The Supreme Court recently changed the rules on who is a woman. On Wednesday, in a closed room, Lord Hodge came to a decision that affects trans women as part of anti-discrimination legislation. The case was brought to the court by a group of campaigners (Scotland Woman), who celebrated the perceived win yesterday and wore t-shirts with dictionary quotes on.
What does this ruling mean for the wider society? Let's take a look at some of the consequences that the campaigners have definitely thought through and are proud about.
Firstly, everyone entering a public bathroom in the UK will have to have their genitals checked. In the first months this will need to be done manually by bathroom inspectors, who will have mirrors on the end of telescopic steel tubes that they check anyone entering a bathroom with. The lengthy process of taking a DNA swab, sending it to a lab, analysing it and then sending the results back to the bathroom would be inconvenient, so in order to ensure the safety and dignity of all bathroom users, G4S will take on the government contract of checking between everybodies legs.
This will of course be replaced in the coming months with advanced robotic cameras that can scan the crotch of adults and young people entering a bathroom and use advanced artificial intelligence to check if they are biologically compatible to use a toilet. This information is sensitive and covered under the Genital Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), though of course will need to be manually cross-checked by humans in a satelitte office. This multi-billion dollar technology may seem like a waste of money to some, as is the addition of multiple bathrooms to trains, aeroplanes and private homes, but ultimately worth it.
There's also the complication of sports. Now trans women will need to share locker rooms with cis men, although due to the risk posed by cis men generally, another changing room will need to be inside the male changing room and vice versa. This division of rooms will continue to account for the range of genes across society, with those with a proclivity for violence or banter being separated from those genetically sensitive or shy, for example.
This court ruling also sets the precedence for other genetic decisions, such as those with genes for being tall needing to have their arms and legs broken in order to not have a genetic advantage over other players in basketball, or for those that show intelligence to have their brains drilled so as not to pose any genetic threat in the game of chess. In order to have a fair and equal society, we must ensure that all people are equalised through the law of averages.
The gender critical campaigners are happy, but what about everybody else? Has all of this been worth it? Are the other issues facing women - such as equality, safety and opportunity - also solved with this ruling? The gender critical campaigners think so. If life was like a board game, this ruling has looked at the rules again and again and after hours of arguing, managed to get an interpretation of a sentence to go in their favour. Many will look back on their lives and think, it might have taken years of campaigning, millions of pounds of donations, almost unlimited hours of arguing on the internet and breaking relationships between family and friends, but now they get to take a piss without a trans woman listening in on them. So who's to say if this was good or bad? Only God can judge. And a few people in Scotland apparently.
As trans rights are human rights, we could see this as being a sign of the changes to come. People have protested and died for equality, the right to exist, but it turns out this no longer matters because a childrens book author went mad. For a country where its main virtue is spite, this is another celebration for the crab people. As for the rest of us, we can only pray that the Stonehenge god will return.
