Gender reassignment vs gender identity

[Uell]

Would any of you wise women be able to spell out in the difference in simple terms please.

I feel in the times ahead it's going to be useful to be able to give examples of the difference.

I think I know but I'm not really able to articulate it clearly.

@GrownUpBeans

Agree with others that the law is very unclear and should be updated.

Gender assignment basically equals the process of medical intervention and gender expression

But the legislation uses 'or' not 'and'. So it seems that gender expression alone counts as reassignment. And most people with a gender identity will express it, so will be protected in the expression of their gender identity. So I see Stonewall's argument here. In any case, I think that, in general, people shouldn't be discriminated against for their gender identity. And hopefully, fingers crossed for the Maya Forstater case, those who don't have a gender identity will be protected under 'beliefs'.

It is Stonewall's refusal to recognise that sex based rights also exist, and that in some situations there is a clash, that I find more troubling.

You’re quite right, I should have written “or” not “and”.

Some people with a gender identity will express it, but their protection will be on the basis of the expression and not on the fact of having a particular gender identity. It’s a subtle difference, and I appreciate there will be overlap, but I think it’s important. If gender identity is to be protected then it should be as a religious/philosophical belief. And anyone who doesn’t believe in it should be equally protected, as are atheists.

Thanks SecondGentleman, that makes sense.

As I understand Maya Forstater's case, there is no disagreement that her view is a 'belief'. This would implies that gender identity is also a belief. (Otherwise Maya would not have a belief, she would just be plain wrong.)

Hence if Maya wins her case, her view will be protected, with the implication that gender identity is also protected - as a belief.

Today's Feminist Question Time will be worth watching when the recording is posted. There's a quick heartbreak in which a speaker is discussing a conversation with a Swedish doctor who has been seeing young women (in their twenties) who are consulting him for infertility.

On screening tests, the results indicate atrophy of the ovaries. It's only then upon further questioning that the women mention a medical history of puberty blockers - and they're now traumatised to discover that these can have persistent physiological consequences.

There is a mass of harm from failing to distinguish sex from gender (and subsets of gender identity that involve medical intervention).

@EmbarrassingAdmissions

Today's Feminist Question Time will be worth watching when the recording is posted. There's a quick heartbreak in which a speaker is discussing a conversation with a Swedish doctor who has been seeing young women (in their twenties) who are consulting him for infertility.

On screening tests, the results indicate atrophy of the ovaries. It's only then upon further questioning that the women mention a medical history of puberty blockers - and they're now traumatised to discover that these can have persistent physiological consequences.

There is a mass of harm from failing to distinguish sex from gender (and subsets of gender identity that involve medical intervention).

Oh that's utterly heartbreaking.

Yes you're right, I need to arm myself with the facts. I don't think I'm the only one who finds it bewildering- I would suggest though that as it can be quite intimidating to ask questions here try not to put people off. We're not all equipped with similar abilities or frankly the time, hence why I posted here.

What on earth was the thinking behind the phrase “physiological or other attributes of sex”? As Barracker says, it makes no sense. How did it survive parliamentary scrutiny?

I think of the difference between gender identity and gender reassignment in the following way:

Gender identity is a feeling that some people have, in which "being a woman" or "being a man" is fundamental to the sense of self. Some people feel a gender identity that matches biological sex. Some people, including feminists who centre female people in their activism, feel no gender identity because they oppose the socially-constructed link between gender (the stereotypical role expected of each sex) and biological sex. For transgender people, the gender identity feeling does not match the reality of biological sex. Having a gender identity requires no action. Action is optional. A person who feels a gender identity can choose to tell nobody or tell some people or tell everyone.

Gender reassignment, in practice, is some action done by a person who feels a mismatch between gender identity and biological sex. The action is intended to show other people that the person wants to be treated like a member of the other biological sex. In practice, reassignment is an individualistic pick-and-mix spectrum of actions, ranging from e.g. changing customer name on electricity bills, all the way up to e.g. genital surgery.

