Government says it is too complex to make changes to the GRA to include non binary

Women remain women, and men remain men however they present and regardless of any body modifications.

Can you explain what you think a 'transsexual' person should be allowed to do that a transgender person should not?

Why should they not?

Can you explain what you think a 'transsexual' person should be allowed to do that a transgender person should not?

Okay, so then the suggestion is that "gender reassignment" protection in the EA is limited just to people with a GRC?

Still a fuzzy area though, isn't there? What I suspect was the original intent - you have to "live as a woman" for 2 years to get the GRC, and the protection was intended, I assume, for people in that period.

But maybe that can just be covered by the "sex" discrimination characteristic? I believe like a lot of others that a lot of what transgender people want protection from - and think they get via "gender reassignment" protection - can in fact be obtained via "sex". It's gender non-conformity - doing something that would be permitted for someone of the opposite sex.

There is no longer a surgical requirement for a GRC, so it’s not differentiating between transexuals and transgender people who have retained their original plumbing.

There is very much still an expectation of surgery.

If someone doesn't have surgery they must prove there is a medical reason why not. A person who did not want surgery would not qualify for a GRC.

If a man believes himself to be a woman, or chooses to give himself a feminine name, or conform to feminine stereotypes by dress or behaviour, or modify his body via drugs or surgery, his right to express his belief should be protected.*

And should all trans be equal?

Is a transvestite the same as a post op transsexual?

*I dont think it's particularly good law either but it's the only differentiator right now of medicalised transsexuals versus self ID.

You take it away and you not no longer separate transgender from transsexual and you've created a far bigger problem.*

There is no need to differentiate between them. Their right to self-express should be protected, but only insofar as it does not impinge on others' rights. Exactly as our rights to freedom of faith and belief (and unbelief) are protected.

If a man believes himself to be a woman, or chooses to give himself a feminine name, or conform to feminine stereotypes by dress or behaviour, or modify his body via drugs or surgery, his right to express his belief should be protected. So he should not for example be banned from accessing men's services or facilities. But neither should he be allowed to appropriate women's name or services.

There is no longer a surgical requirement for a GRC, so it’s not differentiating between transexuals and transgender people who have retained their original plumbing.

I don't see why the Govt don't amend the GRA to allow for non-binary identities. It would make as much sense as the current one; I don't see what the justification is for allowing one nonsensical pretence and not another.

Because it was written for transsexuals with the expectation of reassignment surgery.

The GRA is the differentiator between transsexual and transgender. You may not like it - in not especially keen - but a differentiator is essential.

Why can't you just have a the Protected Characteristic of Gender Reassignment which gives you protection from unfair discrimination, without the fiction of a changed-sex birth certificate?

Because the Equality Act has made a mockery of the characteristic by saying that as long as someone states an intention to transition In the future then that is no different to someone who actually has.

Transsexuals had GRA
Transgender got EA
You take away GRA and you turn transsexuals into no different to cross dressers, transvestites and drag queens who according to Stonewall are part of the umbrella.

I don't see why the Govt don't amend the GRA to allow for non-binary identities. It would make as much sense as the current one; I don't see what the justification is for allowing one nonsensical pretence and not another.

The GRA is not good law. It is divisive, discriminatory, unfair and unenforceable. It needs to be repealed.

I dont think it's particularly good law either but it's the only differentiator right now of medicalised transsexuals versus self ID.

You take it away and you not no longer separate transgender from transsexual and you've created a far bigger problem.

Prior to GRA we had the Sex Discrimination Act (Gender Reassignment). We do need something in law to support transsexual.

The Government noted that there were complex practical consequences for other areas of the law, service provision and public life if provision were to be made for non-binary gender recognition in the GRA.

How about the complex practical consequences for other areas of the law, service provision and public life caused by the legalised deception created by the GRA in the first place?

The GRA is not good law. It is divisive, discriminatory, unfair and unenforceable. It needs to be repealed.

I genuinely don't get the fervour about gender identity either. I am pretty sure I don't have one, and if I do I don't think about or care about it, and I care even less about other people's.

Parts of my personality I do think and care about, number one would be critical thinking. I challenge my views and the views of others every day. I seek out data and evidence. I expose myself to the views of others. I ask try to ask good questions and critically appraise the answers.

This is something I try to practice daily. It is a core part of who I am. It is how I form my world views. This is what matters to me. And it is quite useful. I can't even begin to think what use gender identity is, other than as a distraction to other more important things.

The GRA provides a means for TRANSSEXUAL people to change the sex on their birth certificate.

Indeed. During the debates a few people tried to point out what a bunch of conceptual nonsense it was, but the response was basically "don't worry about the details, the exact wording doesn't matter because it's only going to be used by this tiny number of transsexuals".

Why does gender identity/sexuality seem to matter so much more than any other part of our identity? I just genuinely don't get it.

Neither do I and I'm a post op transsexual.

The GRA provides a means for transgender people to change the sex on their birth certificate

Not quite. The GRA provides a means for TRANSSEXUAL people to change the sex on their birth certificate. This is about 2% of the transgender umbrella.

I wonder if they looked at the case of former transwoman, then non binary James Shupe. He was the first American to get "non binary" on his birth certificate, and has since detransitioned, calling transgenderism a scam that damaged his physical and mental health.

As for the problem of complexity, it seems to me that it would be relatively simple to keep sex markers on official documents, and allow for any additional gender marker an individual identifies as. And not let the gender trump the sex.

Their illogicality has truly bitten them on the arse.

'Non binary' was needed and pushed by the TRA's as a way of getting sex removed from legislation by further claiming it to be an irrelevance because the non binaries don't want one.

I think it's bit them in the arse.

I don't understand, generally, in LGBTQ+ terms, why 'labels' matter so much. Why does 'authenticity' (which has pretty much lost all meaning now it's used so much) have to mean adopting a label? Can't we just be us in terms of gender identity/sexuality, without having a label? Why does gender identity/sexuality seem to matter so much more than any other part of our identity? I just genuinely don't get it. Talking about normal LGBTQ+ people here rather than activists. Male/female sex matters because women are distinguished from men by the ability to conceive and bear a child and this has many, many knock-on effects. But for the rest - I'm flummoxed.

I think non-binary identities really upset some transgender folk. Many NBs want third-spaces ie. neutral toilets because they feel unhappy in Male AND female toilets. This then provides a legitimate space for trans people to use as opposed to entering those spaces where men and women expect to be amongst their own sex.

I think in the end there will be more third spaces built into all areas of life where there are clashes with the rights to single-sex spaces. I can’t see any other solution. It’s such a painful arduous journey when certain sectors just want single-sex spaces to be abolished. Gender neutral/third spaces can be set aside for all those people who don’t mind sharing with men, women, transmen, TransWomen and non-binary/gender fluid people. Those who don’t want that, can use the Male and Female spaces - these spaces should never be dispensed with.

I wish we could arrive at that time sooner.

Oh dear that will upset the "Non-Binary is valid" shouters, it does also undermine the gender identity trumps all mantra it does not, not in law or anywhere else, the basis is sex and it's high time businesses, government departments, public institutions etc., understood this and upheld it.

Sometimes I think it would be good if Labour were in government and so had to work through the rationale of Stonewall’s demands.