Government definition of gender identity ideology

[AbnerBrown]

The definition in the draft Department of Education guidance is “the belief that a person can have a gender that is different to their sex”.

Does anyone else think this is a shit definition? Like defining Christianity as “the belief that a person can have a faith as set out by the doctrines of the Church”?

I’m not a Christian but it’s very clear to me that some people have such a faith. Similarly, I think gender is baloney but it’s very clear to me that some people have a strong sense of gender. It always seems utterly incoherent to me, but it seems to be something they have. So by this definition I am a believer of GII.

I’m struggling to form an alternative. I’d strongly prefer a definition that covers “the belief that every person has an internal sense of their gender” but is this enough?

“The belief that every person has an internal sense of their gender that can be different to their sex” doesn’t quite work as how can gender match sex when they are such different concepts?

But “… that can be different to societal gender norms” may capture the gender critical gender non-conforming?

overthinking due to hangover. Other thoughts?

Gender Identity Ideology is the belief that what makes a person female or male is not their biological sex, but an internal and self-defined sense or feeling of female or male 'gender'. Also, the belief that a person can have a gender which makes them neither male nor female, or both male and female, or sometimes male and sometimes female. 'Gender expression' aligns with conformity to stereotypes associated with each sex (e.g. the colour pink indicates feminine gender, short hair is 'gender affirming' for those with masculine gender, etc.). Because gender is self-defined and subjective, it is impossible to objectively define the word 'gender' as used in GII, or to prove or disprove another person's stated gender. Despite this, believers in GII hold that socially and legally (e.g. with regard to access to changing rooms, hospital wards, prison placement, sex-specific scholarships, support groups, societies and services), people should be regarded as female, male, both, or neither, according to their stated 'gender identity' and not according to their biological sex, which GII believers regard as irrelevant to the question of one's femaleness or maleness."

I think that about sums up the batshittery?

I take my hat off to you. Especially capturing this: “Also, the belief that a person can have a gender which makes them neither male nor female, or both male and female, or sometimes male and sometimes female.”

It’s so circular though. One of the defining features seems to be that a belief in gender identity is whatever its believers say it is. That’s its strength and it’s weakness. It’s like trying to nail jelly to the wall trying to define it. Not helpful I know but it’s not like an organised religion with a book and an agreed set of ideas, agreed leaders etc

Gender identity. A jelly like indefinable concept in the eye of the beholder, where the subject is whatever they say they are.

Hmm. Not sure that one would get much traction.

That seems to be the most accurate definition which doesn't require any other terms to be defined.

I still think it should be up to the organisations which are campaigning for gender identity theory to over-ride the single sex exceptions in the Equality Act to define gender identity theory, rather than those who are not campaigning for that, to define it in the schools guidance,

I agree, but they haven’t and they won’t as long as there are people willing to give them what they want without them needing to.

It also doesn't require us to worry about the relevance of gender stereotypes. They just become something that trans people adopt in order to fit in with the sex class they identify with, rather than something they have a natural affinity for.

They have to have a definition of gender.

Something like - the belief that someone has an internal sense of their sex not based on biology, but on a variety of subjective and personal criteria.

However I suspect that Stonewall will start massively back tracking from that terminology and push “trans children” as the terminology instead.

Stonewall and others push whatever terminology suits at the time.

I have been looking at the assessment reports of the NHS Trusts which engaged with the Rainbow Badge Project which is administered by LGBTFoundation with input from Stonewall and others.

From the Barts report: Barts Health Bronze Award 64/167

“The Trust has a ban on discrimination, bullying and harassment based on both sexual orientation and gender reassignment in the Dignity at Work Policy. We recommend changing the phrasing from “gender reassignment” to “trans status” to reflect a commitment to include non-binary people.”

As I understand it "gender reassignment" is the protected characteristic.

And "non-binary" has no status at all in law so far.

Any bets on the definition of "Trans status" which is being foisted on NHS Trusts?

I don’t mind the definition

It’s fairly simple, as far as something can be when it involves the word gender

The definition from the guidance is this (my bold):

Gender identity: is a contested belief. It is a sense a person may have of their own gender, whether male, female or another category such as non-binary. This may or may not be the same as their biological sex. Many people do not consider that they or others have a gender identity at all.

