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.

If Featherstone et al wanted to protect cross dressers and people who are "on a transgender spectrum" or whatever, but who didn't want to actually "transition" (I'm still not sure what that means)... Then surely this is just protection from discrimination on sex grounds and nothing to do with "Gender Reassignment"?

I mean, you could just add clarification to the sex characteristic (if it's not clear already) that people can't be sacked, refused housing or healthcare etc for failing to perform stereotypes. That would apply equally to both sexes, however they present.

There are so many different sorts of male people demanding access to female spaces. So many different reasons and intentions and identities. The schisms in the 'trans community' that I have observed make the Posie Parker threads on FWR look like a picnic with cupcakes and butterflies.

I'm sure it's fascinating for all these different groups of males to debate amongst themselves which of them has the right to appropriate women's sex and the rights that go with that.

They're all male though.

It's not right that women are expected to give this any headspace. We don't have the time or the means to work out any particular male person's motivation for being in a female space and frankly, lots of us just don't care. Sorry.

Female space means no males, regardless of identity, regardless of intent. What else could it mean? What would it be for?

The law generally treats males and females, men and women, the same. There are a few exceptions in the EA that have been put there to preserve the safety, privacy and dignity of women. We are allowed to just focus on preserving these tiny few lines of legislation that protect our rights.

Just because we are women that doesn't mean that we are everyone's mum. It's not our job to sort out where everyone goes for a piss.

@FlyPassed

If Featherstone et al wanted to protect cross dressers and people who are "on a transgender spectrum" or whatever, but who didn't want to actually "transition" (I'm still not sure what that means)... Then surely this is just protection from discrimination on sex grounds and nothing to do with "Gender Reassignment"?

I mean, you could just add clarification to the sex characteristic (if it's not clear already) that people can't be sacked, refused housing or healthcare etc for failing to perform stereotypes. That would apply equally to both sexes, however they present.

This wouldn't have given cross-dressing men access to women's single sex spaces.

cross dressers and people who are "on a transgender spectrum" or whatever, but who didn't want to actually "transition" (I'm still not sure what that means)

Is that what is meant by 'physiological or other attributes of sex'? Are the 'other attributes' things like clothes and hairstyles? So was the intent to make sure that crossdressers were covered by the PC of gender reassignment?

Ah yes, silly me! [Facepalm]

@OldCrone

cross dressers and people who are "on a transgender spectrum" or whatever, but who didn't want to actually "transition" (I'm still not sure what that means)

Is that what is meant by 'physiological or other attributes of sex'? Are the 'other attributes' things like clothes and hairstyles? So was the intent to make sure that crossdressers were covered by the PC of gender reassignment?

I think that was some people's intent. I think Lynne Featherstone knew exactly what she was advocating for. I don't understand why she would do that but her intent was clear.

I don't think it was the government's intent. From everything I have read their intention was to protect transsexuals - i.e. people who were at least proposing to make permanent changes in order to go through their life as if they were the opposite sex.

But the government decided to 'be kind' and not ask any of the awkward questions, including why single sex spaces and services are protected in the first place.

So here we are.

Do you think millions will abuse it?

I think sometimes people struggle to visualise the population numbers involved here.

Female offenders - particularly sexual - are so rare compared to male that even a tiny percentage of male offenders calling themselves "female" could easily lead to 1/3 or 1/2 of "female" sex offenders being male, and doubling the "female" crime rate.

Similarly gender dysphoria is so rare, compared to basic male sexual drives towards women, that it would only require a tiny proportion of straight men to take advantage of rules relaxed for "trans" to vastly outnumber those the rules were allegedly relaxed for.

Another similar case - lesbians are pretty rare compared to straight males, and males are far more sexually aggressive, so it doesn't take many males calling themselves "lesbians" to start overrunning lesbian spaces.

All cases involve a rule being relaxed for a tiny population, but there's a huge population potentially able to take advantage. If even a tiny proportion of that huge population does, then the two "tinies" can be similar in number.

In UK law, gender reassignment is when you start / complete the process of 'transitioning' (if you believe such a thing is possible!). Someone who has or is going through that process has the legally protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment' and discriminating against someone for this reason is illegal in the UK. It doesn't require you to physically, medically or legally transition, but it does require you to live full time 'as' a member of the opposite sex. It only refers to men who think they're women and vice versa.

Gender identity is even vaguer and more nonsensical than gender reassignment.

Someone's 'gender identity' can be fluid, temporary, and importantly covers a myriad of supposed 'genders' that are neither woman nor man. Including but not limited to non-binary, gender fluid, gender queer, two spirit, non-binary trans (!), trans...... there were something like 78 at the last count, but as people are making up their own the list seems to grow by the day.

Many people question the concept, with good reason imo. It assumes everyone has a gender identity and that I, for example, 'identify' as a woman. This is simply untrue. I don't 'identify' as a women, I just AM a woman, always have been, always will be, and nothing I ever do would or could change that. But the implication / insistence that everyone has a gender identity is part of the move to normalise the views of gender ideology and draw everyone into the gender woo game.

Insisting on the idea that 'everyone has a gender identity' is like the insistence on announcing your pronouns, which is, btw, illegally compelled speech in contravention of your human rights. But making everyone put pronouns next to their name draws everyone into the fantasy life of gender ideologues (most of whom even aren't trans.)

