What would the impact be if gender identity were the protected characteristic?

Their definition of gender is "often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender is largely culturally determined and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth."

To me this reads as GI being about how you feel about your own masculinity or femininity. But how can you have an innate sense about something that is culturally determined?

And, the glaring the elephant in the room, is that men who identify as women will often align with the masculine stereotypes that are expected of men.

Ignoring women's boundaries, forcing themselves where they're not wanted, not listening to women, and feeling entitled to take things from women that don't belong to them.

Nobody ever lists these masculine and feminine things, do they?

No-one can change sex. I think Robert Winston was absolutely right! After all, he is an expert.

"I am struggling to understand what a PC of gender identity would even mean"

It's really hard to know because nobody really understands what GI means. The definitions available aren't very clear. Stonewall say GI is "A person’s innate sense of their own gender, whether male, female or something else (see non-binary below), which may or may not correspond to the sex assigned at birth." This seems clear(ish) until you look up how they are defining gender. Their definition of gender is "often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender is largely culturally determined and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth."

To me this reads as GI being about how you feel about your own masculinity or femininity. But how can you have an innate sense about something that is culturally determined?

RMW earlier on this thread said that "if you remain with your natal sex and gender identity aligned, or ‘do not have a gender identity’ as some would prefer to say". This seems to suggest that if you think that you don't have a gender identity at all that just means that your natal sex and gender identity are aligned which presumably means the ideologues think you can have a gender identity without even being aware of it. But this also doesn't match the definition of Stonewall who say that GI is "a sense of your own gender". How can GI be a sense of something but also something you are completely unaware of?

If something can't be properly defined (or if it's such a complex concept that ordinary educated people can't understand it) it's always going to be a headache in law. Who really knows what the repercussions will be until we know what definition of it would be written into law.

But by this logic a woman who claims to be non-binary can be descriminated against compared to a man or a woman, and only needs to be treated equally to all the humans who are not male or female. By this logic a woman who claims to be non-binary has no right to access male or female toilets

It would make life a lot easier if we could at least say "XYZ" are people that want to be the opposite sex, and "ABC" are people that feel they have an internal gender identity that relates to cultural masculinity and femininity (whatever labels XYZ and ABC people feel are appropriate) and treat the two groups and their requirements appropriately.

It helps no-one to conflate the two.

I think that it is fairly simple.

If GI is a protected characteristic, then no-one who has a GI should be treated differently to someone identical in every way but who does not have a GI.

ie No man should be excluded from male toilets because they have a cat gender or TW GI. No disabled adult human female should be excluded from the disabled toilet facilities because she has blue hair and identifies as non-binary.

TRAs seem to think that the way to protect GI as a characteristic is to accept it as fact and then compare someone with a TW identity to an actual, biological, real woman. But by this logic a woman who claims to be non-binary can be descriminated against compared to a man or a woman, and only needs to be treated equally to all the humans who are not male or female. By this logic a woman who claims to be non-binary has no right to access male or female toilets, and a young teen who is catgender cannot complain if her parents feed her nothing but whiskas.

I am struggling to understand what a PC of gender identity would even mean. Is it that:

1. Someone who is in possession of a (any) gender identity should not be treated less favourably than someone who isn't?

So, for example, a self-declared ciswoman could not be treated less well than a GC woman. (Isn't that already covered by belief though?)

2. Discrimination between gender identities isn't allowed?

Then a fluxgender person couldn't be treated less favourably than a demiboi and so on.

3. All non-conforming gender identities (I.e. all except "cis") should receive protection equivalent to that for gender reassignment?

That sort of makes sense, I suppose.

4. Or, as seems to be intended, that anyone with a gender identity of "woman" is entitled to provisions made for a completely separate PC?

Well how is that supposed to make any sense?

GI essentially is protected though as one doesn't need to have a GRC/ surgery/ or intend to have any of the above.

The validation thing is at the heart of it. I dont get the impression validation was the main driver 30 or 40 years ago, but now it seems to be.

If TWAW then by definition TW who love W are lesbians, and by definition a TW should be completely 100% open to sex with other be-penised TW as they are AHF-style lesbians. But it seems that this is often not the case.

Equally, there is absolutely no reason why a lesbian with a penis shouldn't be equally happy to have sex with a straight woman as a lesbian, other than a desire for validation or a desire to gain pleasure from destroying lesbians' sexual boundaries.

