82
Can the whole world stop fucking sucking so god damned bad for five fucking minutes?
I'm sorry, the best they can do is double down
Wow. That’s obviously an appeasement strategy towards orangeboi and the nationalist Christians.
Hey Brits, remember how things turned out when Chamberlain appeased the Germans? Remind me again how that one played out?
The courts in the UK are not politicised like in the US.
"Judges say the "concept of sex is binary" while cautioning that the landmark ruling should not be seen as victory of one side over another"
They interpret the law as it's written (I.e. about sex, not gender), so to change this you would need a new law. It's not supposed to be a moral judgement.
Decades of gender = sex in legal wording, documents and policy makes it very difficult to detangle the intent of what is meant by sex or gender in each case.
This particularly undermimes obtaining a GRC which updates the specifically labelled 'Sex' field on a birth certificate. So now we can have people with legal documents stating their 'Sex' being barred from same sex spaces aligning with their documentation.
Yeah it's going to be a legal mess for a while and I do sympathise with people who are affected. Something for parliament(s) to sort out.
In which case the ruling, even if one was to accept it as a valid interpretation, let alone its effect on people involved, is arse backwards and has the potential to cause significant harm in the short term.
The Supreme Court doesn’t make the rules, it makes a determination on what the rules mean in context of the body of law. It’s not their fault that Parliament passed a badly worded law. It’s a positive step that the law has been clarified, and now the changes needed can be identified.
I'm fully aware of how the system works, thank you very much for explaining at me. I'm saying the ruling itself is arse backwards and jumps to a lot of baseless and genuinely misogynistic conclusions. It is difficult to read it as an objective clarification on anything, let alone a positive one.
Exactly.
There are lots of people in this thread who aren't familiar enough with how the UK system works (understandably, because it's not a UK community). A lot of those people have jumped to the wrong conclusion.
It makes me wonder how often I get the wrong end of the stick when it comes to US/international politics etc.
I shamefully know more about US politics and justice systems than I do about the UK.
It's just everywhere, on every social platform.
Wow, what foresight they had to appease Trump 6 years before he was elected… This law was written in 2010. The ruling clarified that a more recent Scottish law which relied on this one did so by misinterpreting that law’s definition of women.
As to Chamberlain, at the time of the Munich agreement, the Luftwaffe had the most advanced air force in the world, while the RAF were only equipped with biplanes. Chamberlain bought time for the development and manufacture of armaments, significantly the Spitfire and Hurricane, and in the event it was just enough time, with losses in the Battle of Britain barely being outstripped by replacements. So yeah, turned out alright.
It's really sad, but UK is a lot like USA politically. UK ~~first~~ alone or USA ~~first~~ alone. There's not really that much difference.
Brexit or MAGA Both represent an idea of exceptionalism about themselves, and disregard for emigrants and minorities.
USA is worse, but the principle is the same.
Forget it, Britain might as well be under Norsefire rule at this point. The "left" are now in charge and they're hardly distinguishable from the tories who robbed them blind for a decade.
"But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph for one or more groups in our society at the expense of another - it is not."
Yes it is. If it weren't, you wouldn't have said this to assure people:
The Supreme Court said trans people - whether trans women or men - would not be disadvantaged by its decision as the Equality Act afforded them protection against discrimination or harassment.
The UK has already created a "scapegoat class" of people whose appearance makes their minority status obvious in many cases and those who were rightfully reprimanded for unlawful discrimination are now retroactively suing their former employers.
In an example of the ruling's potential impact, a Scottish health organisation that is being sued by a nurse it suspended over her response to a trans woman using a female changing room said it had noted the judgment.
This type of thing is going to further affect trans people's access to homeless shelters and healthcare, at minimum. I wonder what's going to happen when the cis women realize that banning trans people from their spaces didn't actually fix anything and their husbands, boyfriends, and colleagues are still groping, beating, and forcing themselves on them.
These statements make it all the more maddening. How can you say it's not a triumph for one side while they literally toast champagne on your doorstep. Fucking old cunts, you know you'll all be dead soon and we'll just change the law anyway.
From a layperson's POV, this will seem to require years of untangling the law to properly give LGBTQ+ people their due rights under the law that is in theory afforded to everyone. This is a setback for immediate protections, but my view is that this isn't necessarily bad in the long term, so long as corrective steps are taken to address the root issue.
UK law has been written and interpreted over hundreds of years with various historical understandings of personhood throughout that time. At one point basically only men were people, so laws were only referring to them. After the affirmation of women's rights and suffrage, should we have just said: women are "men" for every intent and purpose, and just not bothered to update the law and keep using "men" everywhere thereafter? It seems similar to me that tacking trans people's rights on by making the definitions more ambiguous is fine early on, but at some point should be codified better in law, to give equal right to trans men, trans women and non-binary folks as to cisgender folks. Ignoring the difference of gender vs. sex under the law entirely, would leave gaps in serving trans and nonbinary people's unmet needs as well. None of this will happen on its own, so allies of LGBTQ+ people ought to contact their MP to make it happen.
I'm not oblivious to the harm to both women and transgender people that this ruling will bring upon the UK, but it should spur on actually solving the issues on codifying gender and sex under the law, rather than relying on half-solutions or temporary solutions.
I'd happily be educated on this topic.
This is a setback for immediate protections, but my view is that this isn't necessarily bad in the long term, so long as corrective steps are taken to address the root issue.
There will be no corrective steps.
it should spur on actually solving the issues
It won't, because it was brought about to achieve the exact opposite
There will be no corrective steps.
Okay, noted, thanks. There will never be any corrective steps as long we avoid thinking of any.
There will not be any corrective steps anytime soon, because the UK government, who would need to implement those steps, is actively disinclined to make them, because even though it's less transphobic than the previous government, it is still doing transphobia for political reasons.
This is a setback for immediate protections, but my view is that this isn’t necessarily bad in the long term, so long as corrective steps are taken to address the root issue.
UK is notoriously anti-trans so the main issue is hoping for it to get better is just a wee bit of a pipe dream.
So we’re deciding gender = sex? Got it….
Unbelievable.
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
82 points (100.0% liked)
World News
45858 readers
2381 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS