this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
37 points (95.1% liked)

UK Politics

3652 readers
326 users here now

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! :'(

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

way to make life less safe for everyone, idiots

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 week ago (1 children)

How is a ruling that just removed protections trans people had yesterday a 'positive step'?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Practically they did have them though, albeit under a legal grey area.

The ruling also pointed out that there are also existing protections under another law.

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

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.