The definition of a woman

[Jamie123]

Yes I know Pope Francis is dead (and peace be upon him) but something else happened this past weekend which is causing much more of a splash:

https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/19/europe/uk-supreme-court-biological-woman-intl/index.html

The Supreme Court has ruled that as far as the Equality Act 2010 goes, gender is defined by what a person was born as, not how they choose to identify. Right now Starmer-schmarmer is keeping a very low profile, but from here on he can't use the Equality Act to justify allowing trans-women into female-only spaces, or allowing trans-women to beat the socks off actual women in women's sports.

I'm seeing my "child" this coming Thursday and I'm taking her (them) back up to college Friday. I may be worrying unnecessarily (she knows I'm a disgraceful reactionary Neanderthal) but I'm a bit uneasy about what to say if she brings it up.

And to be honest, I think this may be a false dawn for "real gender" anyway. If I understand correctly, all the government needs to do is to get a new law passed to replace the 2010 act, making it explicit that "woman" includes trans-women, and the Law Lords' ruling becomes completely moot.

Edited yesterday at 09:30 PM by Jamie123

[NeuroTypical]

In my attempt to follow the 2nd great commandment, I've now met and befriended 3 folks who struggle in various ways with just living as the sex they were born with.   There are a lot of struggles I don't mind having in this life, those are struggles I never want to experience.  Imagine trying to live in your own skin with the pervasive, sometimes overpowering pressure screaming at you that "you're wrong".    Gender dysphoria, the closely related body dysmorphia, and the host of various intersex conditions that exist on a hormonal, chromosomal, structural, or genetic level are real illnesses and defects that people struggle with in varying ways.  

That said, the SCOTUK (did I get that right?), and most of the stuff Trump is trying to do (because we elected him to fix this), is spot on.

Humans have two legs.  Some folks don't have two legs.  Humans are still correctly categorized as bipedal.  It doesn't matter if there's a thriving industry that has sprung up to add/remove legs to people who want such things.  

Edited yesterday at 09:45 PM by NeuroTypical

[Jamie123]

11 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

SCOTUK (did I get that right?)

Correct - though it's more often abbreviated UKSC. It's what used to be called the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" (Law Lords), which was a subcommittee of the House of Lords devoted to legal matters. They are now quite separate from the Lords, though the judges still have the courtesy title "Lord" (or "Lady").