The comments in question were removed last week and our internal position has been clarified, that there’s no need to change our working definition of transphobia, albeit with some new considerations to allow people to talk about the transphobic actions of the British state. We want to make a statement, but the others seem busy with things outside of Lemmy.

I’m currently working on some guidelines for c/uk_politics to help potentially less informed users navigate the current situation without inadvertently being transphobic.

Hopefully they’re more attentive to this than they are for their Lemmy instance (lemmy.one).

TERFs don’t want trans people using any toilet. TERFs want to push trans people out of public life, and ideally to stop existing all together, by making existing in it as difficult as possible.

“So we pointed out, secondly, that this claim was based on entirely unfounded speculation, which also ignored factors that might result in lengthening the lives of Gazans, given the public health situation existing in Gaza prior to the war, including the extent of obesity. These factors include the possible reduction in the availability of confectionery and cigarettes.

What a ghoulish thing to say, really speaks to how nasty this man is.

Sorry if it came across that hostile, I tend to be snappy after waking up and we’ve had a lot of transphobia lately.

Are the terms afab/amab still okay? I try and use them as opposed to “biological women” as I heard that one could be a dogwhistle before

AFAB/AMAB are fine, encouraged even. ‘Biological women’ is generally used by gender critical types as a dog whistle to mean that only cis women are real women.

My warning was very pointed and specifically about rhetoric, not the actual underlying opinions.

Give me examples on why I shouldn’t use the term “cult” here, yet how it’s okay for other users of this instance to claim a large amount of the British population is in a cult simply because of their religious beliefs…

The trans cult thing is a common talking point by transphobes to discredit the idea of being trans, that it’s nothing more than brainwashing. I really don’t know how you expect “I don’t know who’s leading this movement, but it starts to seem like some weird cult” to come across, but it reads like you saying anyone with a more progressive opinion to you is in a cult. It’s very easy for someone to make the jump from that to believing you think trans movement more broadly is a cult, especially given you’re a transmedicalist.

Also, that comment by Hossenfeffer is clearly made in jest and, unlike trans people, Christians aren’t a marginalised identity in Britain.

Thirdly, this place is where I get to hear the other side. Do you really want to force me to use an echo chamber by banning me?

No, that’s why I gave a warning. I don’t think you appreciate how much more leeway you get because I understand you come from a conservative background. You constantly say you’re bad with this and when I try to clear up the boundaries of what I consider acceptable, you accuse me of engaging in cult-like tactics. Maybe I was too curt, but I’m trying to help you. I’m trans myself, so I hope you can appreciate why I’m sensitive to this stuff.

There’s no need to read between the lines here. I barely know what “dogwhistling” is nevermind people accusing me of doing it.

I’d really appreciate if you did read up on it. I can only moderate based on what you write, not what’s in your head. I and others can’t tell the difference between genuine ignorance or pretending to be ignorant to sneak bigotry in under the radar. The Green Party has a good page on trans/queer dogwhistles.

Sick of acting like what, having a different opinion and telling you to fuck off when you call them part of a cult? Like, how do you expect shit like “If I was going to be a transphobe, it would be because how you lot” to be received?

Also, first and final warning, I consider the implicit ‘trans cult’ stuff here to be a violation of our ‘no transphobia’ rule.

Flax, this thing where you walk into a thread about trans issues and your only contribution is calling people crazy and pedantry is getting really old. It doesn’t make you look smart, you just come across as someone trying to mask their transphobia (and no, I’m not calling you a transphobe).

ಠ_ಠ take your upvote

The linked linkers, because we’re link aggregators that link together.

I’ve said this elsewhere, but there’s something off about that account that I can’t put my finger on. Like, what kind of Trump supporter opens up a socialism community on a UK focused forum?

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.

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.

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.”