A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
Isn't just mind blowing what a colossal waste of time this whole thing is? Imagine if we spent this energy on solving real issues but I guess idiots need to be occupied with something or they'd become self aware.
The highest court in the country is spending time on deciding what a word means. This should be emberassing.
If we weren't distracted by this we wouod have to unify against the top 1% earners of the world and nobody(TM) wants that.
Now define "biological female".
"Annoying outgrowth around the pussy"
Reality and science disagree, but whatever.
Truth doesnt mean a thing to people full of hate...
That's bullshit.
The rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time. Changing the definition after makes no sense. It changes what the rule was about in the first place.
There are still laws about trans people.
rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time
Oh boi, having studied law, i can confidently say that using words with no clear definition in laws and trying to apply them is one of the main problematic and debate fuel of judges and lawyers.
And "man/woman" are clearly not words with one specific definition, even in the past (maybe people cared less about the definition, but it does not make it more specific).
This is the precise reason why that clip everyone lost their mind over was using the wording "birthing person" when discussing rights related to abortion.
You can get your "anti-woke" panties in a bunch for terms like this. But there is a reason they are used when deciding laws. It is meant to very very specific and at the same time being very very inclusive to the rights the law is meant to protect.
It's so no asshole tries to take away your rights on a technicality they made up in their mind.
No one is calling women, nb's, or trans men "birthing persons" except in this specific context and for very good reason.
Makes sense. I think it's possible to hold this belief and still be pro-trans rights. There's literally not a limit on the number of laws we can have, seems silly to change what a legal woman is rather than include transgender women people as an additional group that these laws can apply to.
Scottish courts ruled, and then upheld in the Scottish government’s favor, that sex is “not limited to biological or birth sex,” and must include those in possession of a gender recognition certificate (GRC).
But that was challenged in London’s Supreme Court by campaigners. And, in its ruling Wednesday, the country’s highest court said the meaning of the terms “sex,” “man” and “woman” in the U.K.’s Equality Act must refer to “biological sex” — with any other interpretation deemed “incoherent and impracticable.”
And here lies the issue. Maybe I am understanding how society and science are defining terms in these cases, but: doesn’t woman/man = gender (which differs depending on culture, time period, etc) and female/male = sex (which is a medical/scientific term)? It appears both sides of the table are trying to make these terms mean something they do not.
Either way, I see no practical point in actually making a law defining these terms, especially when the legal definition is not even correct scientifically speaking. There are so many biological changes that trans individuals go through when they medically transition and society will see them differently if they “pass” in their society. Also, sex isn’t so black and white either.
Thanks for the summary, very helpful.
To my knowledge, the words man/woman are not originally a social construct - they're the biological terms for human males and females (like a bitch is a female canine, and a rooster is a male chicken). However, as science has advanced, it's become increasingly clear that biology is not as binary as male and female.
On the other hand, we have binary gender roles, which are a social construct. Since external genetalia generally form the basis for assigning gender roles, there is a very close but not exact overlap between gender roles and biological sex. The argument is that since gender roles don't always match biology, the words man/woman are social constructs. Effectively, they're trying to adapt the original definitions, but are not unexpectedly meeting with resistance.
Going back to this specific law, my immediate question would be: what determines whether you're biologically male or female? Is it your current genetalia or the genetalia you were born with, i.e. what about trans people that have transitioned? If it is the genetalia you're born with, then what about hermaphrodites? If it's your genetics, then what about intersex people? Etc.
The law wasn't written to account for all these complex biological possibilities. So it sounds to me as if the scottish courts were trying to simplify by effectively letting a dr. make that decision. I assume as a next step the UK will face court cases challenging the definition of "biological".
Adding to the complexity, in my opinion, is that this particular case is about equality. This raises difficult questions about privilege, and nature vs nurture. The chess example comes to mind, where trans women have been excluded from the women's only tournament. The main tournament is open to all genders, so they can still play, just not in the women's only tournament. The argument is that due to gender roles, cis women are likely to have faced much higher barriers to learning chess as children than trans women. Those disadvantages from enforced gender roles is why the women's league even exists, as an attempt to encourage more women to participate, and trans women wouldn't have had to overcome the same barriers.
So, coming back to equality, what is more important, your current gender presentation, or the gender role in which you were raised? The answer to that question depends on so many factors in each situation, that I'm not convinced trying to force people into existing definitions make sense. It feels to me as if we need new legal definitions with more categories, but it is going to be extremely difficult to create definitions that adequately address the issues.
UK really wants to be an American colony so badly right now. Get ready to lose your NHS and pensions soon enough.
Of course , I never saw a non biological woman. Do stones have genders?
So a baby girl is a woman???
I get what you're saying, but no. The ruling is specifically "woman" means "biological female", not "everything is a woman".
A baby girl is a biological female.
Yes.
I have a feeling you think you're saying something different than what I said.
Oh, ok. Not a synonym "All women are biological females, but not necessarily all biological females are women."
Got it.
I am not following this topic.
As I understand it this means that a man that in some way transforms to a look like a woman (since the internal feeling is that of a woman) are still considered a man.
What are the practical rights differences between a man and a woman under UK law?
Wonder how much money that notorious TERF Rowling paid this court.
Then they should update the Equality Act.
Yeh, my understanding is that this was a ruling on the current law, they said that if they rules otherwise, the law would be unworkable I think?
So therefore parliament should legislate properly about it rather than just trying to bend what already existed.
goofy how the "equality act" differentiates between different types of people
With facism, inequality and the impending threat of ww3 threatening the stability of the world this certainly doesn’t seem like a bs waste of time and energy at all
How does this impact law meaningfully? Are there any important legal distinctions between men and women?