Self-Hosting: Server: Easy (Leverage email hosting services) → Score: 18/20
Is it really self-hosting if someone else controls the data and software?
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.”
When you are losing an argument you attack the person not the content.
It'd help if you 'argument' was more than just repeating "I'm right, people who disagree with me are an insane minority" ad nauseam, mixed in with a good amount of linguistic prescriptionism.
In a scientific context, a woman is generally defined as an individual of the sex that typically produces egg cells.
Even if that was true, what does it have to do with the Equalities Act? You know, a law regulating society, so should surely use the social definition of woman? You keep brining up 'the science' as if our daily lives abide by the rules and definitions of scientific study.
That is not the Scientific definition of woman. Woman is a descriptive word for Female adult. Your “gender” version has no basis is science or biology.
There is no scientific definition of woman, women are a social category. What it means to be a women is only tangentially related to biology.
I’m don’t talking on this now. Society does not reflect you or people on heres opinions. We are tired of the Smallest minority effecting politics/lives and women.
You are not society and you don't speak for it. You are an incurious bigot too stubborn in your ignorance to grow as a person. It's also lovely to be lectured to on language by a person who can't use capital letters or apostrophes properly. Ta-ra.
Woman means adult human female, and Man means Human Adult Male. That is the literal definition.
The actual, literal definition of woman:
Words aren't bestowed upon us, we make them up and can decide their meaning.
I was far from a feminist in my younger years but the way women are treated now is abhorrent. Especially in sports and places like Changing rooms.
So you don't actually care about patriarchal oppression women face everyday and the systemic violence they face from men, but like using them as a cudgel against trans people. The reason most feminists are trans inclusive (apart from it being the morally correct position) is that definitions of womanhood that are bioessentialist is a tool of patriarchal oppression.
You can argue a trans Women is a women all you like but you had to prefix
It's an adjective, under this logic blonde women aren't women.
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.
It's absolutely about the person being searched.
Even better, he can demand her to strip naked for him. Purely theoretical of course, the bobbies would never abuse their power.
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.
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 discriminate 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.
How is a ruling that just removed protections trans people had yesterday a 'positive step'?
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.
41
15
Post-Brexit youth mobility scheme with EU on the table under a different name
(www.independent.co.uk)
Stats from here: https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/dailystats
Like, has an instance gone down and if so, why hasn't there been a comparable drop in users and comments?
Edit: Thanks to @[email protected] here for pointing to zerobytes.monster becoming more aggressive against bots as the likely culprit.
view more: next ›
Damn, we really need a better status page (I mostly use lemmy-meter, but actually putting status.feddit.uk to use wouldn't go amiss).