[QUOTE=Montmorency;2053795388]Pre-crime is not the principle behind what you listed, which was a restriction on property or commerce rather than people. A better comparison would be to demographic profiling. There is reasonable profiling, such as passing over infants for murder suspects, and unreasonable profiling, such as banning those who regularly consume alcohol from driving vehicles. From the viewpoint of state action, pre-crime is pre-punishment, so demographic profiling can immediately become group discrimination or collective punishment. This unsurprisingly inflicts real-life costs on the targeted demographics.[quote]

In the UK we infringe upon the "Right to Bear Arms" enumerated in our Bill of Rights because a few people have used arms for terrible purposes.

Therefore, it is assumed that anyone who wishes to practice with arms will do the same and so almost all arms are restricted. This is the same as saying any man who enters a woman's bathroom is a sexual predator and therefore all men shall be banned from women's bathrooms. The relatively small risk that this will happen has led to the complete ban on handguns and the banning of all non-bolt-action centrefire rifles.

The mere possibility that some objection somewhere is reasonable does not entail anything about a specific objection.

Spend less energy protesting virtue and more examining your premises to see if they fall afoul of your ostensible commitments.
This argument started because Beskar implied that anyone with anxiety over the safety of his teenage daughter in allowing men into female bathrooms to accommodate transgender rights was morally bankrupt.

I merely argued that this was not necessarily the case and now apparently I hate transgender people - I don't feel like I'm the one making the logical leap here.

Such men already exist and are already subject to legal sanction on the basis of demonstrable transgressions.
We used to have men who owned guns and knives too - now we arrest them all and send them to prison before they even think of hurting anyone. We do this because we are not a liberal society- which is fine - but its inconsistent to be liberal in some areas and not others.

Men routinely set up hidden cameras in women's bathrooms at this very moment, because they have the motivation and opportunity.
Be a spate of that in Costa Coffee shops here - guess what. Those toilets are unisex.

So what does this have to do with restrictions on transgender people?
Not wanting transgender people to be in the bathroom of the sex they were not assigned at birth is not about "restricting transgender people" it's about our society being over-liberal and creating opportunities for abuse that do not currently exist.

I'd quite like to own a semi-automatic rifle in 7.62mm, preferably an SLR, because I enjoy shooting - I'm good at it - and if you're going to have a boom stick you might as well have something with some KICK. 5.56mm doesn't have kick, rifles like the SA80 are very easy to shoot and not very satisfying. I'm not talking about my arse here, I'm speaking from personal experience and I miss shooting. However, I accept it's illegal in the UK for reasons of collective safety.

I was going to contest your impression of the safety of unisex spaces or the right of 'concerned fathers' to demand a restriction of others for the sake of their comfort, but I realized there's an immediate logical inconsistency embedded: what does any of that have to do with transgender people? It should be immediately apparent that maintaining segregated spaces is compatible with deference to transgendered individual preferences.

If your reasonable and non-prejudicial anxiety is over unisex spaces, why are you talking about transgender people?
AM I talking about transgender people? See, I though I was criticising Beskar for suggesting that anyone who DARED question the current transgender orthodoxy was morally bankrupt. Remember, this started because Beskar intimated that the reason a union activist lost his job was not because of Brexit but because of his view on transgender use of bathrooms and Beskar's tone indicates his disdain for those views.

Essentially, this man is being pilloried for being unsophisticated, and this is supposedly enough to lose him his role in organising his union despite his obvious unionist credentials - and shortly after he went on Youtube to make the "Left Wing case for Brexit" too. Frankly, given Beskar's own lack of sophistication I find this deeply ironic.