Who would agree with this compromise?

We are in agreement with each other.

JellySlice - totally agree. I'm not disagreeing with what you say about identity and beliefs and the fact that nobody should be able to impose beliefs on others. I also do not find identity to be a meaningful thing to impose on others, as it is a belief. Apologies if that was unclear.

To be absolutely clear - I believe that we should defend a male person dressing/acting in a stereotypically female way and vice versa from harm. That's what I mean by protecting expression - mannerism and dress are material qualities, and provided they aren't used to cause harm, attacking someone for those qualities seems unreasonable. This doesn't mean I want to force you to believe that he is a female or vice versa, which is what I understand you to mean by protecting identity. As you rightly said, that would be forcing you to state a belief you don't hold.

When we protect belief as a characteristic, we protect the right of the individual to have their own beliefs and their right not to have another belief imposed upon them.

We do not protect the right of anybody to impose their beliefs upon another person.

It is considered a human right not to have to profess or express a belief that you do not hold.

Gender identity needs to be recognised as a belief, and subject to the laws relating to belief.

JellySlice - fair enough, I see what you're getting at. I still maintain that gender conformity and its policing is a clear issue - across said cultures and times and even within the same country, despite the variation in exactly what constitutes 'normal' gender expression, people are still punished specifically for crossing the boundary. The 'moral disgust' component of transgressing what you are supposed to be doing (according to your sex) is one that is seen across cultures, although the severity of the response and the specific nature of the response varies. Even though the exact nature varies between cultures and across time I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that there are not clear behaviours/dress associated with each sex. Sex being unchangeable means that transgression is usually visible and so a target for attack. I really don't think the team analogy works because you can't see by my face that I'm supposed to be a Celtic fan but you sure as damn know that I'm supposed to do xyz because I'm visibly female.

Not that there aren't problems in the EA and its wording - but I could argue the same for say, religion/belief, religions and the outward expressions of them vary across cultures but that doesn't mean we don't protect belief as a characteristic. The exact nature of racism varies between cultures and across time but we still recognise it. Case in point - am ethnic chinese and so a 'good' immigrant and generally don't feel I'm discriminated against for my skin, and my experience of racism is that I have seen it more directed against eastern europeans. In my parents youth it was different - my father and his brother experienced it at school - and in for example Hong Kong it is largely manifested against still other different ethnic groups - but xenophobia against the ethnic 'other' is clearly the underlying mechanism for all of these.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do agree with you that these are all just fear of people 'not doing/being the normal thing', I simply disagree that this means we shouldn't try to address specific manifestations where we see a pattern, and pertinently to this discussion, the policing of 'sexed' behaviours/dress. I disagree that the variation in 'normal' gender expression means it's not a pattern, as even if the nature of the boundary varies, the boundary exists and it's the crossing that causes the problem.

[nodding dog impression]

It would be great to start presenting more positive proposals, rather than being those mean old hags over on Mumsnet who just say you're not this and this doesn't work [own personality perhaps being projected here]

Who to approach? Penny Mordaunt?

Not in jest, at all, just poorly expressed by me.

Gender-conforming, team-conforming, religious-sect-conforming , it's all the same, ultimately. You're not doing things the way the rest of us do! You're offensive! You're a threat! You're a mockery!

Gender-conforming behaviour varies so much, even within the same country, even more so across cultures and eras. How can it be defined? How can one legislate for something unclearly defined? Brings us right back to where we started: the inclarity and incompatibility of GRA and EA.

JellySlice - my rationalisation is roughly along the lines of, an effeminate looking male or masculine looking female is at specific risk of being called slurs (f word, d word, tr word) and beaten up etc whether or not they identify as trans, specifically because of their presentation. I'm sure there is plenty of crossover between homophobia and (material) transphobia and I think we do mostly have a handle on that. Wording may need work of course.

As to the sportsball question, personally I think it's a false analogy because we have clear evidence that gender-conforming males (it is usually males) attack gender-non-conforming males and females but not vice versa whereas - at least superficially - it seems to me that all the sportsball fans are happy to attack each other. Also I think it's a closer analogy were we to discuss Celtics attacking a Celtic in Ranger dress, because that is transgressing ball affiliation boundaries. Perhaps we should figure out which sportsball fans are the worst for this, but we do already quite cleanly divide our spaces by ball affiliation. (In case not abundantly clear...I am aware this was probably meant entirely in jest and am continuing in turn.)