In practice, gender reassignment recently seems to have become equal to, or almost equal to, gender expression.

All that is required for gender reassignment is to be thinking about it - you don't have to have spoken to a doctor or taken any medication or even let anyone else know. So in practise gender reassignment is gender identity- if you are male but believe you are actually female that is enough. Which is why the legislation around gender reassignment needs reviewed.

Realistically it was a way to circumvent the need for same sex marriage (which was unacceptable to many MPs as much as they like to hide that now) and was only expected to affect about 5000 people. It was never intended to have this impact upon women and our safe spaces but no one thought about the obvious end point.

So in practise gender reassignment is gender identity- if you are male but believe you are actually female that is enough.

But they could have just called it "gender identity" in the Act. Why didn't they? They must have intended a different meaning.

They intended people to be going through the process but now gender dysphoria is not required to be trans. And the protected characteristic of gender reassignment starts as soon as you plan to change 'gender'. You don't have to actually do anything other than say I'm a woman (or man). They just didn't think it through

The alternatives were 'sex reassignment' (which is considered a breach of human rights in the EU as it involves sterilisation), gender reassignment and gender identity.
Its possible they choose gender reassignment as a stepping stone towards protecting gender identity and eliminating sex. It certainly seems to be the agenda now.

Is that on the Women’s rights campaign youtube embarassingadmissions? The Swedish doctor?

How did it survive parliamentary scrutiny?

Because they waved it away as pedantry. A few in the Lords tried to pin them down - IIRC believe there was a question about part-time crossdressers, and the answer was "no, of course not".

The stated intent, as seen from answers given in parliament, was to cover transsexuals going the the process conceived of for the GRC, including the "living as a woman" leading up to that.

What the actual intent was, who knows? How deliberate was the fuzziness?

@Helleofabore

Is that on the Women’s rights campaign youtube embarassingadmissions? The Swedish doctor?

It was this afternoon's event so I should think it will be up in the near future.

Non-edited transcript with time codes. Anything in [ ] indicates something I've decoded for sense so there are no claims for accuracy.

Kajsa Ekis Ekman is the speaker = KEE
JB = WHRC MC

15:24:53 KEE: And the fact that our governments in our, our hospitals are sending young people into a treatment that's highly experimental or not even experimental because as one parent of a trans child told me and you know an experiment is when you try something out
15:25:06 you take notes and you try to analyze the outcome. Whereas here it's being done without nobody taking notes, basically. So we don't even have a follow up of these people, like, one of the consequences of the Dutch protocol which is puberty blockers cross
15:25:21 sex hormones and genital surgery at 18 is infertility. So I spoke to one doctor fertility doctor who came to me because he just didn't know who to talk to any her that I wrote something on the topic.
15:25:35 So it came to me and said I don't know what to tell this to, but I'm having increasingly, a new group of patients, which are women in their 20s coming to me because they're unable to have children.
15:25:47 And when I examine them, I see that, you know, their ovaries are dead practically, you know, so they're not going to be able to have children. He's not run.
15:25:58 Yeah, when he asked him what what what is there an explanation for this is so unusual, they explained that they have been through puberty blockers and [cross sex] hormones.

15:26:07 JB: Yeah, Yeah. That's terrible. Um, what about in, because we heard since that's in Sweden.
15:26:14 Cross sex hormones and puberty [blockers have been banned].

KEE: Now recently in the last few months, they've been banned for under 18.

JB: Is that just sorts of legislation but it's actually still going on or is it actually banned?

15:26:30 KEE: [No] it's just one hospital it's not
No, it's just one hospital it's not even [illegal]. It's just one hospital and that was actually the hospital that was most aggressive in their treatments like practically you can just go there and you could just say well you know I am, I'm actually a boy
15:26:41 and all of a sudden you know they would put you on on hormones, It wasn't like they really examine whether you did have gender dysphoria or not, it was very affirmative, you know in their approach.
15:26:51 So they themselves decided to stop treatment for under 18. Now, there are other hospitals and other regions that still go on but this was a big victory because it was the most aggressive hospital, everybody knew that if you move to Stockholm.
15:27:09 You could get treatment there.

