Comments by "" (@redtela) on "How did this case reach the UK Supreme Court?!" video.
-
Quite simple really, end the false dichotomy, and define things such as human rights applicable to a person - regardless of their gender (assigned or otherwise). That, is equality.
When it comes to sports, allow the governing bodies the scope to have male-only, female-only, and mixed gender competition categories - allow market forces to dictate how popular they are. If I wish to join an archery team, but there isn't one for 1000 miles nearby, that is not discrimination. I am welcome to setup my own team/club. I can predict how popular my archery team would be, and that's a large part of why I haven't bothered to buy a bow... (archery chosen at random because of it's negligible gender differences)
When it comes to prisons - build more (we're already reportedly at capacity) and have spaces determined by use-requirements rather than history. There is no reason a prison couldn't have multiple "trans-sections" and Governors already have a mandate to look after the well-being of all within their establishment equally. Sadly, in many cases not related to gender, sometimes they have no choice other than solitary confinement. Build prisons, create spaces, and the issue goes away. Yes, it would cost more and isn't a popular opinion - but criminals being free to roam the streets also isn't popular.
When it comes to public toilets - many organisations have already moved to single-occupancy gender neutral facilities. Tesco being one example, at my local one, they have 1 toilet, for use by 1 person at any time, with a lock on the door. It's disability-friendly access. Don't want to queue behind other people? Go to the toilet at home, no-one is stopping you.... If a pub deems that this policy would drive their customers away, they're welcome to create more toilets and sacrifice some floor space.
1
-
1