@Princessglittery
Acts of Parliament typically have definitions so everyone is clear what they mean and are intended to mean.
Yes, I know. The GRA doesn't define any of the relevant terms.
Personally I think this is deliberate. As soon as you start trying to define any of the terms used by proponents of gender ideology, it becomes immediately obvious that it is all nonsense and represents a genuine threat to other groups.
For example the EA2010: “woman” means a female of any age.
Yes, and in 2010 we all understood what the word "female" meant. Thanks to gender ideology even the meaning of "female" is now unclear, which is why there is currently a discussion around whether the Equality Act now needs to be updated to make is clear that the words "male" and "female" relate to biological sex, not "legal sex" or "gender" or "gender identity".
As was pointed out at a recent judicial review, a Transman with a GRC is legally a man (whether you agree or not, that is the current legal position). If they chose to become pregnant and have a child technically they not entitled to the legal protections of pregnancy and maternity, to maternity leave, SMP etc. because they are not a “woman”. I certainly would want employer’s to continue to be pragmatic and give them Mat leave, SMP etc.
I have to say this scenario exasperates me. In order to get a GRC you are supposed to commit to "living in your acquired gender" for the rest of your life. I think that should confer some actual obligations on the person in question, and consequences for not respecting them. My own view is that anyone with a GRC who behaves in a way which is completely inconsistent with "living in their acquired gender" should have their GRC revoked. Trans women who use their penises to rape people should have their GRCs revoked, and so should trans men who deliberately use their uteruses to grow babies in. Yes to mat leave and SMP, no to being legally considered a man.
There is an ET which implies non-binary is covered by the Gender Reassignment PC. Without a definition that can lead to a very broad interpretation. I think those who take the approach of today I’m Steve and tomorrow I’m Jemima present a huge risk to employers and the concept of having 2 staff passes sign ins etc. that some advocate would be a nightmare.
Again, what legal protection do "non binary" people need?
Most people who identify as non binary are not calling themselves Steve one day and Jemima the next. They mostly just want to use gender neutral pronouns and believe that not fitting neatly into the Barbie or GI Joe box makes them different for some reason. The only reason I can see that a non binary person might need legal protection is if they want to actually do something about people forgetting or refusing to use their preferred pronouns, or rolling their eyes too hard, and I'm not sure that's something the law should be getting involved in to be honest.
Totally agree with your point about staff passes and other implications for the rest of society in terms of respecting all these non standard identities. But I kind of think that defining non binary in legislation, particularly if you aren't going to actually tie that to any rights or protections that people need, is asking for trouble. It's legitimising what is in reality a pretty silly idea, and opening the floodgates to any and all other non standard identities needing their own recognition too.
People who are gender critical do not agree on everything. Some would want to see the same sex marriage legislation repealed, some do not. Some want the abortion act repealed some do not. Some accept gender is a different concept to sex, others do not. Some think unisex toilets are ok others do not.
Careful not to confuse gender critical with conservative here. Gender critical just means you don't believe in gender ideology. Many gender critical feminists are same sex attracted, and I haven't come across a single one who wants to restrict abortion rights.
I genuinely can’t see the clock being turned back very far. I can also see why non-binary/gender fluid etc. is attractive to younger people with so much misogyny and VAWAG. I am being pragmatic about what I believe is achievable and what is going to protect children and vulnerable people.
It's easy to see why young people, particularly girls and young women, want to opt out of womanhood. But the concept of gender identity is fatally flawed and only serves to reinforce those regressive attitudes.