Legal recognition of non-binary gender identities to be debated by MPs

[ChristinaXYZ]

On Monday 23 May, MPs will debate a petition relating to legal recognition of non-binary gender identities.

committees.parliament.uk/committee/326/petitions-committee/news/166136/legal-recognition-of-nonbinary-gender-identities-to-be-debated-by-mps/

please no.

That should not take long, being utter bollocks. Unless anyone can persuade me otherwise.

An identity to state you're not something. Or not two things. How does that work in other identities? For example, being non-Scottish and non-English. Why shouldn't other non-[insert group] be recognised?

It doesn't work. The point is you are in a certain age group therefore you need certain services such as a school education. Or you are disabled therefore you need certain adjustments.

Why should the world recognise lots of things people decide to declare they're not?

Do other gender identities have legal recognition? Isn't it sex that is legally recognised?

But if they're going to debate this, perhaps they can establish exactly what a gender identity is and what relationship it is supposed to have to someone's sex.

Isn't a non-binary gender identity just a different kind of attempt to reject gender? And as such, isn't it just another form of GC belief?

Of course there are so many reasons having it enshrined in law is not easy or entirely sensible but surely it doesn't have the same implications as men IDing as women.

An identity to state you're not something.

Atheism?

I bet they're all frantically googling, saying wtaf, then trying to work out the party line and then drowning the cognitive dissonance in gin.

Is there a legal definition of non-binary? I haven't even heard a non-legal definition yet.

And what are we to make of people whose gender is e.g. 'non-binary woman'? (They exist.)

And what about the gender fluid?

And if non-binary deserves legal recognition, what about the other 100+ gender identities? Who is gate-keeping them out of legal recognition? Are some gender identities more worthy than others?

Organise society by sex, it's much simpler.

Atheism isn't an identity. If you are an atheist then that's what you are. You don't "identify" as a non-Catholic or a non-Sikh.

It only - currently - seems to be gender-related stuff that is in scope for public rejection and forced recognition.

No one's passport lists all the nationalities they're not. It gives the one you are. That's the one that's relevant. Being of the male or female sex is relevant to lots of things, and "non-binary" is an attempt to mix the sexes where they shouldn't be mixed.

I ain't buying it.

I note the government have said:
"As set out in the response to the Gender Recognition Act consultation, there are no plans to make changes to the 2004 Act"

And yes, much will be needed.

Oh this is going to be good.

I mean, really really good. I hope it's televised.

My question, exactly. If nonbinary identities get recognised, then 'woman' and 'man' must also be pure identities? So if we tick the box for 'woman' or 'female' or 'neither', we are either

a) Choosing biological sex in two cases but not in the third case (nonbinary) which makes no sense because it is mixing together two different definition systems (identity vs. sex0
or
b) Choosing a gender identity in all three cases.

Option b) is troubling because then ticking the female or woman box would seem to mean that I accept the sexist gender roles and stereotypes about people of the female sex?

How someone else defines themselves will then affect what I am.

This will be very interesting.

I think we should be allowed to vote on who is going to talk the most bollocks.
The competition will be tough

Are there not more pressing issues to discuss than some fantasy ideology?

Laurie Penny announced on Twitter yesterday that she identifies as non binary and as a woman.

So is NB an add on? Because if it, then why does it need to be recognised? And if it is then is someone who identifies as NB and either male/female, are they different from someone who just identifies as NB?

It's all very confusing. And I do wonder what rights NB people feel they need which aren't recognised? Is it Christy whatever her name is - that woman who looks like she has had all the blood drained from her - who is behind this?

The map of where the most petitioners come from absolutely shows it's blue haired students. Westminster, Brighton, Bristol, and other places where there are big Uni populations.

I love the idea of conservative Westminster being a hotbed of gender identity

Considering that it can't really be defined, they should put an end to this nonsense.

A lot of people claim to be non-binary, but still maintain a very gendered appearance.

This sort of stuff plays havoc on the NHS who need to know what your real sex is.

Good point. There was a time when I'd have hoped that our more intelligent MPs would demolish this nonsense very quickly. Apart from anything else, just imagine the logistic challenges for society of allowing people to identify as non-binary. Now we've had time to discover just how stupid so many of our elected representatives are on this issue, I have every confidence they'll all make idiots of themselves.

Yes. I would watch that.

Shouldn't it be nontrinary because the addition of a third category makes means no one can even be binary.

How Can non binary be a gender when it definds itself against sex because according to mermaids there could be as many gender identities as there are people. Although the BBC just claimed their are 100.

Either way it can't exist as a definition

Lewis Carroll — 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.''

So what Laurie Penny is is whatever they say they are! Have your cake and eat it, too.

I've seen that combination used elsewhere by some university feminists who are really trans advocates. They divided women into three categories and ranked them as
trans women
nonbinary women
cis women

That is in the order of the oppression hierarchy, the oppressors being the last group.

This double-counting of people as both nonbinary and women allows someone to try to identify out of sexism and misogyny (not like those other girls) while also allowing them to identify into the gains from feminism (repro rights etc). I have little patience with them because they are one of the most vocal demanders to erase all words for female people (women, mother etc.), and it is the erasure of all names for the female sex which would make addressing sexism and sex-based oppression impossible.

If it's a petition debate there will likely be a small but dedicated turn-out. Perhaps a slightly bigger crowd than usual because it's an ever so trendy subject for daft MPs, but I don't think they'll be fighting for seats.

I wonder if Crispin 'Fucked Up Over Khan' Blunt MP will attempt to lead the charge as usual, despite having to resign from being Chair of the APPG on alphabet soup.

Caroline Nokes will be insufferable as per. And Maria Miller. Wera Hobhouse will gnash her teeth and maybe wee Mhairi will too. Nothing like a cross-party gnashing.

Presumably Kemi Badenoch will there to represent the Government.

There is zero need to protect or recognize any bloody 'gender identity' in law, especially when no one can even give a proper definition of any it. It's the equivalent of recognizing someone's personality or dress sense.

Why do we need to 'recognise' people who claim that they are not actually a man or a woman when in fact they are actually just a man or a woman. It's ridiculous. What EXACTLY is it for?

Following the link you can set a you tube reminder.
Is it compulsory for MPs to attend the debate?

They can decide what a non-binary person is but they can't even define what a woman is.
Really, we don' t want to add anymore identities to the GRC, we want to repeal the GRC.