"Oh, this is calamity! Calamity! Oh no, he's on the floor!"
Welcome to MoG!
Meanwhile On Grad
Documenting hate speech, conspiracy theories, apologia/revisionism, and general tankie behaviour across the fediverse. Memes are welcome!
What is a Tankie?
(caution of biased source)
Basic Rules:
Sh.itjust.works Instance rules apply! If you are from other instances, please be mindful of the rules. — Basically, don't be a dick.
Hate-Speech — You should be familiar with this one already; practically all instances have the same rules on hate speech.
Apologia — (Using the Modern terminology for Apologia) No Defending, Denying, Justifying, Bolstering, or Differentiating authoritarian acts or endeavours, whether be a Pro-CCP viewpoint, Stalinism, Islamic Terrorism or any variation of Tankie Ideology.
Revisionism — No downplaying or denying atrocities past and present. Calling Tankies shills, foreign/federal agents, or bots also falls under this rule. Extremists exist. They are real. Do not call them shills or fake users as it handwaves their extremism.
Tankies can explain their views but may be criticised or attacked for them. Any slight infraction on the rules above will immediately earn a warning and possibly a ban.
Off-topic Discussion — Do not discuss unrelated topics to the point of derailing the thread. Stay focused on the direct content of the post as opposed to arguing.
You'll be warned if you're violating the instance and community rules. Continuing poor behaviour after being warned will result in a ban or removal of your comments. Bans typically only last 24 hours, but each subsequent infraction will double the amount. Depending on the content, the ban time may be increased. You may request an unban at any time.
On any of the donation threads where it came up and he replied to it, the most he ever did was some half hearted corporate PR "apology" (ironic)
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/centers/carr-ryan/our-work/carr-ryan-commentary/understanding-implications-uk-supreme-courts-ruling
Do you have an unbiased or neutral source? I'd like to hear from some of the lawyers, activists and judges who pushed the ruling through the court.
Look it up yourself if you actually care and aren't just acting in bad faith.
You don't get to call me bad faith after linking a biased source, dude, come on.
But from my understanding:
The ruling focused on whether a trans woman with a gender recognition certificate is protected from discrimination as a woman under Britain's Equality Act. Activists for Women's Rights said that including a trans woman as a biological woman under the law could impact single-sex services for women, such as refuges, hospital wards and sports. It's important to note that some victims of rape or sexual assault have an extreme aversion to male chararistics, such as genitalia or any other male sexual chararistics. And that despite the rapid advancements of surgery and HRT, there still remains male characteristics that may be unfair in sports or other scenarios, our medical technology isn't there yet -- But like all things, it all depends on the individual.
What kickstarted the activism was a law by the Scottish government to place more women in public sector roles. It also said that trans women are the same as biological women, which is unrelated to include in a small bill that no other bill has ever mentioned before. Why is this particular bill vaguely defining what a woman is, but no other bill has yet done so? Activists tried the government in court and failed before going to the Supreme Court.
The court discussed the differences between sex and gender and what that actually means. How do you define sex? Is your sex your identity? When do we look at someone's sex or gender? They concluded that a biological woman is determined by their biological sex, meaning sexual chararistics.
It also doesn't exclude trans men or women from the Equality Act, as they still fall under its protection, no one has lost any rights. The change is that there is now a separation and definition of gender and sex and clearer wording for what constitutes as a single-sex space.
Legally, it offers long-term clarity for businesses and organisations that have been left to interpret ambiguous and sometimes contradictory legislation on their own until this point. A case example is that a trans woman, who is pre-op and pre-HRT, can be legally classified as a biological woman despite having no surgery or therapy. That is no longer possible under this new ruling. Another example is maternity leave, where women get more leave than men due to pregnancy. But what of the case when there is a trans woman? There is no pregnancy, no breastfeeding, so do they get extended maternity leave? It's unclear.
But now it is.