Probably because of what happened with woem.men.
According to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, you have to be born as a woman in order to be a woman.
This isn't accurate, the SC ruled that the only consistent definition of woman for the purposes of the 2010 Equalities Act is a 'biological woman'*. A trans woman with a GRC is still legally a woman, she's just not afforded the protections graned to women in the Equalities Act. (This is a crock of shit, but I'll spare you that rant)
You might wonder how the SC actually defines 'biological woman' and it has nothing to actually do with biology, it's just if you originally had woman marked down on you birth certificate.
Hi, Feddit UK admin here, I'd just like to add a bit more context. We're currently discussing these comments in an admin chat, though this was apparently not communicated to Ada so she got the impression inaction was our position. Our position is not inaction, but these specific comments have become wrapped up in a policy discussion on how we facilitate discussion of our state's increasing hostile actions without allowing transphobia to propagate. I hope we can rectify the situation soon, but doing things by committee is never swift.
The UK's equalities watchdog has recommended that to comply with last week's Supreme Court ruling, public single-sex spaces should segregate Trans+ people
The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published interim guidance following last week's Supreme Court decision. It instructs organisations that manage public spaces and workplaces to create segregated mixed-sex bathrooms, washing and changing facilities for Trans+ people to use.
It does this on the basis that same-sex spaces can only be used by people that align with the Supreme Court's definition of 'biological sex', while also saying that Trans+ perceived to be of the wrong gender can't use bathrooms that match their biological sex.
If taken beyond interim guidance and made statutory, it would be the biggest human rights disaster since racial segregation and apartheid.
The guidance covers workplaces, schools, and services open to the public, such as hospitals, shops and restaurants.
It stipulates that, where possible, mixed-sex toilets, washing and changing facilities should now be provided. In an interim period, it sets out where this is not possible, tra
The issue is this rule in c/unitedkingdom and c/uk_politics:
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
We've never had anything like the current wave of transphobia, not even those pogroms back in July, so we've never had to work out the exact line between 'disappointing' and 'horrible'. Working out that line needs discussion with all the admins, which unfortunately takes time.
Regardless of what the government says or does, transphobia is not and will never be allowed here.
To be clear, there were no posts, this is about two comments by one of our users, both of which I personally pushed back on. We're still discussing what to do, but consensus takes time.
I use the term woman and you knew exactly what I meant
I didn't actually, I wrote that to probe out what you actually meant because I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
A blonde woman is a description of a woman’s hair colour and you know this.
And trans/cis is a descriptions of whether a woman was assigned female at birth or not. Woman is not synonymous with cis woman.
They have different names, which you yourself, use for a reason.
You give them different names, I'm using adjectives because the distinction matters in this context.
‘adult human female’ is not a dog whistle. It’s a legal and common-sense definition
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.
I am not denying the legitimacy of transwomen [sic]; nor is Keir.
But also:
This is exactly the same as saying transwomen [sic] are not women, because they are not. They are transwomen [sic].
Should a transwoman have the same rights and respect as a woman? Absolutely. Are they the same? No, they are not.
'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?
Kier’s words are still not transphobia. There is no fear, dislike, prejudice, discrimination, harassment, or violence in his statement.
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).
His new comments came as Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson said the ruling means transgender women should use male toilets.
The SC ruling didn't even say that trans people had to be excluded from single-sex spaces, only that they could. This is the same shit they pulled with the Cass Review, which didn't call for puberty blockers to be banned, but they always assert that it did.
This is not huge. He is literally saying what the law says, which is exactly what you expect a prime minister to do.
Damn, if only the PM had the power to get the law changed.
The PM declined to repeat his previous statement "transwomen are women," instead asserting: "A woman is an adult female - the court has made that absolutely clear."
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.
They are actually saying the Tories should apologies for being too pro-trans.
2025 hasn't got off to the best start, but two new Winter's Gate songs almost makes up for it.
Cryptopsy - Until There's Nothing Left (Single)
contact information and status pages in their sidebars (example for lemm.ee: https://status.lemm.ee/ and feddit.uk: https://stats.uptimerobot.com/XzEqqSB3Ay)
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).
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.
Trans women in custody will be searched by male officers following Wednesday’s landmark Supreme Court ruling, the British Transport Police have said.
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.”
Instance downtime 22:00 BST
Upgrading us to 0.19.11 (well 0.19.11-feddit). It should be less than 2 hours at the maximum.
Join the Matrix room for updates if anything goes wrong.
Exclusive: There is growing optimism that a fresh proposal for youth mobility across the UK and EU will be accepted by the government
A list of recommendations produced by the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly – a delegation of members from the UK and EU parliaments aimed at strengthening relations with the bloc – has urged the government to establish a “youth opportunity scheme”.
It is understood the scheme would operate similarly to proposals for a “youth mobility scheme”, which had become a major sticking point between the UK and EU.
It would allow 18- to 35-year-olds, including those doing apprenticeships, to move and work freely between countries for up to two years.
Britain already has a similar agreement with Australia and 12 other countries, including New Zealand, South Korea, Iceland, Uruguay, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
There is widespread support among the British public for such an agreement with the EU, with a YouGov survey of almost 15,000 people indicating that two-thirds (66 per cent) of people backed the scheme, compared to just one in five (18 per cent) who are opposed.
I
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 @example@reddthat.com here for pointing to zerobytes.monster becoming more aggressive against bots as the likely culprit.
Health secretary keeps taking donations linked to private health
Wes Streeting has bagged another £58,000 from sources connected to the private health sector since taking over at the health department. But what do his backers expect in return?
Wes Streeting may have started as health secretary back in July, but the donations he’s been taking from companies and individuals with interests in the private health sector are still rolling in. The MP for Ilford North has been raking in support at a rate of almost £10,000 a month.
The £58,000 of office support Streeting has bagged from these sources since July 2024 are the latest in a long series of payments. Last year we showed how more than 60% of the donations accepted by Streeting since he entered parliament in 2015 were from companies and individuals with links to private health.
In February, Streeting took £53,000 from OPD Group Ltd to pay for staffing in his constituency office. OPD is owned by Peter Hearn, whose companies work with “senior NHS executive recruitment” and help “private sector providers recruit healthcare professionals”.
And in the same month, the health secretary accepted £5,000 worth of support for his constituency campaigning from Sir Trevor Ch
PM ready to ditch ‘old assumptions’ and is debating possible changes to fiscal rules to boost growth
Keir Starmer is preparing to rethink key elements of the government’s economic policy in an emergency response to Donald Trump’s tariff blitz, amid growing concern in Downing Street that the US president’s trade war could do lasting damage to the UK.
The prime minister believes, say allies, that “old assumptions should be discarded” in the UK’s response, suggesting he and the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, may be preparing to raise taxes again – despite having promised not to do so – or even possibly change their “iron clad” fiscal rules to allow more borrowing and fire up economic growth at home in the event of recession.
[…]
This week, Starmer, who has refused to criticise Trump or his tariffs directly, will focus on how to frame an economic response to a global economic shock that protects working people, and their incomes and jobs – as well as the UK’s public services.He believes that the last few days have ushered in a “new era”, that the “world has changed” and tha
Dansup promises Loops federation beta 'later this week'
Attached: 1 image new loops build shipping later this week ✨ Highlights: - camera - comment likes - improved comment pagination - creator comment moderation - press + hold to speed up playback 2x - video playback progress bar with seek - push notifications - improved search results - federation ...
He also said the Loops backend will be open sourced along side this.