UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both !uk_politics@feddit.uk and !unitedkingdom@feddit.uk .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, 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. (These things should be publicly discussed)
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.
!ukpolitics@lemm.ee appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
As I have said to another person. You need to take a Utilitarian approach. You can't appease everyone, we don't live in a utopia. So you are saying the 50% of the Human race or 49.9998% of Women are less important than your 1/10% .
Unfortunately yes that is the case. The 0.1% of the population is not the priority, and the decision clearly and explicitly shows that is so.
The utilitarian approach would be to throw out all this nonsense.
Maintaining a cult of binary and immutable sex is expensive because it requires work to force people to fit in the available boxes and prevent them from moving between them. The utilitarian answer is to stop wasting time and money enforcing sex segregation.
You're misinformed. Go learn some actual, factual knowledge about biology.
Also:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/heres-why-human-sex-is-not-binary/
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable
Sources for everything dude.
Except if you compare these two sources, one is from an organisation that relies on the scientific method, and the other is from a lobbying organisation that exists to promote conservative ideologies.
These things are not the same.
Did you not read the article?
The central point of the argument you shared is that the natural variation in sex among humans doesn't count because anything that doesn't fall into a rigid binary is an exception to the rule.
That's tautological, "my dogma is correct because anything that contradicts me doesn't count." This isn't science, it's ideology.
Science is built upon the fact that the existence of exceptions to a rule means that the rule doesn't describe reality. If your system of categorization requires exceptions, then there are categories you failed to describe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_of_Scholars
Yeah this seems like a scientifically-minded unbiased organisation on the matter
Two sexes.
Let's see a man try to give birth and a woman get a man pregnant. That is binary. Never in the history of human kind has a man birthed a child.
Forget your little gender words (which are Just made up by JM)
Anyway I'm done arguing with extreme leftists. Online doesn't reflect reality thankfully.
You are obviously not aware of the fact that trans men can and do get pregnant and trans women can and do sire children. Your "never in history" argument has, in fact, never been true, since it relies upon the assumption that trans people aren't real.
This "two sexes" argument is reductive to a fault. By the binary logic, all men must be equally "manly". Unless your argument is that every man you know is as manly as a trans woman in skirts and eyeliner, then you're just lying to yourself. If some men can be more or less manly than others then the distribution of sex must be bimodal rather than binary.
Again, if trans men are women then these are the kind of people you think belong in women's rooms:
If you don't want people that look like men in women's rooms then the definition of "man" and "woman" can't be based on private physical features that we keep out of sight under our clothes.
My mom had a hysterectomy years ago. She’ll never get pregnant again. By this logic, my mom is no longer a woman.
Of course, if you have any experience talking with cissexists you’ll know that they distract people from their poorly conceived, fuckbrained arguments by just repeatedly moving the goalposts.
You literally only have taking points from every extreme leftist argument ever.
Get over yourself.
This isn't my talking point, it's yours.
This is the inevitable result of defining sex based on people's birth certificates.
You are demanding that these guys be required to use the stall next to your daughter because you're afraid of men in women's bathrooms. Because you can't allow yourself to consider the implications of applying your rule to messy, complicated, ambiguous reality.
You are the kind of person that would go into a women's room and accost a woman because you thought she was a man. You are what you fear.
Nonsense
Prove it.
Explain how your preferred method of deciding who belongs in which bathroom doesn't mandate putting people like that in the women's room. Prove to me that there are no manly women.
JM?