One could argue that "lesbian" TW are by definition gluttons for punishment or desirous of conflict... otherwise why would they not shun the disgusting backward transphobic AHF lesbians and stick to sex with pro-trans lesbians with penises?

I don't think you'll get a reasonable debate, because a lot of the desires and outcomes are not reasonable. There is a requirement to access women's spaces and the women in those spaces for validation. Wearing dresses that don't validate their idea that they are women, isn't a thing.

cis gender means you're living your life in black and white and are excluded from the rainbow

if you remain with your natal sex and gender identity aligned, or ‘do not have a gender identity’ as some would prefer to say, you are not protected under this Equality Act head.

I know RMW won't answer this, but is 'cis' therefore the same as being 'genderless' or 'agender'? You seem to have used the concepts interchangeably in this sentence.

(My usual caveat that I don't understand how a gender and a sex can 'align' as they are two different aspects of a person as far as I understand it).

Logically, if agender = cisgender, then both cis and trans people are under Stonewall's trans umbrella. I think it's wonderful that it's so inclusive, actually.

Or this one - an 80 yr old woman had the policed called on her when she asked a trans women to leave the shower room at her local pool - this is real life - many laws have left it very very broad and entirely in the favour of men.

quillette.com/2022/08/12/podcast-195-meet-the-80-year-old-feminist-who-got-banned-from-the-ymca-for-protesting-male-bodies-in-the-womens-locker-room/

I will add that the school board in the above case has already come out in support of the staff member and indicated even suggesting those prosthetics are an issue was contrary to the law.

Well you’d get nonsense like the below happening and no one willing to say anything because it might be against the law. As a Canadian I will say our government jumped on the bandwagon first and I’m sure will stay on it the longest 😒🤔

nationalpost.com/opinion/jamie-sarkonak-defence-of-teacher-with-oversized-prosthetic-breasts-the-logical-conclusion-of-gender-ideology

Wow. So it's a feeling.

I understand that for many, their gender identity is hugely important. I would have thought reducing it to a feeling would be seen as patronising. Apparently not.

Still don't understand how that stands up in court!

i really do not see why trans rights and same sex rights cannot run in parallel and why laws cannot be enforced to ensure noone is excluded from public life

They are often in direct conflict though because 'trans rights' means letting men into female only spaces etc.

No one is 'excluding' trans people from public life, they just need to come to terms with the fact that their self image doesn't alter their sex, so some areas will naturally be off limits.

Not up to women to budge over and make space for males with gender feelings, it's up to other men to accommodate them in male spaces.

It’s really simple, discrimination on the basis of sex will be permitted. TRA = MRA

I've just quickly checked and I can't see how there are any insults directed at you today, let alone every second comment. Nor can I see any deleted posts.

I expect it's me. I can come across as a bit brusque sometimes. I don't think I made any insulting comments though. Not knowingly at least.

mumsnet - a place for gender critical feminists to come to learn that there is no point trying to find a TRA willing and able to make good-faith arguments and evidence them.

I've just quickly checked and I can't see how there are any insults directed at you today, let alone every second comment. Nor can I see any deleted posts.

There may have been some posts that showed little respect as they said you were wrong, but surely you can handle that?

What is the worst insult you received on here today? Can you answer that?

I believe that it is very very poor form to drop into a "conversation", say a few sentences, then leave in bit of a strop having invented being insulted and having failed to justify any of your points or addressed counter-points.

I made a fairly long post at 12.01 which you completely ignored. As is your right.

Lol you are just trolling at this point. If you can't cope with writing more than a single sentence at a time perhaps try twitter which is also great for people who love to make vague, facetious, patronising comments like "I’m sorry to say that you have some more research to do" which is akin to "read more" and "do better". As it goes Mumsnet is a pretty good forum for having conversations about complex and sensitive issues. Thousands of women do it every day.

Not at all. I’m happy to continue a conversation but not a conversation where every second comment is an insult.

I do have better things to do than that.

Translation "I am far too busy and important to answer your trivial questions, little people. I am not willing to justify what I have said, nor am I prepared to admit when I am wrong. But not only that, some dreadful posters are trying to make a POINT when they reply to me and that is an outrage!"

In other words

Actually you goofed/misspoke