UK Supreme Court Rules Trans Women Are Not And Can't Be Women

[Jessica Germ 2,129]

I have no idea what the point of any of it is. Get the TERDs happy? Make actual, relevant advancements in law? Lord Heavenly 

[PartySick 172,545]

51 minutes ago, Leblanc said:

That there is a biological difference 

But why would that need to be a legal distinction? That's my question.

We don't need the law to tell us there's a difference between being cisgender and transgender, we just need the law to protect against discrimination which can be applied as blanket laws across all women, cis or trans.

[Jessica Germ 2,129]

1 minute ago, PartySick said:

But why would that need to be a legal distinction? That's my question.

We don't need the law to tell us there's a difference between being cisgender and transgender, we just need the law to protect against discrimination which can be applied as blanket laws across all women, cis or trans.

It would’ve been different had it been based in anything other than delusion. Attacking 0.1% of the population, “protecting” women, BULLSHIT. We all know who pose a real threat to women, historically and statistically. 

[PartySick 172,545]

1 minute ago, Jessica Germ said:

It would’ve been different had it been based in anything other than delusion. Attacking 0.1% of the population, “protecting” women, BULLSHIT. We all know who pose a real threat to women, historically and statistically. 

Oh for sure, the court's ruling is useless and definitely rooted in a trend of backwards hate. Like "great, the court says 'trans women aren't women', what do we do with that knowledge?"

There's no reason for a court to be ruling on something like this to begin with, let alone for them to come to such a catastrophically stupid decision.

I'm just curious what Leblanc's line of thinking is, that's all.

[AndrewJC 400]

I've said this to my friends, this whole situation is bogus. It's all smoke and mirrors because governments don't want to face up to actual tough things which directly impact their citizens.

Instead of focusing on ACTUAL pressing issues like how people my age will probably never get on the property ladder in their lives, we have high populations of homeless people in large cities most sectors which impact our daily lives needs reform (NOT the party before people come for me) but actual reform of the system like housing is pressing.

Instead they are scapegoating a community who are literally doing no harm whatsoever because they need to appeal to someone and appealing to the right seems to be the in thing now.

When I go to bed at night I do not toss and turn over trans people and obsess over genitalia, I'd rather let people be their authentic selves... I DO however toss and turn at night because I'll have to decide whether or not to stay in my vermin infested house share where the rent is increasing by 150 pound or to go through another rigorous process of filling out 5 years worth of address and job history only to fork out nearly a months wage for another deposit on another shitty house share.... oh and also worrying about the alarming rate the cost of food produce is going up and how it will come to a time where I'll have to sacrifice packs of ham to just get the block of cheese which has gone up to 8 pound

 

Pathetic tbh

[Jessica Germ 2,129]

On another note, since terds want to focus so much on what’s in people’s pants, they better have the decency to at least look like their “female binary biological sex”  How are you supporting any of this if you are more likely than not to be assumed trans? Hmmmm? 
Time to show us your functional uteruses ladies! Since that’s where it all matters 

[Leblanc 2,494]

4 hours ago, PartySick said:

But why would that need to be a legal distinction? That's my question.

We don't need the law to tell us there's a difference between being cisgender and transgender, we just need the law to protect against discrimination which can be applied as blanket laws across all women, cis or trans.

Because everything no matter how little gets a legal distinction. I'm sure you've heard of supreme court cases where they spend hours deciding exactly what one word means in a given law. It needs clarity, thats just how that system has always worked and unfortunately its not going to change on this one basis. The law in the UK already specifies discrimination protection for both gender and for trangender people, we've had that for decades.

[doraemon 1,145]

this is regression

[Meruk Holland 2,358]

11 hours ago, Leblanc said:

Actually I'm surprised no one said anything so I shouldn't have come in guna blazing like that, it's feels inappropriate now. I'm used to the argument being a minefield no matter what even when trying to be supportive. Yes I think being trans should be equal to being cis but I still think they're should be a distinction especially legally and I don't see what the issue is there. 

Okay, so with this reply I can understand a bit more of what you mean. So, the thing is, when it comes to the distinction of trans and cis in a legal sense, most people would agree that there should be a legal distinction, because trans is ideally a protected class. The problem arises when those distinctions are drawn at the wrong places. 

Now, in this case, the Supreme Court is saying that, while trans is still a protected class under the Equality Act of 2010, trans women are not considered women by the same act. In this case, woman refers to sex, not gender (further, they use "biological" as a synonym with "cis" which is also just...flat out wrong). And as such, single-sex spaces like changing rooms and bathrooms that are "women only" only apply to cis women. With that being the case, the only inference one can make is that, if trans women can't use "women only" spaces, then they aren't really women. 

So, the Supreme Court is essentially saying, trans women are legally distinct from women, as opposed to being distinct from cis. Those that study gender can tell you that this is factually incorrect, it's rhetorically incorrect, it's semantically incorrect, it's morally incorrect. This ruling is, at best, ignorant or archaically-arrived (such as, the legal idea that sex is different from gender goes beyond the purview of this case), and at worst, malicious and political. 

