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.

I'd modify that slightly:

Repeal the GRA.

People should be allowed to present however they like.

Forms should always ask for sex not gender. Forms should only ask for sex if it is relevant. If people wish to be addressed a particular way and that can be accommodated then form should have a "title" field.

Things like passports and driving licenses should record sex (but only if necessary - is it?)

As a PP said, forms should not ask for sex and gender as confusing. Plus gender would need to be a freeform field so you could fit in queer gender-fluid demi-boy femme etc. Forms could quite easily ask for sex and title if pronouns are important.

Spaces should be segregated by sex if there is a need (this need should be easy to prove /approve). Otherwise spaces should not be segregated at all.

Thanks for this thread - it's interesting to think about how things should work rather than just knowing they don't work at the moment, and that the proposals don't work.

And/or that I've seen - gender expression should be clearly designated a protected characteristic, you should not get off the hook for beating up anyone GNC in mannerism or dress - hopefully covering both homophobia as applied to 'feminine' males and 'masculine' females, and transphobia since you can only see and respond to their expression of their gender identity through the way they dress or look, which is the material characteristic. I am under no doubt that a male-looking person in feminine dress is at risk but this is true whether they consider themselves trans or not.

Sex should remain protected, and it should be explicitly stated that refusing to accept someone's assertion that they are the opposite sex when they have a different gender identity to their bio sex is not a violation of their gender expression.

gender expression should be clearly designated a protected characteristic, you should not get off the hook for beating up anyone GNC in mannerism or dress

I entirely agree. But how do you legislate for that? What about someone wearing Celtic gear being beaten up by Rangers supporters? Should team expression also be a protected characteristic?

(Apologies to the teams mentioned. I know zilch about football, but have heard these teams mentioned as rivals. Nothing implied by my use of their names!)

Looks like the only fair compromise to me, OP.

You want something you conceptualise as "my own personal gender identity" to be recognised? Go for it. No skin off my nose. I might think your conceptualisation is ill-thought-out bollocks built on false premises but whatever. You do you.

You want to prevent me from being permitted to interpret the empirical data presented to me by my own senses; and prevent me from reaching conclusions informed by and consistent with not just all the other empirical data I've ever accumulated, but also with the collective empirical evidence base and analysis of the rest of humanity since forever? Metric fuckton of shit off my nose. I am well justified in telling you to ring the other one cos it's got a clock and balls bells on.

No real objection to an addendum on birth certificates. This isn't done for adoptions though. Why? Not sure of official reasoning but would seem prudent not to set a precedent for overwriting/falsifying birth records.

Can live with transitional protection of sorts for the very very few GRC holders on pragmatic grounds, so long as (a) no more GRCs issued and (b) entire concept of self-id 'd sex is not just quietly dropped but widely understood and accepted to be sexist and offensive bollocks.

JellySlice - my rationalisation is roughly along the lines of, an effeminate looking male or masculine looking female is at specific risk of being called slurs (f word, d word, tr word) and beaten up etc whether or not they identify as trans, specifically because of their presentation. I'm sure there is plenty of crossover between homophobia and (material) transphobia and I think we do mostly have a handle on that. Wording may need work of course.

As to the sportsball question, personally I think it's a false analogy because we have clear evidence that gender-conforming males (it is usually males) attack gender-non-conforming males and females but not vice versa whereas - at least superficially - it seems to me that all the sportsball fans are happy to attack each other. Also I think it's a closer analogy were we to discuss Celtics attacking a Celtic in Ranger dress, because that is transgressing ball affiliation boundaries. Perhaps we should figure out which sportsball fans are the worst for this, but we do already quite cleanly divide our spaces by ball affiliation. (In case not abundantly clear...I am aware this was probably meant entirely in jest and am continuing in turn.)

Not in jest, at all, just poorly expressed by me.

Gender-conforming, team-conforming, religious-sect-conforming , it's all the same, ultimately. You're not doing things the way the rest of us do! You're offensive! You're a threat! You're a mockery!

Gender-conforming behaviour varies so much, even within the same country, even more so across cultures and eras. How can it be defined? How can one legislate for something unclearly defined? Brings us right back to where we started: the inclarity and incompatibility of GRA and EA.

[nodding dog impression]

It would be great to start presenting more positive proposals, rather than being those mean old hags over on Mumsnet who just say you're not this and this doesn't work [own personality perhaps being projected here]

Who to approach? Penny Mordaunt?

JellySlice - fair enough, I see what you're getting at. I still maintain that gender conformity and its policing is a clear issue - across said cultures and times and even within the same country, despite the variation in exactly what constitutes 'normal' gender expression, people are still punished specifically for crossing the boundary. The 'moral disgust' component of transgressing what you are supposed to be doing (according to your sex) is one that is seen across cultures, although the severity of the response and the specific nature of the response varies. Even though the exact nature varies between cultures and across time I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that there are not clear behaviours/dress associated with each sex. Sex being unchangeable means that transgression is usually visible and so a target for attack. I really don't think the team analogy works because you can't see by my face that I'm supposed to be a Celtic fan but you sure as damn know that I'm supposed to do xyz because I'm visibly female.

Not that there aren't problems in the EA and its wording - but I could argue the same for say, religion/belief, religions and the outward expressions of them vary across cultures but that doesn't mean we don't protect belief as a characteristic. The exact nature of racism varies between cultures and across time but we still recognise it. Case in point - am ethnic chinese and so a 'good' immigrant and generally don't feel I'm discriminated against for my skin, and my experience of racism is that I have seen it more directed against eastern europeans. In my parents youth it was different - my father and his brother experienced it at school - and in for example Hong Kong it is largely manifested against still other different ethnic groups - but xenophobia against the ethnic 'other' is clearly the underlying mechanism for all of these.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely do agree with you that these are all just fear of people 'not doing/being the normal thing', I simply disagree that this means we shouldn't try to address specific manifestations where we see a pattern, and pertinently to this discussion, the policing of 'sexed' behaviours/dress. I disagree that the variation in 'normal' gender expression means it's not a pattern, as even if the nature of the boundary varies, the boundary exists and it's the crossing that causes the problem.

When we protect belief as a characteristic, we protect the right of the individual to have their own beliefs and their right not to have another belief imposed upon them.

We do not protect the right of anybody to impose their beliefs upon another person.

It is considered a human right not to have to profess or express a belief that you do not hold.

Gender identity needs to be recognised as a belief, and subject to the laws relating to belief.

JellySlice - totally agree. I'm not disagreeing with what you say about identity and beliefs and the fact that nobody should be able to impose beliefs on others. I also do not find identity to be a meaningful thing to impose on others, as it is a belief. Apologies if that was unclear.

To be absolutely clear - I believe that we should defend a male person dressing/acting in a stereotypically female way and vice versa from harm. That's what I mean by protecting expression - mannerism and dress are material qualities, and provided they aren't used to cause harm, attacking someone for those qualities seems unreasonable. This doesn't mean I want to force you to believe that he is a female or vice versa, which is what I understand you to mean by protecting identity. As you rightly said, that would be forcing you to state a belief you don't hold.

We are in agreement with each other.