Looks like the only fair compromise to me, OP.

You want something you conceptualise as "my own personal gender identity" to be recognised? Go for it. No skin off my nose. I might think your conceptualisation is ill-thought-out bollocks built on false premises but whatever. You do you.

You want to prevent me from being permitted to interpret the empirical data presented to me by my own senses; and prevent me from reaching conclusions informed by and consistent with not just all the other empirical data I've ever accumulated, but also with the collective empirical evidence base and analysis of the rest of humanity since forever? Metric fuckton of shit off my nose. I am well justified in telling you to ring the other one cos it's got a clock and balls bells on.

No real objection to an addendum on birth certificates. This isn't done for adoptions though. Why? Not sure of official reasoning but would seem prudent not to set a precedent for overwriting/falsifying birth records.

Can live with transitional protection of sorts for the very very few GRC holders on pragmatic grounds, so long as (a) no more GRCs issued and (b) entire concept of self-id 'd sex is not just quietly dropped but widely understood and accepted to be sexist and offensive bollocks.

gender expression should be clearly designated a protected characteristic, you should not get off the hook for beating up anyone GNC in mannerism or dress

I entirely agree. But how do you legislate for that? What about someone wearing Celtic gear being beaten up by Rangers supporters? Should team expression also be a protected characteristic?

(Apologies to the teams mentioned. I know zilch about football, but have heard these teams mentioned as rivals. Nothing implied by my use of their names!)

And/or that I've seen - gender expression should be clearly designated a protected characteristic, you should not get off the hook for beating up anyone GNC in mannerism or dress - hopefully covering both homophobia as applied to 'feminine' males and 'masculine' females, and transphobia since you can only see and respond to their expression of their gender identity through the way they dress or look, which is the material characteristic. I am under no doubt that a male-looking person in feminine dress is at risk but this is true whether they consider themselves trans or not.

Sex should remain protected, and it should be explicitly stated that refusing to accept someone's assertion that they are the opposite sex when they have a different gender identity to their bio sex is not a violation of their gender expression.

I'd modify that slightly:

Repeal the GRA.

People should be allowed to present however they like.

Forms should always ask for sex not gender. Forms should only ask for sex if it is relevant. If people wish to be addressed a particular way and that can be accommodated then form should have a "title" field.

Things like passports and driving licenses should record sex (but only if necessary - is it?)

As a PP said, forms should not ask for sex and gender as confusing. Plus gender would need to be a freeform field so you could fit in queer gender-fluid demi-boy femme etc. Forms could quite easily ask for sex and title if pronouns are important.

Spaces should be segregated by sex if there is a need (this need should be easy to prove /approve). Otherwise spaces should not be segregated at all.

Thanks for this thread - it's interesting to think about how things should work rather than just knowing they don't work at the moment, and that the proposals don't work.

I could see the argument that 'single gender spaces' could be 'inclusive women's groups' fighting for 'women's rights', in theory freeing 'female groups' to fight for 'female rights'.

I like the idea actually, but only on the strict proviso that we could really strongly separate gender identity and sex. That's part of what I want to force the people I talk to to do - admit they're not the same. I kind of suppose my aim is to make the true-believers double down because it paints them into a corner, but then I'm mean. And I also don't necessarily think it would work across the wider public. Where I find it useful and where I use it is specifically as a starting point for many of the people that I encounter - young and pre-children, woke-ish in the sense of generally trying to be 'nice', lefty types. Most around me seem to already use the four-way 'male/female x man/woman' system. Then it becomes about the degree to which it should be gender or sex in particular spaces, and I can at least then get people to admit it's useful to use sex in some cases rather than none.

I do agree with most of the people on this thread opposed to ceding any ground, particularly since they're too muddy in law and language, but I also think it's a point of view worth discussing provided the people I'm talking to are clear on the difference. I've discussed on another thread - I find it useful also because I'm sick of arguing about identity, I don't identify as a woman and I'm not excluding people from a club out of meanness. I don't agree that we should cede words and language in general, but if I'm focusing on sex-based rights I make that clear.