For me, the key part is the last bit. They might end up removing the sentence about it being a contested belief after the consultation, because this could be seen as loaded or judgemental language. But the fact that not everyone believes we have a gender identity is neutral and truthful. And more importantly, it's an incredibly good reason why it shouldn't be accommodated as fact and why nobody should be compelled to accept someone's declared gender identity as such.

But Bonfire, it's true. And even if you used the screwed up census as proof of who thinks they have a gender identity, you'd still truthfully be able to say that many (in fact, most/vast majority) don't believe they have a gender identity. I know what you're saying but I hope they keep it. It's a (vanishingly small) minority belief.

“Stonewall and others push whatever terminology suits at the time.”

They absolutely do. It’s very noticeable.

“Any bets on the definition of "Trans status" which is being foisted on NHS Trusts?”

Have you seen what it is? Can you share it with us, Whats?

Yes this is good too

Imo Kemi has had good input in achieving straightforward language in the guidelines

It’s accurate to say that gender identity theory is a contested belief. As evidenced by the various legal cases.

It would be inaccurate to claim that it’s an uncontested belief.

Removing the accurate statement that it is a contested belief would make the introductory context section of the guidance less accurate and less comprehensive. The fact that it is a contested belief is part of the reason why DfE guidance is needed and also why there has been such a long delay in producing it.

There’s nothing loaded or judgemental about being factual.

The pro-gender identity theory campaigners who want that sentence removed want it removed because it undermines their efforts to claim that children “being trans” is something that has always been the case (albeit mysteriously kept hidden), rather than a recent phenomenon which has been created by a combination of their own campaigning and the wider context of the absolute lunacy of giving children unrestricted access to the porn-soaked internet and toxic social media apps via smartphones they carry around with them all day.

The FOI here has the Rainbow Badge Accreditation report.

I just picked up on the suggestion that "gender reassignment" be replaced with "trans status". (Page 4) I have no idea what this new definition refers to or what the legal implications are.

I also noted that they recommended time off related to transitioning must be treated the same a disability related medical appointments. (Page 6) Is "trans status" a disability?

These definitions seem very fluid.

www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/1051703/response/2501043/attach/3/Barts%20Rainbow%20Award%20Final%20Assessment%20Report.pdf?cookie_passthrough=1

Thanks whats. It’s odd that the assessment criteria include expecting the Trust to have a policy which bans “homophobic, biphobic, and transphobic” discrimination in its services. The Equality Act 2010 already makes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender reassignment unlawful. So requiring the trust to produce a policy to “ban” acting unlawfully is just odd.

Re your question, trans status isn’t a disability but they are arguing that medical appointments for transitioning must be treated as favourably as medical appointments related to a disability. So medical appointments for an employee having an elective mastectomy as part of transitioning should be treated as equivalent to disability related medical appointments and not as equivalent to medical appointments for an employee having a mastectomy due to breast cancer. Medical appointments for HRT related to transitioning would be treated more favourably than medical appointments for HRT related to the menopause.

I think it is like any other form of identity. People have thoughts about whether they are male or female. Those thoughts are referred to as gender identity. The same as people have thoughts about national identity, for example.

People have different thoughts about what makes them male or female, etc and disagree with each other.

I wouldn’t disagree with the idea that everyone has thoughts about whether they’re male or female. If you didn’t have thoughts about it, you could have a female body, but have no awareness that you were female. I don’t think it can really be disputed that everyone has thoughts about it.

I wouldn’t call it personality, just as I wouldn’t call thinking you have a national identity personality.

Some people essentialise and think they are male or female by virtue of some form of male or female essence. I would disagree with essences, but not the idea that everyone has thoughts about whether they’re male or female, etc, unless they have a brain injury, or something, perhaps.

The definition in the draft Department of Education guidance is “the belief that a person can have a gender that is different to their sex”.

Does anyone else think this is a shit definition? Like defining Christianity as “the belief that a person can have a faith as set out by the doctrines of the Church”?

