'Polarised' debate on gender recognition is harming UK, says equalities chief

I must be chopped liver then because I don't have a gender.

Either that or you better persecute me for consistently using the facilities that don't match my gender but only my sex.
Yay better cut my pay by 10%, because if that adjustment was gender based not sex based then I didn't deserve it
You can explain to DH that he is gay

Yet having different body parts makes such a huge difference

It's why women are more likely to be killed in car accidents
It's why women are more likely to be rapes
It's why women have additional rights to sex separated sports , it's why women have rights to allow sex separated facilities, all to enable them to have human rights

Women's rights are human rights, but they belong to people with women's body parts because that's the basis on which women face harm

"To be more precise sex is just a collection of body parts and gender is the true identity."
So gender is just what we usually call personally? So then what are people transing to or from?

[quote WeeBisom]@JamieLeeCurtains- yes if you look at the Hansard debates there was a huge amount of concern from the Lords that their daughters could transition to men and disinherit the sons. So if you are a man who transitions to a woman you get to keep your inheritance and titles etc. It's ironic because it is, as you say, one of the small areas where trans men would actually gain a tangible advantage.[/quote]
Especially as you don't have to actually transition to identify as trans, you only have to state an intention to. Good job the old boys club had the foresight to protect their interests eh?

@JamieLeeCurtains- yes if you look at the Hansard debates there was a huge amount of concern from the Lords that their daughters could transition to men and disinherit the sons. So if you are a man who transitions to a woman you get to keep your inheritance and titles etc. It's ironic because it is, as you say, one of the small areas where trans men would actually gain a tangible advantage.

[quote ScrimpshawTheSecond]David Isaac was Chair of Stonewall from 2003 to 2012.

In 2015, Stonewall campaigned to remove single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act.

womansplaceuk.org/references-to-removal-of-single-sex-exemptions/[/quote]
I find it difficult to believe that he doesn't know what his former org has been up to since he left. The alternative is that he knows but doesn't give a shit.

Either way, good riddance.

The government needs to acknowledge that sex and gender are completely different and separate them in any legislation.

^^This

Basically gender is between the ears. Sex is between the legs, (because that's how the midwife determines sex).

To be more precise sex is just a collection of body parts and gender is the true identity.
.

[quote WeeBisom]@Gottalife -you need to look at the rest of the Gender Recognition Act where it then lists a bunch of exceptions to 'for all purposes'. Section 12 says a gender recognition certificate doesn't affect your status as mother or father of a child. Section 13 and 14says a GRC doesn't affect succession, wills, or peerages.Section 19 carves out a massive exception for women's sports. It also doesn't affect foreign marriage laws, and it doesn't affect sex specific criminal offences. So it doesn't really begin to look like they are woman 'for all purposes'. It begins to look an awful lot like a legal fiction.[/quote]
Yes and I'm sure I read that the GRA exemptions around succession and peerages affect trans men (female to male transitioners) not trans women (male to female transitioners), don't they?

That really pisses me off, the blatant discrimination against trans men.

Also, should it be necessary, you don’t need to do an intrusive physical examination to get information on sex.

Imagine being a white man and taking the job of equalities chief. What a creep

He's jewish - does that qualify him?

“Hence there are a lot of "stealth" trans people”

If there are lots of trans people concealing their sex in situations that involve inheritances, the criminal justice system and sport, they are breaking the law.

However, I think this is unlikely.

When you dehumanise women, those consequences don't matter. It's the get out of jail free card for men who claim to love equality. They don't have to take women, the support humans, seriously.

Oh, it will matter when it starts to inconvenience them: for example, when their elderly mothers have to go on mixed sex wards and cannot be guaranteed female carers for intimate tasks.

Then they will make a big noisy fuss about it and demand that "Something must be done!"

Imagine being a white man and taking the job of equalities chief. What a creep.

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes FOR ALL PURPOSES the acquired gender

You change your gender all you like sweetie - nobody knows what the fuck it means anyway.

Just for the record though, you cannot change your sex. Nobody can.

[quote WeeBisom]@Gottalife -you need to look at the rest of the Gender Recognition Act where it then lists a bunch of exceptions to 'for all purposes'. Section 12 says a gender recognition certificate doesn't affect your status as mother or father of a child. Section 13 and 14says a GRC doesn't affect succession, wills, or peerages.Section 19 carves out a massive exception for women's sports. It also doesn't affect foreign marriage laws, and it doesn't affect sex specific criminal offences. So it doesn't really begin to look like they are woman 'for all purposes'. It begins to look an awful lot like a legal fiction.[/quote]
The only sex specific criminal offence is rape and for that you have to have a penis.
In practice a lot of the exceptions can only be enforced by an intrusive physical examination and all the outrage that could cause. Hence there are a lot of "stealth" trans people.

Well hell if I'd known about the job prospect a bit earlier than today I would have applied. I got few of the required skills, I'm shit at being nice to people in real life and I'm a sarcastic witch but I bet I'd do a better job than the outgoing man.

What OvaHere said, upthread. He talks about hate crimes from both sides, but there's no such thing as a hate crime against a woman - we aren't protected by that legislation.

If we were, the state knows the doors and windows would cave in with the avalanche of cases. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Trans people exist. Get over it.

Absolutely.

And people who need specific rights and protections because their sex is female exist. Some of these people do not identify as female. They still need sex based rights. Get over it.

So the common factor of the proposed grouping is now whether they have been physically abused and are fearful and anxious?

Absolutely.

Also, no f**ing use if you aren't getting a promotion because you are 34 and everyone thinks you are about to have a baby, or if you are 80 and don't have much of a pension because you had children before maternity pay existed or if you are 40 and you have been forced to give up work because you have a lower salary due to 3 x maternity leave and somebody needs to look after the children.

@Gottalife -you need to look at the rest of the Gender Recognition Act where it then lists a bunch of exceptions to 'for all purposes'. Section 12 says a gender recognition certificate doesn't affect your status as mother or father of a child. Section 13 and 14says a GRC doesn't affect succession, wills, or peerages.Section 19 carves out a massive exception for women's sports. It also doesn't affect foreign marriage laws, and it doesn't affect sex specific criminal offences. So it doesn't really begin to look like they are woman 'for all purposes'. It begins to look an awful lot like a legal fiction.

The equalities act also makes it clear that sex is different to gender, and that sometimes sex and gender have to be treated separately

Sex is not gender and sometimes that difference matters and it is legal to have that distinction