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.”
Counterpoint: if it negatively affects one person it’s bad. You actually don’t need to “well actually” this, especially when your “well actually” amounts to “it won’t be as bad as it could be”
Counterpoint to your counterpoint.
Women have been negatively affected as well. Somehow do you square that circle. The world is not a utopia. So taking a Utilitarian approach the benefit would be in the positive towards women. Which is the greater number of those affected.
Leaving aside that you’re treating “women” as separate from “trans women”, which women? Who has been negatively affected by letting trans women pee in peace? And now this is going to negatively affect cis women as well as trans women. And this hysteria over trans women is already doing harm to cis women even before the supreme court ruling. Literally all of this is just worse for women, over some imagined problem that this was supposed to “fix”.
I’m fully aware that you aren’t arguing in good faith so this will be my last response to you
I’m not arguing. I’m having a discussion. This place is the same as Reddit. No actual conversation if you don’t buy in to the belief systems here.
The Supreme Court has stated that Women actually means something and it is defined Biologically. The fact that we live in a world where that even needs to be confirmed is insanity.
Woman means adult human female, and Man means Human Adult Male. That is the literal definition.
There is no ambiguity here. There was and that was the issue. Yes people will be affected, but women having a safe space and being allowed to go about their days without fear of reprisals for wanting women only spaces is a win.
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.
You can argue a trans Women is a women all you like but you had to prefix and the law supports my viewpoint, and the vast majority of those in society and rightly so.
The actual, literal definition of woman:
Words aren’t bestowed upon us, we make them up and can decide their meaning.
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.
It’s an adjective, under this logic blonde women aren’t women.
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.
Yes we make words up and we agree what male and female is.
Cow = Female (pretty sure you know what that is) Bull = male
They don’t change
Ewe = female Ram = male
Man = male Woman = female.
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.
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.
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.
I’m typing on a phone while taking a shit. When you are losing an argument you attack the person not the content.
I’m not going to proof read quick typed text.
Also.
In a scientific context, a woman is generally defined as an individual of the sex that typically produces egg cells. T
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.
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.
Actually that’s over reaching what the judgement said. The SC said that the equalities act, as worded, needs the word female to mean biological in order to make sense. Not that trans women could not be women, just not with regards to way this specific act was worded if you were relying on it. Now parliament can review the act and see how differently to word it to accommodate both female at birth and trans women etc.
Correct. Apologies. So it’s not the end of the world like all are making out.
The world female does mean biological and that is a huge point and win and hopefully a stepping stone to getting back to a world of logic and common sense.
Exactly my point