2 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Steve QJ's avatar

"No, its up to cis-woman who want woman only spaces and trans-activists who want access to woman only spaces to lead the discussion."

No, this is the point. Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on what a woman is, it's up to the trans community to figure out what a trans woman is.

"Nothing has changed with a trans-person besides awareness of them."

Here you have to be precise about what you mean by trans person. Trans person used to mean transsexual. But now it includes transvestites like Izzard, rapists like Bryson, and bandwagons like Mulvaney.

All of these people have been widely described as trans people. So if you're insisting on narrowly defining trans as transsexual, you're missing the point.

"Your questions are phrased in very black and white terms. My answers are pointing out the grayness of the whole discussion."

The legal system requires clarity. It is built on legal definitions and precedent. You can flounder around with equivocations forever if you like, but eventually, you have to be precise if you want to say anything meaningful.

Expand full comment
Rogue4Gay's avatar

The US Supreme Court has not ruled on what is a woman. UK Supreme Court did. Specifically from an English language perspective as related to the UK Equality Act 2010 where woman in the act refers to chromosomal sex. They also at the same time reaffirmed that trans-people are a protected class. Not clear what the UK parliament will do given the ruling.

As for your statement: "The legal system requires clarity."

You're likely a person that believes in the rule of law. Before I comment, wondering if that is true?

Expand full comment