Wouldn't this be more sensible?

Because if used consistently, it'd be very clear to most people that a lot of trans ideology relies on people swallowing horrendously sexist stereotypes. They have to use linguistic sleight of hand to obscure this.

It's very simple. Sex and gender and extremely different when you are telling people that they can either "match" in a person or not. It's transphobic to conflate them. However, one's sex IS one's gender- they are one and the same. But one's gender isn't one's sex and it's transphobic to entertain the idea that it is.

This has genuinely been argued in tribunal courts (that sex and gender are the same) by Stonewall types.

The conflation of sex and gender is often done deliberately, IMO, and has unhelpfully helped confuse the issue.

But why not? Why can't sex and gender be separate things? It makes way more sense. I just don't get it

I think you advocating for the retention of the gender recognition certificate?

what would be your criteria for obtaining one?

would you allow males with a gender recognition certificate to be sent to women's prison if convicted of a crime?

But why not? Why can't sex and gender be separate things? It makes way more sense. I just don't get it

It's just an unstable "compromise" that satisfies no-one.

(a) It's not what a huge number of men want. They want to be real women. Any way that distinguishes them from real women, or permits real women to distinguish themselves from them, is unacceptable.

(b) Feminists don't want "gender" to be a thing. They don't want there to be "men's" things and "women's" things (like uniforms or jobs) in the first place. Except in a few cases like sports or women's shelters, in which case it definitely has to be sex-based.

Plus what I said before, rephrased:

(c) If sex and gender are separate, try to make a list of when you care about someone's sex and when you would care about someone's gender. I'd be interested to see what you can come up with on the gender side.

Why can't sex and gender be separate things?

Because that's not want the gender activists want. They want the complete erasure of sex in all aspects of life, and wherever there is a conflict between sex and gender, then gender must always be given the priority. If you don't think that's right, then that makes you a transphobic bigot.

Oh my god, a lot of that went over my head, sorry.

On the sex change point. What I was trying to say was that although you can't change your sex, the law seems to say that if you have gone through a full surgical transition you can officially call yourself the other sex. That's a fudge because you'll never really truly be that sex but I think an acceptable fudge given how small that group of people are and how much effort it takes to go through that process. Maybe I'm wrong but just feels like a v edge case thing

Don't worry, it went over the heads of most of the people who voted for that law too. Most of them saw it as an "edge case", and hence thought that it didn't really matter.

Helen Joyce has phrased it as being of something like a "witness protection programme". You can sort of get away with a bureaucratic fiction if there really are very few involved.

But it doesn't scale. Which is where all of this fightback started really - the proposal to make the GRC far more widely available - "self ID". That process made people realise that we weren't just talking about a "small group of people" with some specific condition, but any male, on demand.

We are now seeing the results of such "self ID" policies in all sorts of areas. Prisons, women's shelters, sports. There are very few female-only spaces left. And there are certain groups of males who are very, very interested in penetrating those spaces.

Transsexuals (most of whom were historically homosexual) are basically irrelevant in that scenario. There could be zero of them, and the self-ID policy would be a problem, due to the millions of heterosexual males, a small but significant minority of whom want to get into women's spaces.

And the sex ratios in certain areas are such that only a very small percentage of men need to take advantage of self ID for men to outnumber actual women - eg lesbian spaces, or female prisons.

Most of the general public are under the illusion that being 'trans' involves genital surgery. This is not the case:

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-rowling-right-that-hormones-or-surgery-not-required-for-legal-gender-change

As BernardBlacksWineIcelolly says, actual genital surgery is pretty awful and risky with plenty of room for painful complications, which is why the vast majority of trans people, especially adult males do not undergo such procedures.

Just to be clear - the legal bit is only taken up by a small number of people. That is the tip of the iceberg. The line that lots of organisations now take is that trans = anyone who says they are, whatever that means to them, and this explicitly includes (in the words of Stonewall et al) cross-dressers.

I was where you are a few years ago op - then you realise how big "gender identity" has become and what people are trying to say it means in law and socially.

We are very past the point of "trans" meaning someone with diagnosed gender dysphoria who wants to physically be the opposite sex.

The law says nothing about a "full surgical transition".

