Should gender reassignment remain a protected characteristic?

It doesn't need to remain bc afaik it is a belief and is already as protected as gender critical beliefs. Gender reassignment is a euphemism for plastic surgery and hormone injections. That one has actually changed their gender by doing these things is a belief, not an immutable characteristic that warrants the same protections as race or SEX.

That doesn’t actually tell us what ‘gender reassignment’ actually is. Does it mean taking cross sex hormones, or does it need to involve surgery, or does it simply mean dressing as the opposite sex?

You are free to answer what 'gender reassignment' actually is. The OP certainly isn't able to apparently.

Just as gender critical beliefs are protected, so should too people's (albeit wrong) beliefs that they are actually different from the sex they actually are. As long as you're not pushing those beliefs on other people or demanding people belive what you believe, or demanding unreasonable accommodations in order to practice your belief, we're all good.

So I guess what I saying is that "gender reassignment" is already a protected belief under the equalities act whether it is specified or not bc it is a belief. One only believes they have been "reassigned" a new gender.

Reasonable for it to apply to people with enduring gender dysphoria. Not reasonable for it to apply to to the AGP fetishists. So Stonewall’s widening of the umbrella has been unhelpful to all, particularly including those with enduring gender dysphoria.

It’s as evidenced as an invisible friend or psychic powers…

If we consider the homosexual transsexuals (mainly men, but perhaps the occasional woman) wouldn't they be covered adequately by the PC of sexual orientation? Isn't 'presenting as a woman' just the far end of the effeminate gay man spectrum?

I don't want any man treated less favourably than another man just because he wishes he was a woman, no. (Vice versa for women). So on that basis I'm fine with it remaining a protected characteristic.

However I do wonder why it is picked out. It's a mental health condition/belief/religion (depending on the cause for the individual involved) so why is it picked out of other mental health conditions or beliefs?

If we must have protected characteristics (rather than just treating every person fairly) how about for a) mental health problems, such as depression or gender dysphoria, and b) non-religious beliefs, such as gender identity or veganism. I don't want people with depression, or vegans, treated differently either.

Im being practical. Im sorry that you feel im not contributing to thr discussion.

That's not a great reason. We're sharing philosophical talking points.

No because it is a meaningless term. If a term can be dredged up that means something, then that would be fine but that would mean dismantling the whole of gender ideology.
Agree with a PP it should come under religion/belief.

What you are calling a "pile on", is simply people responding to a question. When you come onto a board on which you already know the majority perspective and that yours is different, what else might you expect?

I just don’t see us leaving the council of Europe any time soon therefore it will remain.

Because it’s a legal requirement as per council of Europe and I don’t see the U.K. moving away from that any time soon.

Why do we need to have a distinct category called 'gender'? On what basis?
It is a relatively recent fad/invention - unlike 'Sex' 'Religion' 'Disability', 'Sexual Orientation'.

I don’t know. I’d like more objective information both ways

No, of course not. It’s meaningless. At the moment anyone could simply state that they have the characteristics on the basis that they feel like the opposite sex (which is itself impossible).

People who are mentally ill should obviously be treated with kindness, but that doesn’t mean they have additional rights.

Even for mumsnet users you won't get a representative answer here. I hid the feminism topic years ago because discussion on GC/trans rights is so toxic and dominates the feminism board. I only saw this because I've just moved to a new browser so my settings were all removed.
The fact you have so many 'no's on your poll shows how far people have moved from an academic discussion of whether sex or gender should have primacy to just open hatred and disgust for (primarily) trans women. The emotional basis of it is a mix of fear of men and internalized misogyny IMO.
The pile on I will (and you are) likely to experience now is the main reason I pretty much never post on this topic.

Yes. But it needs to be better defined and it needs to be separate characteristic clearly different from sex.

But first of all 'gender' needs to have a clear explanation and meaning that everyone can understand. To my mind it is based on nothing but feelings.

No. It’s a bizarre law based on a legal fiction that seeks to serve no purpose.

What is the certificate for? What is it supposed to show or to make happen?

Why? On what basis?

Should anyone who has had cosemtic surgery be given a similar protected status?

Ultimately I'd like to see a rejection of the concept of a 'gender identity' altogether.

I don't accept even the existence of a separate category of people known as' trans' people. We are all either male or female no matter how we feel or imagine ourselves to be; no matter what our preferences or tastes are; no matter our choice of clothing or hairstyle.

People imagine themsleves in all sorts of ways and identify with all sorts of things - but we don't have an entirely separate category for each of these particular 'identities' or feelings about ourselves.

Public life is not all about feelings or our personal self image. There exists a common reality that we all inhabit regardless of our feelings......and society is organised around these common reality facts.