way to make life less safe for everyone, idiots

  • flamingos-cantM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    284 days ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      134 days ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      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.

      • katy ✨
        link
        fedilink
        33 days 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.

      • flamingos-cantM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        63 days ago

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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          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.

          • flamingos-cantM
            link
            fedilink
            English
            3
            edit-2
            3 days 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 discrimination 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.