United Kingdom
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, 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.
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.
view the rest of the comments
Oh damn, this is huge. He's officially admitting to being a Transphobic Bigot. Literally.
What else in this ballpark would he like to admit to while he's at it? Maybe he's a Homophobe too? ...What's his stance on black people?
Also, are transgender men, men? And if so, why is it one rule for women and another for men? Is he sexist too?
On the basis of his admission of being a Bigot I would argue he is unfit to be leader of the Labour Party. I recall a Labour Prime Minister not too long ago getting angry at someone for being a Bigot... how times have changed...
"when looking at the Equality Act" is the key missing part off the quote. Would you expect an ex-barrister to contradict the ruling of the supreme court?
What's actually needed is new clear primary legislation to address all these issues. Parliament still had primacy here but good luck getting MPs wading into such a toxic debate?
They could have announced they would look to introduce new legislation to address this. They could have said just about anything instead of what's been said today.
But they didn't, they are instead parroting the court ruling as if it's a final settlement on the issue as whole.
There is no weaselling around these words, the only debate is whether it exposes cowardice or bigotry.
It's probably cowardice.
I totally get why people are upset but the real question is what to do next. You can try lobbying the government with the massive majority by accusing them all of being bigots or form a new party (or join an existing one) with this reform at the top of their agenda.
Sadly while there may or no may not be a majority in the country who have sympathy with the plight of trans people I doubt there are enough where it is the top off their priorities when deciding who to vote for.
This is not huge. He is literally saying what the law says, which is exactly what you expect a prime minister to do. This isn't transphobia. This isn't bigotry. Literally.
You're blowing this completely out of proportion, and also throwing in a load of other shit that he never said anything about.
Damn, if only the PM had the power to get the law changed.
This is transphobia, seriously listen to him weasel out of it. He was asked if trans woman were women in general, not specifically for the purposes of the Equalities Act.
'As a woman', a trans woman is a woman, different from a cis woman sure, but still a woman. This statement is fairly absurd if you substitute trans with another adjective, like is a blonde woman different from a woman?
The prejudice is denying the legitimacy of trans women as women. 'Adult human female' is a dog whistle for 'not trans', so by asserting that a woman is 'an adult female' he's saying trans women aren't women (and that trans men aren't men).
I didn't actually, I wrote that to probe out what you actually meant because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
And trans/cis is a descriptions of whether a woman was assigned female at birth or not. Woman is not synonymous with cis woman.
You give them different names, I'm using adjectives because the distinction matters in this context.
It really isn't. When you meet someone irl, you brain doesn't decide if it thinks they are a man or woman based on their chromosomes or some bioessentialist bs, it does it based of social ques because man/woman are social categories.
But also:
I'll probably fuck my terminology up here, forgive me, I try. Questions I have:
Are there a lot of people who look at other people's genitals in public toilets?
Can these people be arrested because I think they might be perverts and I don't want them looking at my kids?
Are people going to have to start showing their genitals to security guards?
Has someone given security guards the right to demand to see people's genitals?
How the fuck does that even work when someone's had gender reassignment surgery?
Presumably trans men must now use the women's toilets?
Does someone who's had gender reassignment surgery need to bring their full medical history with them in order to prove they're using the "correct" toilet?
Not aimed particularly at you flamingos - just questions that are coming to mind reading this thread.
Seems to me this would be a lot simpler if people would just stop looking at other people's genitals in toilets uninvited.
A trans woman, and a cis woman are both subtypes of women. One used to be physically male, the other didn't. Both are women and should be afforded the same treatment under law unless actually there's actually reasonable issues created by that.