Datun, I guess the differences are just too great on the other thread.
I do get the sex and gender thing, of course. I doubt anyone doesn't. Though some will be more scared of saying it, I suppose.
But as Italian says there seems a fundamental difference between the (now seemingly disallowed term) transsexuals around which the GRA was built and for whom it was unquestionably intended - and the gender non conforming people who form the majority of those now wanting to self identify.
This to me is the heart of the problem. Two things are being squeezed into one with big differences in basis and vast differences in numbers.
You just cannot successfully accommodate both in one act. Not least because the first act was largely waved through by those sceptical of it in parliament because they understood numbers were tiny - as the 7000 registered over 14 years demonstrates.
I think that they were also only minded not to impose some minimum degree of physical transition into the act because of the concept of not wishing to force those who were too old or infirm for surgery to be disenfranchised. That has left a crack in the door which is able to be exploited by those who are not transsexual - who will, almost by definition, transition physically to at least some degree.
Of course the act did bring in some disenfranchising anyway by insisting that couples had to divorce if the act would have created a legal same sex marriage, which was then still not on the agenda and a decade away. So - understandable as that was - a number of people were forced to choose between long term partner and registration. And chose not to be legally registered until gay marriage was legal.
The problem is more complicated because sex and gender may have a specific meaning to some people and a slightly different one to another.
A transsexual was never really talking about gender identity. That's why the term was not transgender. We are often assumed to have developed an identity or socialising normality that is atypical of the sexual biology. In effect meaning it is an acquired belief system or lifestyle expression or a consequence of not being like other boys or girls.
I totally get why that is the obvious assumption. But it was not my experience of what it was like. This is not something that you gradually realise. It really does feel to be innate. And it happens well before puberty or when sexual interactions start, so it is not really rooted in that either.
It feels like a physical problem, hence the determination to physically adapt the body to match up as best as possible. Whilst also completely understanding this will not overprint DNA or chromosomes.
That is why there was a drift away from using the term transsexual, because medicine knew (and we knew) that you cannot change biological sex and so they made us sign that waiver that they were reassigning gender. It was to avoid legitimising something scientifically inaccurate.
But - and this is the important bit I think - in doing so and using the term gender it created the assumption that it was your gender identity that was faulty - based on the starting assumption everyone had that if it was not an obvious anomaly of DNA or chromosomes then it was some sort of delusion or gender confusion.
Now I do actually think it often is and there have been identifiable causes made and this seems to be the basis of the long understood 90% of those with gender confusion who often get by through cross dressing.
However, when you look at the differences between that 90% and the 10% of what were called transsexuals there seem big differences.
The former do seem gender confused or gender fluid and it is about expression and lifestyle and much less if at all about body dysmorphia or whatever you want to call it.
As a result they want to express themselves and are more wide ranging and flexible in presentation and how far they want to go or even in terms of permanence of transition. And very often are not looking for any real transformation outside the superficial.
Whereas the ones who used to be transsexuals are still focused in that direction to shift body as far as practical towards what we perceive ourselves to have somehow been denied. It is not really a confusion of gender but an anomaly of biology that we think has happened.
Hence why many who are opposed to all this struggle. Because they ask transsexuals to define why they have a female gender identity and what exactly is this and we cannot answer any more than they do because to us that is not what is going on.
Yet they see the ones who express themselves through gender identity and see the flamboyance and stereotypical cross gender identity they have created and the lack of physical transition as a necessity and presume this is what is going on.
With everybody.
And the more I think about this the less I am sure that they are right.
I really do think now two quite separate things are going on here with very different origins, very different desires for outcome or needs of expression and a huge imbalance in numbers too.
Absolutely all people in both sides of this divide should be treated with respect and facilitated as best as possible.
But I am now definitely of the mind that you cannot do so under one single act because it simply cannot cover both groups whilst protecting the broader interests of society, especially women.
I don't have any answers as tp