UK Politics

3646 readers

57 users here now

General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
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.

!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

101

First police force changes search guidelines for trans women in wake of Supreme Court gender ruling (www.lbc.co.uk)

submitted 4 days ago by flamingos@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

116 comments fedilink hide all child comments

A British Transport Police spokesperson said: “Under previous policy, we had advised that someone with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) may be searched in accordance with their acquired sex, however as an interim position while we digest yesterday’s judgement, we have advised our officers that any same sex searches in custody are to be undertaken in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee.

“We are in the process of reviewing the implications of the ruling and will consider any necessary updates to our policies and practices in line with the law and national guidance.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 47 points 4 days ago (1 children)

But hey, trans people have totally not lost any protections because of this ruling. The Supreme Court can only interpret the law, which is, as we know, an apolitical, amorphic force of nature and not a deeply political process informed just as much by a person's perspective and bigotries as any other.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

In an immediate, visceral experiential sense they’ve lost protections, but in a legal sense those protections never existed, and the first legal challenge showed they were like smoke in air. hopefully this will shake things up and get some proper substantial protections into law.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 5 points 4 days ago (2 children)

And yet the people who wrote the legislation say this ruling is at odds with their intentions:

[Melanie Field] said that treating trans women with GRCs as women in relation to sex discrimination protections was “the clear premise” of the policy and legal instructions to the officials who drafted the bill.

The supreme court’s ruling on Wednesday that the legal definition of “woman” referred only to biological women was “a very significant” reinterpretation of parliament’s intentions when it passed the Equality Act 2010 and the Gender Recognition Act 2004, she said.

“There are likely to be unintended consequences of this very significant change of interpretation from the basis on which the legislation was drafted and considered by parliament,” Field said in a post on the social media site LinkedIn.

“We all need to understand what this change means for how the law provides for the appropriate treatment of natal and trans women and men in a whole range of contexts.”

[–] Fluke@lemm.ee 4 points 3 days ago

Then it sounds like that Equality Act 2010, and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 need urgent and immediate revisions to remove all doubt, room for error, and wiggle room for bigots and clearly state what was intended.

While the government have shown that they can indeed act quickly when they want to (recent events regarding steel works), I'd bet folding money it takes decades to make the amendments above.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

They should have drafted better laws.

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Possibly, but the point of the Supreme Court in the UK is to figure out what the law means when laws aren't clear, and that's allowed to include asking the people who wrote it.