Who would agree with this compromise?

[angelwithalariat]

Get rid of the GRA/GRC altogether. You can't change your sex.

Recognise people might also have a social sex, which could be called gender if it seemed everyone would understand that.

If a form asks for your sex, it means your legal, natal, XX/XY sex, because that is what it needs to know . When it doesn't matter, use whatever gender you want.

Passport and driving license can use your gender because that's about identifying you.

Sometimes they can ask for both so that your doctor's computer can send out letters saying 'Dear Ms Jones, don't forget your prostate check' when necessary.

Spaces might be segregated by sex or gender, but it has to be completely clear which is being used. If sex is being used, there has to be a third space. Certain institutions have to use sex. (Schools for instance. Public toilets.) So a nightclub could use gender if its clientele would prefer that. Or I was thinking of the poster who said that, at their uni, the sociology building loos were by gender and the physics ones by sex.

This means we get rid of a legal fiction which is becoming dangerous and people who want to be recognised in a particular social role can do so. Everyone happy.

Get rid of the GRA/GRC altogether. You can't change your sex.

I may have pointed out that this was a discussion point that might usefully have been included within the recent consultation.

What about the transsexual woman who got a birth certificate changed in 2005 and then married a man legally and they are still married 13 years later. How would your compromise work for them?

I am not talking about anyone in particular but I expect there will be such cases. So how do you handle that if you change a law retrospectively?

Declare their marriage illegal? Or tell the man he has to now become gay and remarry under a same sex relationship?

Why would you have to remarry? Marriage is now the same for gay or straight people. That's why we don't need to legally change sex anymore.

I agree though there are probably retrospective issues which would have to be thought through. I am thinking more about what would work going forward.

I am not talking about anyone in particular but I expect there will be such cases. So how do you handle that if you change a law retrospectively

There are usually grand-fathering clauses, as they're known.

There is precedent for people who have gained a benefit under a law that is repealed, to retain that benefit even though it is no longer possible to grant it under the new law.

Yes GRA is a bad law, created to allow a legal fiction that is no longer necessary. Government should never mandate belief.

Driving licences and passports are legal identification documents.
Say a man ticks the "female" box on the form and presents his woman passport when challenged - then what?

No.

Although I applaud the intent, and have been through similar thought processes.

Ultimately, the classifications of female and male, woman and man, girl and boy, must always relate to sex, and only to sex.

The conflation and confusion has to stop, completely.

Gender is a belief system, like religion, and as such you can legislate to ensure people aren't discriminated against for holding a belief. But there should be no endorsement of that belief on documents, or reallocation of sex based spaces to religion.
And no conflation of sex terms in any recognition of gender.

If a practising Hindu called themselves an orthodox Jew and expected to have synagogues adapt to their Hindu beliefs because they erroneously are calling them Judaism, the law would allow for that false claim to be refuted.

The law must similarly provide for the female sex to refute any misuse of the word female from a person who is not female, even if they claim the word can be applied under their gender beliefs. It cannot.

I wholeheartedly agree with divorcing sex and gender irrevocably.

But I don't think it's tenable any longer to allow a mythical ideology to misappropriate sex based terminology.

Gender can have femininity and masculinity perhaps. But not female, girl or woman. Those terms are sex based and that's that.

Spaces might be segregated by sex or gender, but it has to be completely clear which is being used

I do think this is important. Women need to know if the are entering a sex segregated space or one that segregated by gender.

I gather you can already put what you want on passport or driving license, even without a GRC?

I don't think unrecord sex. I'd be happy with adding gender as an additional field on passports etc if people feel uncomfortable just being recorded under their sex.
Free text field so people can put whatever they want or leave it blank, like when religion is recorded. After all being transgender is nothing to be embarrassed about. In some ways it should be recorded, for example for medical statistics, crime statistics, getting the correct medical care, and to make sure trans people are not discriminated against.

Agree clarity is vital.

I see what you mean Barracker, suppose we used a different term than gender? Not sure what - but nailing down an exact, unarguable meaning for sex.

Sex: M (presents as F)

Second part optional for those to whom it matters.

Passports are important travel documents which allow entry to other countries & sex is universally understood.

Gender identities are specific to some parts of the population in some countries.

Sex is relevent in some significant circumstances which relate to safety and security.

They aren't primarily intended to be identification documents in the home country.

I never use the word gender for anything ever not even in feminist spaces because it's too ambiguous and it encourages other people to have muddy thoughts. So I either say (bio) sex or stereotypes.

Gender identity is just somebody's opinion of which group affiliation represents them best. They will say they are a woman or a firefighter or the tooth fairy or a man. They think they're labeling themselves as a uniquely special individual when in reality they're choosing a group.