[LadyxGaGa 3,220]

6 hours ago, Meruk Holland said:

Okay, so with this reply I can understand a bit more of what you mean. So, the thing is, when it comes to the distinction of trans and cis in a legal sense, most people would agree that there should be a legal distinction, because trans is ideally a protected class. The problem arises when those distinctions are drawn at the wrong places. 

Now, in this case, the Supreme Court is saying that, while trans is still a protected class under the Equality Act of 2010, trans women are not considered women by the same act. In this case, woman refers to sex, not gender (further, they use "biological" as a synonym with "cis" which is also just...flat out wrong). And as such, single-sex spaces like changing rooms and bathrooms that are "women only" only apply to cis women. With that being the case, the only inference one can make is that, if trans women can't use "women only" spaces, then they aren't really women. 

So, the Supreme Court is essentially saying, trans women are legally distinct from women, as opposed to being distinct from cis. Those that study gender can tell you that this is factually incorrect, it's rhetorically incorrect, it's semantically incorrect, it's morally incorrect. This ruling is, at best, ignorant or archaically-arrived (such as, the legal idea that sex is different from gender goes beyond the purview of this case), and at worst, malicious and political. 

thank you for this response that although this is legal this isn’t progression 

 

[Diamond Blood 4,552]

18 hours ago, Yasux35 said:

I mean they are not wrong though .

They are wrong very very wrong also posting this on a LADY GAGA forum of all places is so hilariously stupid

[Diamond Blood 4,552]

18 hours ago, Yasux35 said:

I mean they are not wrong though .

They are

[Leblanc 2,494]

8 hours ago, Meruk Holland said:

Okay, so with this reply I can understand a bit more of what you mean. So, the thing is, when it comes to the distinction of trans and cis in a legal sense, most people would agree that there should be a legal distinction, because trans is ideally a protected class. The problem arises when those distinctions are drawn at the wrong places. 

Now, in this case, the Supreme Court is saying that, while trans is still a protected class under the Equality Act of 2010, trans women are not considered women by the same act. In this case, woman refers to sex, not gender (further, they use "biological" as a synonym with "cis" which is also just...flat out wrong). And as such, single-sex spaces like changing rooms and bathrooms that are "women only" only apply to cis women. With that being the case, the only inference one can make is that, if trans women can't use "women only" spaces, then they aren't really women. 

So, the Supreme Court is essentially saying, trans women are legally distinct from women, as opposed to being distinct from cis. Those that study gender can tell you that this is factually incorrect, it's rhetorically incorrect, it's semantically incorrect, it's morally incorrect. This ruling is, at best, ignorant or archaically-arrived (such as, the legal idea that sex is different from gender goes beyond the purview of this case), and at worst, malicious and political. 

Unfortunately I think you're looking at a language and several laws that go back centuries and for the longest time 'woman' was used to refer to biological sex in the law so its causing all these problems as time changes and the population/language evolves and that to me that further reiterates the need for legal distinction to avoid confusion in the eyes of the law. I would very much like it that trans women would be accepted into women only spaces but it gets dicey when both are protected characteristics and unfortunately I think its fair to listen to both sides and I'm not a part of either so my opinion really isn't worth much but there's a lot of cis women celebrating this win and if its what they want who am I to argue?

[rocketn9 442]

As a lesbian woman if they want to really protect me from abuse and harassment they need to ban cis!het men from existence ,not trans women.Banning a minority group from even more rights ,won't somehow help any woman.if anything it opens the room for more harassment on GNC women (even if they are cis).

[Meruk Holland 2,358]

23 minutes ago, Leblanc said:

Unfortunately I think you're looking at a language and several laws that go back centuries and for the longest time 'woman' was used to refer to biological sex in the law so its causing all these problems as time changes and the population/language evolves and that to me that further reiterates the need for legal distinction to avoid confusion in the eyes of the law. I would very much like it that trans women would be accepted into women only spaces but it gets dicey when both are protected characteristics and unfortunately I think its fair to listen to both sides and I'm not a part of either so my opinion really isn't worth much but there's a lot of cis women celebrating this win and if its what they want who am I to argue?

The thing is that this is the Supreme Court's ruling, so they're the ones deciding to uphold the archaic understanding of the laws that define gender as sex. This was the opportunity to break away from that convention and set precedence, considering that the Equality Act addresses both women and trans as protected classes. They instead decided to uphold the idea that sex is gender, which does not reflect our current reality. If you think that such legal distinction is necessary to avoid confusion, then this ruling is a problem, as it only adds to the confusion with its contradictions.

The women celebrating this ruling are celebrating the idea that trans women are not women, legally. By definition, they are in support of anti-trans bigotry and most, if not all, think that trans shouldn't be a protected class either. Both sides are not worth listening to if one is spreading hateful ideas.