@Lovelyricepudding
Yes. But they are saying simultaneously that no one uses the old definition but it is ok as everyone uses the old definition.
Yes, that's one of the massive internal contradictions. We hear things like
'everyone knows if they have a prostate or a cervix'
from organisations when using 'gender neutral' language.
Conveniently ignoring that this is only because we still live with the very well defined knowledge of what 'man' and 'woman' actually mean. This was previously well known, understood and defined. We currently live with an unspeakable, silent knowledge of our sex but must not mention it (thanks, Keir).
Give it a generation of children who are told only the terms for body parts with no reference at all to what sex they pertain to, and that currently unsayable but widely understood fact will vanish.
Nobody is born knowing whether they have a prostate or a cervix. We are raised to know what sex we are, and then use that information to work out which we have.
If the knowledge of sex is vanished, these other issues will become so obscure that navigating healthcare will become far harder. Fewer women will present for smear tests, etc.
We know that the NHS records people by 'gender identity' only, omitting to record 'sex'. So we're already creating massive gaps in data. These will only get worse as the simple and logical understanding of the sexes is corroded, 'queered' and obscured by people who think it's a jolly jape to undermine the status quo, and/or those who have some muddled idea that it's sexist or rude to determine clear, factual information on people's sex.
I think part of all of this nonsense is fuelled by a vague idea that it's progressive to be 'sex blind' - presumably following exactly the same argument as 'I don't see colour'.