I can see the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry; it does arise—he already made that point in our debate last week. I am incredibly impressed. Having read Professor Austin myself—he was a positive jurisprudentialist—I can tell the hon. Gentleman that his one reference to Professor Austin makes it clear that he got a lot more out of studying the professor than I ever did, despite many years of application. However, I am not sure that the Amendment would help. If it would, we would of course consider it.

After working as hard as we could on the right definitions for Clause 7, we concluded that the phrase “proposing to undergo” provides the best practical coverage. It gives a degree of certainty and more sureness, which the term “considering undergoing” does not. A person can have lots of ways of thinking about their gender. At what point that amounts to “considering undergoing” a gender reassignment is pretty unclear. However, “proposing” suggests a more definite decision point, at which the person’s protected characteristic would immediately come into being. There are a lot of ways in which that can be manifested—for instance, by making their intention known. Even if they do not take a single further step, they will be protected straight away.

Alternatively, a person might start to dress, or behave, like someone who is changing their gender or is living in an identity of the opposite sex. That, too, would mean that they were protected. If an employer is notified of that proposal, they will have a clear obligation not to discriminate against them. If anything, a good employer would help them. However, without a clear decision even to propose to do that, it is difficult to see how, practically, an employer will know that the assistance is necessary.

If what is going on is an internal cogitation, with no external manifestation, it is difficult to see how this can work practically. We want to ensure that people start their personal journey—