UK Politics

3638 readers

282 users here now

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! :'(

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

tom@feddit.uk

GreatAlbatross@feddit.uk

flamingos@feddit.uk

frankPodmore@slrpnk.net

First police force changes search guidelines for trans women in wake of Supreme Court gender ruling (www.lbc.co.uk)

submitted 1 day ago by flamingos@feddit.uk to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.”

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

jk rowling funding a lawsuit to make it legal for the police to sexually assault women - including cis women - is yet another reason why she's a terrible human

[–] TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It absolutely bewilders me.

If I had anything approaching her levels of wealth, I'd be on a beach sipping cocktails, going rock climbing, getting railed by goth girls, or trying all kinds of new hobbies that the normal person wouldn't have the time or resources to try.

She spends her time doing this, and sitting on twitter trying to get retweets from people with swastikas in their profile pictures.

Time is the one thing that's finite for her, and she's choosing to spend it on this bullshit. I can't wrap my head around it.

[–] Emperor@feddit.uk 37 points 23 hours ago (11 children)

The BTP jumped on this almost instantly as they'd been under fire because trans women on the force could strip search those AFAB.

I'm waiting for next shoe to drop when someone AFAB complains because they get strip searched by a big hairy bloke because he was also AFAB. At no point does anyone seem to have considered the effect this law will have on trans men now having to go into women-only spaces. I don't think JK Rowling cares about the messy fallout from her War on Trans Women.

[–] futatorius@lemm.ee 11 points 21 hours ago

What continues to amaze me is the animosity towards trans people by the TERFs. They're like religious zealots. It's depressing to see such spite empowered by law.

load more comments (10 replies)

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

In an immediate, visceral experiential sense they’ve lost protections, but in a legal sense those protections never existed, and the first legal challenge showed they were like smoke in air. hopefully this will shake things up and get some proper substantial protections into law.

[–] flamingos@feddit.uk 1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.”

[–] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 points 10 hours ago

They should have drafted better laws.

[–] LuckingFurker@lemmy.blahaj.zone 27 points 1 day ago (5 children)

So now, if you're a woman and some pervert cop takes a fancy to you all he has to do is say "I reckoned she looked trans so I did the search myself" and he can touch you up as much as he feels he can get away with

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] Frjttr@lemm.ee 17 points 1 day ago

The damage these people are doing is unimaginable.

load more comments