A solution to gender vs sex

[Randomusername01]

If it is agreed that gender is different from sex and gender is a spectrum and sex is a biological fact why can't both be put on birth certificates? Sex recorded as it is now, either male or female and can only be changed in exceptional cases and upon medical proof I.e. a dsd as found in intersex people. Gender could be recorded as matching the birth sex but easily changed once a person reaches adulthood at 16 for a nominal fee to cover admin costs. Sex characteristics are protected and gender identity is recognised.

You’d have to correlate biological women (sex) against transwomen so you’d have to ask if they were transwomen, not gender.

Asking ‘gender’ would exclude biological women who identify as male.

The point would be to clearly separate sex and gender so female and male would be sexes, not genders.

For gender identity you could choose none, man, women, non-binary etc, etc.

Each person would have a sex and a gender marker so that sex and gender are clearly separate.

Would you say that data on employees religion is just noise?

For marketing purposes they can just target you depending on what you have looked at or bought before, more accurate than gender, and people don't just buy for themselves.

Titles you would need to know which one, not just the gender, unless we have Master/Miss for children and Mr/Ms for adults, and then there is Dr and so on too.

I don’t think I have been asked my religion since the last time I completed the census and I’ve certainly never been asked for my religion as an employee.

gender is a spectrum

Gender is a social construct, historically and culturally specific. It’s an oppressive set of social expectations and conditioning (socialisation). A set of roles which oppresses women and tries to make them accept that they are less than fully human.

I don’t think I have been asked my religion since the last time I completed the census and I’ve certainly never been asked for my religion as an employee.

Organisations are supposed to monitor equal opportunities for all the protected characteristics.

You’d still have to define what constitutes a “woman gender” and the only way to do that would mean codifying stereotypes into law.

The point is that sex and gender would be completely separate so it wouldn't actually matter what a woman gender was.

Anything sex segregated would go by sex (homeless shelters, toilets, hospital wards, sports etc) and those running it could ask for ID if it was felt necessary. ID would record sex and gender identity.

At least I'm pretty sure that's what the OP means.

If the door is broken please fix it, don't jump out of the window.
This is already complex enough. New rules(laws) rarely make things better. All progress is recuperated and used against those who fought for it.
The answer in this case is the minimum change to gra because parts of it are a bit outdated and oppressive, but not so it impinges on women's spaces, or allow men who have no intention of behaving in a respectful way to tell us what to do.
In other words keep the kindly intentions of the original act, and update, but not radically change it.

In other words keep the kindly intentions of the original act, and update, but not radically change it.

I don't think anyone has a problem with those the act was intended for but when it gets to the point that rapists are put in women's prisons something has gone dreadfully wrong. That's what causes people to jump out of the window.

What is needed in many cases where tere may be relevence is 'sex'(male/ female) and an open box to allow those who have a 'gender identity' to record it there.

Both answers should be respected.

Humans can't change sex.

How would you record gender if it is a spectrum?
It sounds as if your perceived gender is a reaction to stereotyped expectations from others, so it is likely to be quite fluid.

I also wouldn't know what to put on a form for gender. I don't think about it, except where I have had to struggle against unfairness. Maybe just 'person' so I didn't limit career etc etc

Organisations are supposed to monitor equal opportunities for all the protected characteristics.

Then they need to ask about the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. They won't establish that by recording somebody's gender.

I think that there should probably be some record of the number of transgender people. Yes, gender is a nebulous concept but how else can we measure the number of trans people or respond to their needs. I don’t think a birth certificate should be changed but I do think a gender recognition certificate should be available and I would like to see more targeted services and spaces for trans people.
I believe we can support and help trans people without pretending that we all have a gender identity and that biology is a social construct. To take all forms of official recognition away from trans people is not the answer but nor is it right to record gender identity on everyone’s documents.
Basically, I would have little issue with self ID if it didn’t carry with it the right to access single sex spaces. I don’t want to make life hard for trans people but the way things are developing now, women’s rights are being compromised.

I don't see why you would put gender identity on a birth certificate. It would be like putting religion on (as I think they do in some countries). You can make an educated guess what religion a person will be, but it is likely to change.
Chesterton's fence: why do we record sex on the birth certificate?

I guess we record sex to have a record of how many males and females we have in society and to keep a track of things like educational achievement, crime rates, careers etc to see if there are any patterns.

Then they need to ask about the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. They won't establish that by recording somebody's gender.

I was just responding to your point that you have never been asked your religion at work. They should be asking these things to be able to monitor for equal opportunities.

My point about religion was that asking for gender identity would be similar. It's not something tangible but something that means a lot to people and is something that can lead to discrimination. I know it's not a protected characteristic and I wouldn't want it to be (unless it is COMPLETELY decoupled from sex).

Chesterton's fence: why do we record sex on the birth certificate?

As an identifier.

I've just checked on some old church records. They appear to record a birth as 'son of' or 'daughter of' so it sounds as if sex has been registered from earliest records.

And to know who should inherit the land and titles and who should be chattel.

Sex would help as an identifier - it splits the population in half.
The church probably found it useful for ensuring that marriage was between a man and woman.
It would also indicate which laws apply (inheritance, dowries, etc)

www.gov.uk/employers-responsibilities-equality-monitoring

According to this link you don't have to record any details about the characteristics of people working for you (except in Northern Ireland for reasons specific to NI).

I'm still not clear how recording gender would prevent discrimination if nobody agrees what it means. I can at least explain that in broad terms a Christian follows the teachings of Jesus. Gender seems to be a completely subjective concept.

But when you think about it, sex should be irrelevant to all those issues. However, while one sex class is oppressed by the other, it is too dangerous to do away with recording sex altogether.
I would not be opposed to moving away from recording sex on ID though or things like having to state your sex when you sign up for gas and electricity services. There are many times that we require information as to sex when it really is not necessary or relevant. Maybe if stating your sex on documents was less of a thing, fewer people would feel a need to change theirs.

Would you say that data on employees religion is just noise?

No, because I’d know that somebody who said they were Muslim isn’t a Christian who identifies as Muslim so it would be pretty clear if they were being discriminated against because of their religion.

I agree that this would only enshrine the sexist stereotypes (& silly labels now in vogue) known as gender. But it would also be terrible for mothers.

The AMAB/AFAB fiction, which conflates sex & gender, puts the onus for "assigning" sex/gender to newborns squarely on the shoulders of doctors/midwives & the medical establishment generally. In the eyes of the TRAs, that's who currently catches the flak for "assigning" the wrong sex/gender at birth.

But if gender were to be put on birth certificates along with natal sex, mothers would be the ones forced to decide & record which gender our newborns are. Or at least we would in the US, where it's moms who provide most of the info for, & have to sign off on - & in many locales, also sign - birth certificates, usually within hours after birth. (I don't know how it works in the UK, sorry.) So of course we moms would be the ones blamed for not getting the gender ID right when our kids get older & decide they are some other gender.

Since I think gender roles & expectations are arbitrary & imprisoning, I wouldn't want to impose a gender ID on any child of mine at any time in his/her life. And I'd really, really resent being required to do so soon after giving birth! Going through labor & delivery is hard enough as it is. Asking women who've just given birth to predict what gender feelz our newborns might have in the future would impose a new burden on us. It would also set us up for a whole bunch of mother-blaming down the line.

There are many times that we require information as to sex when it really is not necessary or relevant.

Yes, completely agree.