There are a number of things that really trouble me about this case aside from the obvious thing that it's a case at all.
It's that the quality of MPs we currently have and are likely to have come 13th Dec from ALL major parties has meant that the future looks pretty bleak.
If Harry wins it doesn't mean a victory in the long term.
What Harry is fighting is ultimately how activists want the law to look. And the spinelessness of MPs in all this mean its a real possibility.
If Harry wins it will probably be under provisions under the EA2010 and Human Rights Act relating to free speech.
At present the Human Rights Act is protected to a degree by our membership of the EU and the ECHR.
But we know that there are those who wish us to abolish the act and leave not just the EU and ECHR. A trade deal with Europe will probably have membership of the ECHR as a pre-condition but if that falls through and we look more towards the US that could be an issue...
Meanwhile those on the other side who want to remain in the EU want to abolish the EA2010. But don't seem to equate how that tallies up with laws protecting free speech either. Instead they seem to think enforcement by intimidation is fair game anyway.
I honestly don't know how anyone is arguing this bullshit either in court or in sincerity as a law maker.
The whole thing is bonkers: only males can be transwomen, by very definition no females can be transwomen. So there can be no transphobia if women are all simply women and there is no distinction between transwomen and women and transwomen cease to exist as a concept if sex is erased. And if transwomen don't exist because sex doesn't exist and isn't important there can be no transphobia either.
It is impossible to define transwomen without sex. If we can't talk about sex because it's meaningless, we also can't talk about transphobia as a concept.
It's all rather like Back To The Future where Marty is about to disappear because his own mother has fallen in love with him inside of his father so Marty ceases to exist : the Grandfather Paradox.
Except this about sex and gender.
We should probably name it the Trans Paradox for all the Scifi fans out there...
The lunacy for me is that MPs are supposed to scruntise for a living to spot inconsistencies like this to prevent the equalivent of a legal paradox where legal terms have replaced reality thus creating a situation where the law no longer has effect for the purpose it was designed because of all these legal fictions.
What is their actual fucking jobs?
They certainly do not convince me they know a single thing about reality, have basic knowledge of existing law nor understand how the heck you go about creating new law which actually works for the purposes desired.
I can't see how we are anything but fucked when we are lead by an army of the parliamentary equivalent of Biff Tannen.