The law allows you to change your birth certificate if you can demonstrate that you've lived as the other sex for two years, which in effect means changing the name on your gas bills or similar. You also need a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, which many internet checklists can furnish the answers to. That's it.

And all of the above is irrelevant to most things. The sole intention of the above law is to give trans people a birth certificate that won't embarrass them. For any everyday situation where a birth certificate is not needed - well, it's a hot mess. A lot of providers are basically allowing self-ID or just making things mixed sex. While a provider can restrict things to one (biological) sex if they can show it's reasonable, they are increasingly fearful of doing so. The law did not see all this coming.

You can "intend" to "reassign your gender" which in reality means change your name and sex on utility bills - maybe wear different clothes - and that's sufficient to be covered under "gender reassignment" in equality law.
(Rather than having any medical transition - although many people just take hormones at most for this anyway).

This doesn't mean you're recognised as the opposite sex in all aspects of law such as using single-sex spaces, but Stonewall and the trans lobby tell everyone that it very much does - in fact, even if you just say you feel you are the opposite sex/(gender? It's always conflated) then you are.

This is what GC people disagree with.

I think an acceptable fudge given how small that group of people are and how much effort it takes to go through that process

sexual reassignment surgery is brutal

for men it involves castration (removal of the testes), and the penis being inverted to create what is effectively a surgical wound which must be dilated daily to prevent it from healing.

For women it involves flaying the skin from the forearm to create a 'penis'

In many cases it results in incontinence and sexual dysfunction

do you think it is ethical to require anybody to have this surgery to achieve any kind of benefit (e.g. a gender recognition certificate)?

the law seems to say that if you have gone through a full surgical transition you can officially call yourself the other sex.

This is incorrect. No surgical or medical procedure is required to change the sex marker on one's birth certificate - not in the UK anyway.

In which case the correct solution is to remove that sex-based gendering altogether, not just allow some people to cross the gender line.

Relevant video from Magdalen Berns:

RE: “I asked my Corporate Job if I could Wear the Men's Uniform”

As Ash Hardell is a subscriber to queer ideology, it hasn't occurred to her to the unite with other female co-workers against this sexist policy.

What Ash has chosen to do instead is to negotiate an exception just for herself by claiming a transgender identity, ultimately leaving a sexist policy intact. She's also very proud of this.

And by the way, the only thing you need a Gender Recognition Certificate for is changing your birth certificate as far as I'm aware. And no one is actually allowed to ask to see it anyway.
There's already self ID by the back door. Every bit of ID can be changed without any formal transition procedure. They don't need a diagnosis or to actually change anything about themselves.

the conflation of sex and gender seems mad to me.

Of course it is. But it's what a lot of people want more than anything in the world. I suggest picking up Helen Joyce's Trans, which takes you through the whole history of this.

And of course you're transphobic. Everything is transphobic. And that list was from, so this won't even remotely cover latest developments.

Mind you even if not conflated, separate sex and gender doesn't make sense. Looping back to this:

it's probably fair enough we recognise them as their assumed sex.

What does that mean? In what circumstances might we want to "recognise" someone's sex, but not care about their actual sex?

That's pretty much a paradox. If we don't care about actual sex, then we shouldn't be caring about sex in the first place.

It would have to be something truly "gendered" in the feminist sense, where there were different expectations of men and women, but to no good reason. Like wearing different clothes, or women not being permitted in a certain profession.

In which case the correct solution is to remove that sex-based gendering altogether, not just allow some people to cross the gender line.

But if the line remains, and we think it's good that the line remains, then the denominator has to remain sex. In sports, privacy, safety, etc.

That paradox is what made sure I never really accepted "gender" in the first place - I couldn't think of a single case where I should care about someone's "gender".

Maybe pronouns are the sole fuzzy area - something seemingly inconsequential as a politeness. (And you don't need sexed pronouns - some languages lack them). But even then, they're a slippery slope, as per Barracker's essay. And even if you're prepared to do it as a politeness, the moment that politeness is demanded, everyone should refuse to comply on principle, IMO.

Welcome to the club.

None of it makes sense and previously sensible people have completely lost their minds to gender woo.

We're all supposed to lie about what we can plainly see and look the other way.

Everything is transphobic now anyway, so the sooner you get used to having that shouted at you for questioning anything the better.