Legal recognition of non-binary gender identities to be debated by MPs

Are there not more pressing issues to discuss than some fantasy ideology?

This will be very interesting.

I think we should be allowed to vote on who is going to talk the most bollocks.
The competition will be tough

My question, exactly. If nonbinary identities get recognised, then 'woman' and 'man' must also be pure identities? So if we tick the box for 'woman' or 'female' or 'neither', we are either

a) Choosing biological sex in two cases but not in the third case (nonbinary) which makes no sense because it is mixing together two different definition systems (identity vs. sex0
or
b) Choosing a gender identity in all three cases.

Option b) is troubling because then ticking the female or woman box would seem to mean that I accept the sexist gender roles and stereotypes about people of the female sex?

How someone else defines themselves will then affect what I am.

Oh this is going to be good.

I mean, really really good. I hope it's televised.

I note the government have said:
"As set out in the response to the Gender Recognition Act consultation, there are no plans to make changes to the 2004 Act"

And yes, much will be needed.

Atheism isn't an identity. If you are an atheist then that's what you are. You don't "identify" as a non-Catholic or a non-Sikh.

It only - currently - seems to be gender-related stuff that is in scope for public rejection and forced recognition.

No one's passport lists all the nationalities they're not. It gives the one you are. That's the one that's relevant. Being of the male or female sex is relevant to lots of things, and "non-binary" is an attempt to mix the sexes where they shouldn't be mixed.

I ain't buying it.

Is there a legal definition of non-binary? I haven't even heard a non-legal definition yet.

And what are we to make of people whose gender is e.g. 'non-binary woman'? (They exist.)

And what about the gender fluid?

And if non-binary deserves legal recognition, what about the other 100+ gender identities? Who is gate-keeping them out of legal recognition? Are some gender identities more worthy than others?

Organise society by sex, it's much simpler.

I bet they're all frantically googling, saying wtaf, then trying to work out the party line and then drowning the cognitive dissonance in gin.

An identity to state you're not something.

Atheism?

Isn't a non-binary gender identity just a different kind of attempt to reject gender? And as such, isn't it just another form of GC belief?

Of course there are so many reasons having it enshrined in law is not easy or entirely sensible but surely it doesn't have the same implications as men IDing as women.

Do other gender identities have legal recognition? Isn't it sex that is legally recognised?

But if they're going to debate this, perhaps they can establish exactly what a gender identity is and what relationship it is supposed to have to someone's sex.

An identity to state you're not something. Or not two things. How does that work in other identities? For example, being non-Scottish and non-English. Why shouldn't other non-[insert group] be recognised?

It doesn't work. The point is you are in a certain age group therefore you need certain services such as a school education. Or you are disabled therefore you need certain adjustments.

Why should the world recognise lots of things people decide to declare they're not?

That should not take long, being utter bollocks. Unless anyone can persuade me otherwise.

please no.