UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
Yet another case of a British institution making decisions about trans people without letting them participate, but allowing 'gender-critical' transphobes to, and fucking them over.
The courts can only interpret the law. The wording of the law refers to 'sex' i.e. Biological sex, not gender, hence the ruling.
Only the media is talking about the 'definition of a woman'. This is not what the ruling is on.
That isn't to say that the equalities act shouldn't be changed to also include gender, I strongly believe it should and hope against hope that the Labour government will, but it is not in the supreme court's power to enact new law.
Lack of understanding of the legal system leads to a lot of misdirected anger, I'm on your side, but be angry at the right people.
The Supreme Court can only work with the laws as written. The legislation defines women by sex at birth, so they are right to make the ruling they have. Those opposed should direct their efforts to Parliament, who can re-write the law. This ruling is a positive step as it sets out clearly how the law currently stands.
How is a ruling that just removed protections trans people had yesterday a 'positive step'?
It didn’t remove protections trans people had yesterday. It clarified that they didn’t have those protections under that law yesterday, because the law in question defined women by sex. Now that is understood, further legislation to add protections can be proposed. The ruling also pointed out that there are also existing protections under another law.
Practically they did have them though, albeit under a legal grey area.
They said you can't discriminate against trans people on the basis of gender reassignment. You can, however, simultaneously discriminate against trans people on the basis of assigned gender at birth and they can be excluded from sex-segregated spaces of their assigned gender if they look too much like the other sex. So the Supreme Court just ruled on the question of 'which toilet should a trans person use' by saying 'neither'. This is what happens when you only consult with trans hate groups like Sex Matters and don't consult with trans people.
i mean the supreme court purposely went out of their way to only consult with bigots and refuse to allow trans people to speak fuck them.