Thanks embarassingadmissions.

I shall keep an eye out for it.

I think the Equality Act is a great law, I don't get anyone's issue with it. Everyone should be protected against discrimination (vs someone of the same sex) for any way they want to act with regard to sex and gender. It doesn't matter how far the process has gone. It shouldn't be legal to sack someone for being a part time cross dresser, or for believing they have a gender identity.

The crucial point though is that it DOESN'T give you the right to be treated as the opposite sex, and I think that that is the thing that Stonewall have tried to cause confusion on by calling it "gender identity". The issue isn't how far anything needs to go.

'gender identity' is the lie that states that we all have a gendered psyche, and it is NOT enshrined in law. And 'gender reassignment' is the legal fiction ... that there are "physiological and other" attributes of sex that can be changed in any meaningful way. And that IS enshrined in law.

Excellent and very clear definitions, Barracker, thanks. This shines a light on the genderists’ endless quiet pushing to expand the GRA’s legal power over the rest of us.

That Swedish doctor’s testimony is heartbreaking, EmbarrassingAdmissions. It’s proof that these girls have been misled into thinking puberty blickers are harmless and reversible. I hope we’re soon going to see a rush of law suits.

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

'gender identity' is the lie that states that we all have a gendered psyche, and it is NOT enshrined in law. And 'gender reassignment' is the legal fiction ... that there are "physiological and other" attributes of sex that can be changed in any meaningful way. And that IS enshrined in law.

Excellent and very clear definitions, Barracker, thanks. This shines a light on the genderists’ endless quiet pushing to expand the GRA’s legal power over the rest of us.

But to the Trans people any changes made are very "meaningful"

@thinkingaboutLangCleg

That Swedish doctor’s testimony is heartbreaking, EmbarrassingAdmissions. It’s proof that these girls have been misled into thinking puberty blickers are harmless and reversible. I hope we’re soon going to see a rush of law suits.

I still can't quite grasp this. I spent last night wondering about the informed consent and shared decision-making processes.

It would be very helpful if the doctor in question would write this up and publish it as a case series, series of case reports or whatever would be accepted by the journals.

But they could have just called it "gender identity" in the Act. Why didn't they? They must have intended a different meaning.

The EA and the GRA were intended for transsexuals - those who medically transitioned.

The GRA was intended for 5,000 or so transsexuals and that was exactly what happened.

The EA unfortunately was manipulated by another agenda. The intention was for transsexuals but the language was manipulated to open a door for anyone.

Fact is gender identity is meaningless. There are 7 billion people in the world and 7 billion gender identities.

Given most people don't conform to rigid gender stereotypes what makes one person gender non conforming and another trans?

If you read Hansard from the time they were debating the GRA originally, they absolutely DID think about the consequences. There were members the Commans and the Lords who raised at least some of the problems we're having now. They foresaw the issues.

Their concerns were hand waved away on the basis that it was 'only 5k people' and therefore minimal impact on the rest of us.

mobile.twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945

If you read Hansard from the time they were debating the GRA originally, they absolutely DID think about the consequences.

The GRA wasn't a new concept - the Sex Discrimination Act (Gender Reassignment) 1989 was already in place. What did the GRA fundamentally change?

The GRA wasn't a new concept - the Sex Discrimination Act (Gender Reassignment) 1989 was already in place.

Struggling to find any corresponding reference, or indeed anything about a predecessor to the GRA. Can you give some pointers?

(My understanding was that it wasn't the first legislation regarding "gender reassignment", but that it went far further than any previous law. But I can't find any previous law now.)

It was the Sex Discrimination Act (Gender Reassignment) 1999
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1102/contents/made

It gave transitioning people protection against discrimination, and repeated the exceptions that protect sex based services that are listed in the GRA;
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/1102/regulation/4/made