Conservatives need a demographic to hate. This one is perfect because they will never be Conservatives, and most hardcore Conservatives can't stand to see homosexual PDA.

When gay marriage was being debated here in Australia my sister (who is gay) was super upset the whole time. She talked about how much the fight affected her and wished that people who were against would just understand.

I told her I was a complete supporter of gay marriage for a whole bunch of reasons including:

• human decency
• equality
• people who don't like gay marriage can just... Not get married to another person of the same gender.
• people should just mind their own fucking business

However I did also point out that a lot of the loudest voices against gay marriage literally did not give a flying fuck about the issue, it was a convenient wedge and distraction for them, the people who need a group to vilify for political reasons would have to find another target for persecution as soon as they lost this particular convenient red rag to a bull.

Today in Australia, I believe, the usual suspects who use fear and hatred as the bedrock of their politics have been able to tap into a deeper vein of ignorance to make Trans people that target.

There's nothing to understand. It's about hate and fear. Conservatives, specifically the alt-right, uses pre-existing prejudices to whip fear into their followers so that they get distracted.

"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

You can change this to whatever out-group they have chosen:

• Trans-people
• autistic people specifically
• LGBT people
• neurodivergent people
• gay people specifically
• muslims
• non-white people
• black people specifically
• Catholics (if you're protestant)
• Protestant (if your Catholic)
• left handed people

The list literally goes on. All so that their followers get distracted from the people who are picking their pockets.

Unfortunately, in these cases, people make the mistake of thinking the law works like computer code. In reality, it doesn't.

People have this idea that law is just like computer code. You make one single definition and then build laws, like a mathematical edifice, around that definition. They think that if the law uses one definition in one place, it must use that definition in all places. They think the law works like a computer program or a physics equation. Change the constant and changes cascade through.

The law however is not a computer code. It is not a physics equation. The law has not, does not, and will likely never use consistent definitions throughout all contexts. Laws can be written with the same term defined multiple ways in different contexts. A tomato can be a vegetable in some legal contexts and a fruit in others. Someone can be legally male in some contexts but legally female in others.

Traditionally how this works with trans folks is, "your legal sex will be defined as whatever hurts you the most in the moment." Does a trans woman want to use a women's restroom? She will be defined as legally male and thrown out. Does she show her breasts in public as protest? Her chest will be considered legally female breasts. She will then be arrested and thrown in a male prison.

The law is not internally consistent. Don't make the mistake of thinking it is. Usually individual laws have their own definitions written into them. These definitions define what terms mean for the sake of applying that and only that law. And the definitions used can differ between different laws.

Depends entirely on the language of the law, not what right wing people think. The UK isn't like the USA in this regard, or at least Scotland isn't ...yet.