I would say it's more like saying "the belief that a person can have a favourite colour that is different to their star sign".

Well, yes. Two things that are not the same are not the same. In other news, bears shit in the woods and the Pope is Catholic.

Why are we supposed to care that some people think having an identity that doesn't match their genitals makes them different from the rest of us?

Why are we humouring this instead of just saying, "News flash: nobody else has an identity that matches their genitals either, so you can all just calm down and pee in the correct toilets like everyone else."

Are you confusing thoughts of "gender" with facts about sex?

I think I am: 52, female, 5'6". These are provable facts and I may be mistaken (if someone pointed out that I was born in 1980, had a penis, measured 6'2" then I would have to change that belief in the face of the facts).

I don't have a gender identity based on anything other than the facts of my biology. Gender identity is an unprovable faith position and I'm not a believer. Agender if you insist on a label to correspond with atheist (which apparently puts me under the Umbrella in this brave new world.)

Nationality can might be comparable to gender as long as it's not for any practical purpose. I can believe I'm German despite having no German ancestry and never been to Germany. No-one's going to give me a passport and if anyone troubled to investigate my claim they'd be unlikely to affirm me in my self-ID, just think I'm a bit odd or an out and out liar.

I don’t think so.

Take your facts about your body: some people will believe that those facts are indicators of an underlying female essence, which all female people have. Whereas other people would say there is no female essence that all female people have, but nevertheless that they are female because of their body characteristics. They have different beliefs about what it is that makes them female though, even though the available facts are the same and the only thing being considered is sex characteristics.

Some people also take their thoughts of being male or female and see them as indicators of an underlying male or female essence in the brain, other people think they have thoughts about whether they are male or female, but not that there are male or female brain essences shared by all male / female people.

I think I have body characteristics and thoughts, but I don’t personally believe in male or female essences, whether it’s brain essences, or some other form of male or female essence.

ThisIsJeopardy · Yesterday 19:13

Also, the belief that a person can have a gender which makes them neither male nor female, or both male and female, or sometimes male and sometimes female.

Yes, it's mad, illogical bollocks, isn't it? Designed to trap the unwary, so that a protagonist can pretend that they are justified in unloading on someone.

I agree that it's an accurate description to say that it's contested.

I'm thinking about the leaked legal advice that the government received. These words were marked up as a "political definition". The DfE is under an obligation to avoid being political, so they may end up dropping this wording if they come under pressure to do so. I hope that they don't, but even if they did the sentence that says "Many people do not consider that they or others have a gender identity at all" achieves the same thing: both make it clear that not everyone believes that gender identity is a truth.

We don't have school legislation that says people should follow the tenets of other beliefs (e.g. government mandated prayers before lunch is eaten), so stating that not everyone believes that we all have a gender identity creates the backdrop that is needed to say a) there should be no compelled speech on preferred pronouns b) sport should be based on competitive fairness etc. It also helps schools to take a common sense approach when following existing laws, such as the legal obligation to provide single-sex toilets and changing facilities.

FWIW I thought your suggested alternative wording was great @LoobiJee

I'm thinking about the leaked legal advice that the government received. These words were marked up as a "political definition".

I thought the point being made there was that the term “gender identity” doesn’t exist in legislation. So there couldn’t be a legal definition of it in the guidance. The lawyer’s commentary could have described that as a “policy definition”.

If a lawyer describing the explanation of “gender identity” as a political definition is capable of scuppering that definition in the schools guidance then that line of argument (ie: it isn’t a term defined in legislation therefore it’s a political definition) should also scupper all the policy documents, whether internal or external, which use Stonewall’s various definitions of gender / gender identity / trans status / non binary etc.

re: the definition, thanks, yes it seems to me that fundamentally that’s what it’s all about: wanting to be deemed to be a member of the opposite sex by society. (And, for MtF, whilst not losing any of their existing privileges.)

We don't have school legislation that says people should follow the tenets of other beliefs (e.g. government mandated prayers before lunch is eaten),

I think there’s still legislation in place requiring schools to hold a daily act of worship isn’t there? But parents can withdraw their children from it. And the detail of that act of worship isn’t specified.

Or has that requirement been abolished recently?