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 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.