It's a very good question. There's a lot of confusion about the terms - not least because Stonewall has been (mis)training organisations and telling them that gender identity is a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010. It isn't. The protected characteristic is gender reassignment, but this has a very specific meaning and the vast majority of people who claim some kind of identity other than man or woman do not fall into this category.

It should also be pointed out that even in the GRA transmen are not treated as men, as they are excluded from some religious professions because they are not male and they cannot inherit an aristocratic title.

Really, the whole identity thing is offensive to anyone who has been diagnosed with GD (though that seems to be an invention the more I read about it, especially via Helen Joyce) as to say you have an identity that's trans without diagnosis is akin to appropriation.

They're now increasingly claiming that unique mixes of hormones from the womb and brain means they're some sort of hormonal intersex trans, again, appropriation of DSDs.

It's also fucking sexist.

Oh but apart from kids, they really are a mistake and need allllll the drugs to correct them

It's like people have to be unique and special in some way instead of normal and boring. I blame tv

There was a recent stat on the number of male rapists claiming to ID as female which was shocking. I can't remember how many, but it's not a "rare occurrence."

The problem is terms are used incorrectly, even in Acts of Parliament and legal documents. Gender is socially constructed, variable and fluid. There is no need for gender to be recognised in law, in fact, to do so is absurd.
Sex is immutable, but some people feel so enduringly uncomfortable in their sex they wish to modify their bodies with hormones and surgery. That won’t ever make them the opposite sex, but they may appear to be so. Legal recognition for those who want to present themselves as the opposite sex is reasonable and compassionate. Anything else is a travesty.
Self ID is a profoundly regressive step, strengthening sexual stereotypes and limiting choice.

@LangClegsInSpace Thanks for finding and posting that. The time spent reading it was well spent. Hats off to the the Lord Bishop for his prescience.

@WarriorN

Is this the stat you are referring to? "Of the 125 trans-identified male prisoners known to be incarcerated in England and Wales, 60 are convicted sex offenders." (for pics see link)

This is from an Glinner Update made in response to Jonathon Powles infuriating and jaw-dropping remark: " The whole idea that a predator would use a trans identity to access women’s spaces is ludicrous,.."

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/complicit?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo2OTc3NzU1OSwicG9zdF9pZCI6NDgyMTk4MzMsIl8iOiI1WWVCcCIsImlhdCI6MTY0NDA4NzI4NiwiZXhwIjoxNjQ0MDkwODg2LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNjczMDkiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.Ina5Rad_SIJFuK-D7YGLdoHGWT8yGt_BLerk6reOpmE

@WarriorN

Really, the whole identity thing is offensive to anyone who has been diagnosed with GD (though that seems to be an invention the more I read about it, especially via Helen Joyce) as to say you have an identity that's trans without diagnosis is akin to appropriation.

They're now increasingly claiming that unique mixes of hormones from the womb and brain means they're some sort of hormonal intersex trans, again, appropriation of DSDs.

It's also fucking sexist.

Oh but apart from kids, they really are a mistake and need allllll the drugs to correct them

It's like people have to be unique and special in some way instead of normal and boring. I blame tv

It's a current scientific theory (which I think seems to add up), I can't see how what is a potentially scientific fact is sexist/political/whatever, it just is. In the same way biological sex is now an inconvenient fact to TRAs.

Hormonal imbalances in the womb is the theory behind homosexuality (look at theories of finger length in men) and makes sense that an extreme imbalance would go further and make a transsexual.

Unfortunately actual scientific research into such things is now prevented from particular pressure groups and instead we are expected to believe fluffy ideologies such as genderbread person.

Unfortunately as soon as the accepted definition changed from "transsexual" to "transgender", we now get into woolly territory and it's become less a medical issue and now a mental issue with all sorts claiming to be on a "gender spectrum".

@DontLikeCrumpets This idea that men (who are usually quite privileged, in at least the fact that their opinion is heard quite loudly and respected on social media) that men wouldn't pretend to be trans to gain access to certain areas never happens annoys me.

This recently happened to my mother at a local social group (similar to WI, U3A etc) for retired women. A man entered the event and was looking around (essentially he was after the kitty/petty cash and any unattended purses/handbags), when questioned what he was doing there, he claimed he was "genderfluid". Fortunately he asked for an entrance fee, which he refused and then left. He wasn't there for sexual purposes, but for other criminal reasons (theft) and tried to use the "trans" excuse.

If this can happen locally, it can happen anywhere, and it would appear that this excuse is becoming more commonplace.

It's that incident that has brought me to places like here, because I am fed up with men who are clearly not trans, using it as an excuse (and being believed), to get away with all sorts of illegal activity.

@Imasoulman

Gender identity is how you personally identify - male / female and anywhere between the two.

Reassignment to me anyway means changing sex

You can't change sex.

Legal explanation: "A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex."

There is no protected characteristic of gender identity. In fact there is actually no such thing as gender identity, legally speaking.

Some (generally rational, common-sensical) people say there is no such thing as gender identity at all. But no matter; no such thing exists in UK statute law.

(As far as I know; of course I may be wrong: if so, I would appreciate a reference to any statute mentioning 'gender identity'. Thanks for any response!)

I thought gender reassignment meant that they had a GRC. Had got one.