; I have never been pregnant nor given birth; I have never been a SAHM; I have always earned the bulk of my household's income.

On all those counts, I'm a man ...

In particular, a full understanding by all governmental departments, not just the GEO, will be required as to the clear distinction between the concepts of sex and gender.

They didn't understand. I hope everyone's seen the highly illuminating thread on here which quotes parts of the debate on the original GRA (when it was at the bill stage). People you wouldn't at all expect - Norman Tebbitt, anyone? - 'got it' immediately. Others were so hasty in their eagerness to appear enlightened that they brushed aside all logic and sense in a way that....errr....we're all too familiar with now.

See here for the details, if you haven't already. They're pretty horrifying

Wow  ughhhh has found a way to be both cis hate this phrase phobic and transphobic at the same time!

That's impressive!

So 'cis' gendered people can't apply for this award - that's cis exclusionary and cis phobic. OP is clearly non binary and Ughhh tells him/her that they can't be! That's blatant transphobia

It’s hard not to read bigender as big-ender
Makes me think of bigendian - more in the original Swiftian sense than byte order.

PineappleSunrise It’s hard not to read bigender as big-ender. Which makes me think of crank shafts.

re the court case
I feel really sorry for the poor judges who have to try and navigate all this nonsense as if it might be serious and internally coherent- I mean they just don't stand a chance, but if they have to decide on a case they can't just throw their hands up and say 'wtf it's all bonkers'

Good luck OP. I'm going to follow your thread, I hope your dh is also on-board and you apply.

I think I'm bigender. (It sounds much more fun than agender, don't you think?)

We really are just down to Barbie.

Even Barbie might be a bit questionable, if her CV on Wikipedia is anything to go by.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbie%27s_careers
Apparently she's been a pilot, a Nascar driver, a Canadian Mountie and an astronaut....
Sounds pretty genderqueer to me.

Go for it.

My only problem with the definition is that I don't have a Gender identity.

Mary Berry wears y-fronts. She's neutrois.

Wow!

We really are just down to Barbie.

@KennDodd

Yes, I remember that case. More importantly, the amazing Magdalen Berns remembered.

with the exception of Mary Berry and Barbie
Mary Berry wears y-fronts. She's neutrois.

Were you originally equipped with a willy or vagina? = man or woman (relevant)

Do you like pink/frills/sparkles/dollies or action man/blue/soldiers? = girly or boyish (irrelevant)

Do you fancy the same, opposite or both sex as a sexual partner? = straight, homosexual, bisexual (only relevant if I chatting you up)

The claimant lost that case; the court decided that the actual claim, which was limited to passports, should not be granted, partly because it would require such enormous changes, but also because the Government was in the process of reviewing the issue of non-binary people anyway, and should be left to get on with its review.

The judge then went on to say this at paragraph 151:
I have no doubt that the Government will have well in mind the range of factors which will be required to be considered in the course of that review, which one trusts are now better understood than they may have been at an earlier point in the history of the Government's consideration of them. In particular, a full understanding by all governmental departments, not just the GEO, will be required as to the clear distinction between the concepts of sex and gender. It will be necessary for the Government to consider to what extent if any, in an age of increasing social and legal awareness and acceptance of the importance of issues relating to diversity and equality, the recording of an individual's sex and/or gender in official and other documentation is justified. The range and nature of the documentation which may be affected will be required to be understood, including whether its purpose is to record historical or current information. It will also be necessary to consider the extent to which other identities both within and beyond the binary concept of gender are to be recognised, and if so, whether they are to be self-determined or are to be objectively evidenced. Undoubtedly this will also require a comprehensive and detailed understanding of the full extent of legislation in which individuals' rights and responsibilities are affected by and may be dependent upon sex and/or gender.

