4 ms·

The nuance is resolved in the courts. Presumably the judge would allow you to change the assigned sex when that is justified, after which you should no longer h

The nuance is resolved in the courts. Presumably the judge would allow you to change the assigned sex when that is justified, after which you should no longer have the same problem because you were able to change your assigned sex to match your personal circumstances, and you'd have a document to prove it (or a photo of the document on your phone, at least). However, you seem to be arguing that it's better to leave things as they are, in which there are no clearly defined rules, and whether there is "acceptance of difference and nuance" is a wild guess, depending on who you run into. So in the worst case, every single time that someone makes up a fuss, you might be arrested and/or have to go in front of a judge. Every. Single. Time. Because you'd have no document that would clearly say "it's always OK for you to go to these bathrooms". I really don't see how that is better...

DamonHD 3y ago
Please note that in this case the Bill refers to the "original" so no subsequent changes can be taken into account, which we agree is bad. This Bill was simply designed to be performatively cruel to a small out group, not actually solve any perceived issues, it seems. Or at worst was not prepared to accept any nuance about the reality of timing and genotype/phenotype of anyone not fitting the mythical binary. You and I agree that there would be sensible things that could be done, eg making it clear that someone is able to use a toilet appropriate to their currently agreed/certified gender where appropriate without argument. (Some idiots would still make life unpleasant for them on occasions.) And indeed countries with gender recognition rules HAVE made things better for the people who need it, but this Bill was not any of that, it seems. And in many cases these days toilets are simply safely ungendered, which often means shorter waits for women too. One of the UK daily papers that makes the most clickbait cash out of this topic has (or had) entirely ungendered toilets at their London offices AFAIK. It's outrageous hypocrisy.

DamonHD 3y ago

Please note that in this case the Bill refers to the "original" so no subsequent changes can be taken into account, which we agree is bad. This Bill was simply designed to be performatively cruel to a small out group, not actually solve any perceived issues, it seems. Or at worst was not prepared to accept any nuance about the reality of timing and genotype/phenotype of anyone not fitting the mythical binary. You and I agree that there would be sensible things that could be done, eg making it clear that someone is able to use a toilet appropriate to their currently agreed/certified gender where appropriate without argument. (Some idiots would still make life unpleasant for them on occasions.) And indeed countries with gender recognition rules HAVE made things better for the people who need it, but this Bill was not any of that, it seems. And in many cases these days toilets are simply safely ungendered, which often means shorter waits for women too. One of the UK daily papers that makes the most clickbait cash out of this topic has (or had) entirely ungendered toilets at their London offices AFAIK. It's outrageous hypocrisy.