This is what I wrote after reading the report, for what it is worth:
I read the report on the future project of abolishing legal gender with great interest. It reminded me of the story where a child had a very high fever which just kept rising and rising, and finally the agonising father broke the thermometer.
In other words, if the project, in fact, was intended to combat sexism and misogyny it would have similar effects as the destruction of the thermometer would have at fighting the child’s fever:
It would make things worse as our ability to gather statistics and to analyse data on sex-based mistreatments would be much weakened.
But my impression is that the real goal has nothing to do with oppression based on sex, still the type of oppression which globally affects the largest number of sufferers.
Rather, the report argue that the concept of ‘gender’ should take precedence.
It is difficult to see how gender is defined in the report as sometimes it is used as a synonym for sex, sometimes as something which is fluid and changing.
Yet the report wishes to anchor sexual orientation to this fluid and changing concept:
Suppose a Lesbian (based on sexual orientation in the old-fashioned way) transitions into identifying as nonbinary.
What does it mean, now, for her/them to feel same-gender attraction, i.e. to be attracted to other nonbinary people only?
Many male-bodied people identify as nonbinary, and it is not unlikely that this person would still be drawn to female-bodied people who call themselves women.
The concept of gender as an identity is problematic:
Do most people even possess an abstract gender identity that would NOT be based on living as a sexed human being but which would just happen to coincide with one’s sex or not?
It is possible that this is how transgender people explain their inner identities, but my own informal surveys have yet to find anyone who wouldn’t define their social gender on the basis of their biological sex.
This suggests that we are being asked to accept a belief which not all people share: an abstract gender identity, and that this new concept should take the place of biological sex which is certainly more objectively measurable (even with the DSD exceptions in the chromosomal definition) than an abstract inner identity?
The report acknowledges that the female sex is now being erased from progressive vocabularies while the male sex remains unaffected.
The asymmetry in these erasure trends should make us pause, because it might be driven by subconscious sexism or by sex differences (whether innate, acquired or both) in how inclusive and kind men and women are expected to be.
In the US mainstream media ‘women’ cannot be mentioned when addressing abortion rights, even though data from 2017 analyzed by the Guttmacher Institute shows that only 0.06% of abortions that year was performed on someone who did not accept the label ‘woman’ or ‘girl’. Thus, 99.9% are expected to erase their own genders in order to be inclusive!
It’s not possible to establish from your report what frameworks you used for your sampling. You state that your samples were not intended to be representative, however.
That is troubling, because your research may then have missed opinions which might have made a difference in your analysis and conclusions.
In sum, it is difficult to see what advantages erasing legal sex could have for combating sexism.
Racism and homophobia still exist, even though race and sexual orientation are not recorded at birth.
But it is fairly easy to see why replacing sex with gender (as in sexist stereotypes about femininity and masculinity or in supposed preference for traditional gender roles for one sex or the other) would benefit misogyny and sexism.