“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.
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.
That’s ridiculous. Why would you think that the TERFs believed that banning trans people would stop all groping, beatings or rape? They’re defending their safe spaces. They want the safe spaces for a reason.
I am aware of the reality that banning trans people doesn’t stop abuse. I am rhetorically musing about how the people who genuinely believe this may react upon learning their problems have not been magically solved by the vocal radfems pushing the notion that trans women are unsafe.
You know, like the Trump voters who were shocked that he cut social spending because they’re living paycheck-to-paycheck? A “leopards ate my face” moment.
Is there an explicit vent space for trans people to talk about this topic? I am sick of being criticised for being upset that the world seems to hate my existence and trying to deal with it through commentary.
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?
It’s really sad, but UK is a lot like USA politically. UK
firstalone or USAfirstalone. 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.
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.
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’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.