The challenge with defining "trans rights" (or protections against discrimination) is in defining what trans is - it has previously been defined as a transition (involving physiological changes) or a medical condition. But these definitions hv been challenged for being too narrow
Some want it defined in terms of "gender identity" - a subjective internal feeling.
But that seems impossible to pin down as something that can be legislated for
(although we do protect discrimination based on religion or belief which is equally ethereal)
But that seems impossible to pin down as something that can be legislated for
(although we do protect discrimination based on religion or belief which is equally ethereal)
It cannot be defined in terms of clothes, hair, makeup etc... because that is sexist.
So what is it that is objectively definable, and not too narrow?
I think it relates to information: "people who wish to keep their sex private"
So what is it that is objectively definable, and not too narrow?
I think it relates to information: "people who wish to keep their sex private"
i.e. trans people are people who do not want others to know their sex or to acknowledge it.
These people should not be discriminated against insofar as reasonably possible (in general people should be able to keep their private information private)
These people should not be discriminated against insofar as reasonably possible (in general people should be able to keep their private information private)
But 'insofar as reasonably' possible quickly comes up against constraints in that in general people can perceive sex and there are many parts of public life where information about sex is used (in particular to protect women's rights)
So a conflict comes up whenever privacy-about-sex and information-about-sex collide. And we have to decide which gives way.
In many cases you can design a work around (e.g. 'prefer not to say' and unisex options for services) which protects the privacy of the minority.
In many cases you can design a work around (e.g. 'prefer not to say' and unisex options for services) which protects the privacy of the minority.
But what we cannot allow is for this to be used as a battering ram to remove all mention of sex, and protection for women's rights.
At the same time society should become more 'meh' about gender non-conformity - "wear what you want etc..."
At the same time society should become more 'meh' about gender non-conformity - "wear what you want etc..."
