@mattala - you seem to be making off-topic comments about "gender" in the sense of "expectations about the sexes" which isn't really relevant to the concept of "innate gender identity" the OP is asking about.
We don't dispute "gender" in the former sense exists - that's why we call ourselves "gender critical" - we say such expectations are bad. And that we don't improve things by pretending individuals can opt out by claiming a different "gender identity", implying those who don't claim a "gender identity" are somehow opting in.
We are opting out without endorsing the concept of "gender identity" that is just a reification of sexism.
Sexism doesn't go away by fucking up the necessary handling of sex with the invention of "gender identity", leading to putting men in women's sports, prisons etc. That just creates yet another form of sexism on top.
The legal basis of the EA2010 in the UK is quite solid - sexism is illegal, except in the cases where sex matters. So we are, legally, a non-gendered society. The law accurately describes the most progressive position. Obviously that doesn't mean sexism doesn't exist, any more than murder being illegal means murder doesn't happen. But we are clearly legally in the correct place compared to where we were decades ago, and many societies still are.
Except for the recent Stonewall-led trend for men to be counted as women due to "gender identity" in the places where sex matters - now clarified as illegal in the Supreme Court.
I'd recommend this video, which I've always thought gets to the bottom of what's wrong with responding to sexism with "gender identity", rather than just feminism.
Magdalen Berns - RE: “I asked my Corporate Job if I could Wear the Men's Uniform”