Gender presentation is just dressing up as a theme, like emo or goth; it's just clothes and anybody can wear anything they like without it magically changing their biology.

If sex is being used, there has to be a third space

It sounds a good compromise but would it be possible to just have one third space? Would transwomen, transmen and all non binary (of both sexes) like sharing the same third space e.g. prison or changing room?

I would imagine many would quickly revert to their birth sex.

Separating sex from gender is sensible.

Have both fields on the birth certificate. Sex as a real fact.
Gender as an optional extra for those people who belief they have one.

Passports and driving licences can delete gender/sex fields as the photo is proof enough.

Keep facilities separated by sex, as not everyone has a gender.

So a nightclub could use gender if its clientele would prefer that

No, this wouldn't be good. We used to use the toilets to get away from pesky men in clubs. We also used to have good chats and talk to other women in there.

There's no need to record gender, any more than any other religious belief or cultural tradition. The Equality Act already provides protection against discrimination on the basis of belief. Protection for gender reassignment could be extended to cover all forms of gender expression, if that was felt to be necessary.

The 3rd space is important if it means the 1st and 2nd spaces (male and female sex) are strictly adhered to. And what about disabled space?

You'll just get the extremist types saying that they are literally sexed female because their brain says so. They won't allow a compromise like that, because saying a transwoman is male bodied and of the male sex is literal violence.

I do get your clear thought process though, you're not wrong. Just that, feminists aren't the no debate/no compromise side. We've been compromising with transsexuals/gra this whole time.

Declare their marriage illegal? Or tell the man he has to now become gay and remarry under a same sex relationship?

Aren’t transitioning husbands retrospectively turning their wives lesbian?

Third spaces aren’t going to work if the point of going to the toilet is affirmation rather than urination.

It’s an admission that transwomen are not women. If they were women they’d be allowed into the ladies.

No, because I can't think of a single situation where you would be benignly separating people by gender.

Agreed. What do we need a single gender space for? What purpose would it serve? Single sex spaces, those there is a need for, but if you want a space in which to indulge in feminine things with other feminine people then go to Sephora, or the fancier sort of boutique.

I could see the argument that 'single gender spaces' could be 'inclusive women's groups' fighting for 'women's rights', in theory freeing 'female groups' to fight for 'female rights'.

I like the idea actually, but only on the strict proviso that we could really strongly separate gender identity and sex. That's part of what I want to force the people I talk to to do - admit they're not the same. I kind of suppose my aim is to make the true-believers double down because it paints them into a corner, but then I'm mean. And I also don't necessarily think it would work across the wider public. Where I find it useful and where I use it is specifically as a starting point for many of the people that I encounter - young and pre-children, woke-ish in the sense of generally trying to be 'nice', lefty types. Most around me seem to already use the four-way 'male/female x man/woman' system. Then it becomes about the degree to which it should be gender or sex in particular spaces, and I can at least then get people to admit it's useful to use sex in some cases rather than none.

I do agree with most of the people on this thread opposed to ceding any ground, particularly since they're too muddy in law and language, but I also think it's a point of view worth discussing provided the people I'm talking to are clear on the difference. I've discussed on another thread - I find it useful also because I'm sick of arguing about identity, I don't identify as a woman and I'm not excluding people from a club out of meanness. I don't agree that we should cede words and language in general, but if I'm focusing on sex-based rights I make that clear.

It does means I always end up using the words 'sex' and 'female/male' when I talk about any of the issues. I deliberately don't use 'woman/man' with the people who do separate the concepts as I don't consider those categories meaningful for issues like sports, socialisation, sexuality etc and I do consider sex to be. I've had people jump on me when I talk about female rights, saying why don't I believe TW should have women's rights and then I can honestly say I never mentioned a thing about women or their rights (you can almost hear the frustration that results). I do it also specifically for the woke-ish, because biological sex is the sticking point of most of those people I meet, and I have often found the push to claim bio sex too by extremists actually can result in a swingback to getting 'woman/man' realigned with 'female/male' when people realise that 'respecting gender' wasn't enough - the extremists want total capitulation. YMMV.

Basically I think it's worth discussing as a compromise even if we can't necessarily see how it would work because it's what so many profess to want - respect for their identities, which can't be challenged - and the more you force them to explain explicitly that they want the right to rewrite material reality the more unreasonable it sounds. I'm also one of those who feels that a belief system is a belief system, and if unchallengeable akin to religious belief, but others don't make that link. Material reality is a harder sell (for those that haven't already wholesale swallowed the dogma).