This seems like a good time to mention this case, brought by a non-binary person who wanted the option of X in their passport instead of male/female:

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/1530.html

There are some interesting passages, for example paragraphs 69-70 from Kate O'Neil, the Deputy Director of the Social Policy and Equality Division in the Government Equalities Office:

Kate O'Neil explains that the GEO is responsible for delivering the Government's equality strategy and legislation, which now includes dealing with issues connected with sexual and gender identities. She states that the GEO recognises that sex and gender are two different characteristics, the former being biologically determined, whilst the latter is a social construct, such that
"One's gender identity is one's innate sense of gender – which could be male, female, both, neither or fluid."
However, she recognises that the approach adopted by the GEO is not reflected in legislation, which does not define the terms sex and gender, and often uses the terms interchangeably. Moreover, no UK legislation currently contemplates a gender other than being either male or female.".

The judge himself says this at paragraph 99:

The most common and certainly well-known form of this latter type of incongruency has become known as transsexuality or transgenderism, where the individual's physical sexual characteristics oppose that of their psychological ones; for which medical assistance has been available for some time, and in respect of which there is now the ability to obtain full legal recognition under the Gender Recognition Act 2004. Although this has largely resolved the legal difficulties faced by this group, it is still based upon the binary concept of gender, with the individual becoming recognised as being either male or female, usually in accordance with their psychological gender identity.
However, what has not been resolved are the legal and social difficulties faced by another group or groups of individuals, namely those who, whatever their physical characteristics may be, psychologically consider themselves either both male and female, (either at one and the same time or fluctuating at different times), or, like the claimant, do not consider themselves either male or female. The former group may be considered to be "bi-gendered", whereas the latter group, and certainly the claimant, considers themselves to be "non-gendered".

Private Eye

OP you have always seemed a good egg. I’m GC and get where you are coming from and why this is very tempting. I would also though just also weigh up any negative career consequences for you. I suspect if I did this in my organisation and particularly if I got it, there would be some senior management who would be seething with me and feel that I had made them look the fool. I don’t know what sort of organisation you work in but in mine progression from my level (quite senior but below top exec level) requires both active sponsorship but also nobody blackballing you. Now that might not be the case with you or you may feel it is worth the risk but I would just bear it in mind in the calculation so you go in eyes open b

There's a couple of today's threads that are really interesting in the way they're exposing the obvious cracks in 'gender identity theory' in very basic ways.

This thread and the Sophie Walker one.

There seem to be some highly complex and 'policed' rules about who is allowed to throw off gender roles and stereotypes, and who isn't (aka women of a certain age probably aren't!)

There is someone replying to Sophie's tweets about non-binary who says just to clarify I am non-binary, but as someone assigned female at birth I am subject to the same oppressions. People only know I’m non-binary if I tell them, so I’m seen as a women 99% of the time. This is why intersectionality is vital

They then link to a Diva article that they believe defines non-binary well:
As with categories like lesbian or bisexual, non-binary covers a vast range of experiences, which may have little in common. Some people incorporate elements of masculinity and femininity (bigender). Others regard themselves as between genders, having a third gender, not having a gender at all, or shifting gender over time (gender fluid). Some recognise multiple genders (pangender) or explicitly want to challenge the binary (genderqueer or genderfuck). Of the people DIVA spoke to, one was androgynous, another genderqueer, and a third non-gendered.

Language is important here because so many of our words are gendered. Many non-binary people have embraced the – perfectly grammatical – pronoun they (rather than he/she), and some have developed alternative pronouns (like zie, per or hir)
(So basically. very similar to lots of women's experiences here, just we haven't chosen to adopt another label or different pronouns - and therefore we're not 'allowed' to be anything other than 'cis'!)

And another reply on Sophie's tweet thread:
Rejection of gender role &/ stereotypes does not necessitate the rejection of people's actual gender, nor does it make you non-binary in a trans-inclusive model or world view. It just means you reject those things. Please consider this, because that is the way of thinking

I suspect, from the last tweeter's point of view given they're presenting as a transwoman, it's challenging if women are rejecting gender roles/stereotypes because we're jumping out of an imposed box that they're trying to jump into.

Break the box of gender stereotypes and you can't inhabit the box named 'stereotypical woman'.

It seems we've time-travelled back to the '70s, just with more label-hurdles to jump over to get out of the stereotype maze.