It does means I always end up using the words 'sex' and 'female/male' when I talk about any of the issues. I deliberately don't use 'woman/man' with the people who do separate the concepts as I don't consider those categories meaningful for issues like sports, socialisation, sexuality etc and I do consider sex to be. I've had people jump on me when I talk about female rights, saying why don't I believe TW should have women's rights and then I can honestly say I never mentioned a thing about women or their rights (you can almost hear the frustration that results). I do it also specifically for the woke-ish, because biological sex is the sticking point of most of those people I meet, and I have often found the push to claim bio sex too by extremists actually can result in a swingback to getting 'woman/man' realigned with 'female/male' when people realise that 'respecting gender' wasn't enough - the extremists want total capitulation. YMMV.

Basically I think it's worth discussing as a compromise even if we can't necessarily see how it would work because it's what so many profess to want - respect for their identities, which can't be challenged - and the more you force them to explain explicitly that they want the right to rewrite material reality the more unreasonable it sounds. I'm also one of those who feels that a belief system is a belief system, and if unchallengeable akin to religious belief, but others don't make that link. Material reality is a harder sell (for those that haven't already wholesale swallowed the dogma).

Agreed. What do we need a single gender space for? What purpose would it serve? Single sex spaces, those there is a need for, but if you want a space in which to indulge in feminine things with other feminine people then go to Sephora, or the fancier sort of boutique.

No, because I can't think of a single situation where you would be benignly separating people by gender.

Third spaces aren’t going to work if the point of going to the toilet is affirmation rather than urination.

It’s an admission that transwomen are not women. If they were women they’d be allowed into the ladies.

Declare their marriage illegal? Or tell the man he has to now become gay and remarry under a same sex relationship?

Aren’t transitioning husbands retrospectively turning their wives lesbian?

You'll just get the extremist types saying that they are literally sexed female because their brain says so. They won't allow a compromise like that, because saying a transwoman is male bodied and of the male sex is literal violence.

I do get your clear thought process though, you're not wrong. Just that, feminists aren't the no debate/no compromise side. We've been compromising with transsexuals/gra this whole time.

The 3rd space is important if it means the 1st and 2nd spaces (male and female sex) are strictly adhered to. And what about disabled space?

There's no need to record gender, any more than any other religious belief or cultural tradition. The Equality Act already provides protection against discrimination on the basis of belief. Protection for gender reassignment could be extended to cover all forms of gender expression, if that was felt to be necessary.

So a nightclub could use gender if its clientele would prefer that

No, this wouldn't be good. We used to use the toilets to get away from pesky men in clubs. We also used to have good chats and talk to other women in there.

Separating sex from gender is sensible.

Have both fields on the birth certificate. Sex as a real fact.
Gender as an optional extra for those people who belief they have one.

Passports and driving licences can delete gender/sex fields as the photo is proof enough.

Keep facilities separated by sex, as not everyone has a gender.

If sex is being used, there has to be a third space

It sounds a good compromise but would it be possible to just have one third space? Would transwomen, transmen and all non binary (of both sexes) like sharing the same third space e.g. prison or changing room?

I would imagine many would quickly revert to their birth sex.

I never use the word gender for anything ever not even in feminist spaces because it's too ambiguous and it encourages other people to have muddy thoughts. So I either say (bio) sex or stereotypes.

Gender identity is just somebody's opinion of which group affiliation represents them best. They will say they are a woman or a firefighter or the tooth fairy or a man. They think they're labeling themselves as a uniquely special individual when in reality they're choosing a group.

Gender presentation is just dressing up as a theme, like emo or goth; it's just clothes and anybody can wear anything they like without it magically changing their biology.

Passports are important travel documents which allow entry to other countries & sex is universally understood.

Gender identities are specific to some parts of the population in some countries.

Sex is relevent in some significant circumstances which relate to safety and security.

They aren't primarily intended to be identification documents in the home country.

Sex: M (presents as F)

Second part optional for those to whom it matters.