British Politics
Been on holiday for a few weeks, surprised to find no general discussion of British politics so though I'd kick one off.
Nonetheless, most people agree that it's a good thing to draw arbitrary lines in the sand, defined by age, to protect individuals. For example, you need to be 18 years old to buy alcohol, or 16 to consent to sexual activity.
These legal boundaries are far more arbitrary than biological sex, yet few people have issues with them and they work fine in practice.
That's just not right - many people demonstrate their disagreement with these arbitrary lines by buying alcohol at under 18 or having sex under 16.
About ****ing time too
Police officers in England and Wales who fail background checks will be automatically sacked under rules coming into force to improve confidence in policing.
Measures will be introduced to parliament on Wednesday that will make it a legal requirement for serving officers to pass vetting procedures.
It will also mean police chiefs will be able to get rid of officers unfit to serve from next month. The move comes after Mark Rowley, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police force, accused officials of dragging their feet on giving bosses stronger powers to sack rogue officers.
In law, that's how that works. The postmodern Age of Genderology, summed up by the insane CBBC clip in which some woman off her face on US academic nonsense told a couple of baffled kids, 'Do you know, there are more than a hundred different genders!' is now in the past.
Even Starmer's spox now admits that men aren't women, and you don't hear much from Mermaids or even Stonewall any more, while Educate & Celebrate, the weird cult org that promoted genderology in schools (with teachers and children forced to chant, 'Smash heteronormativity!' on command), abruptly ceased to exist a while back. Like Mermaids, E&C had a paedophile on its board of trustees -- in this case a now-convicted one, Stephen Ireland, founder of Pride in Surrey.
Not quite. The law is vague but the arguments have to be a lot more precise.
Laws change. You're having your day but the present now will later be past
How more precise do you want them to be, chezzworth?
Large gamete production has been suggested among other bits.
I appreciate you just going with "its biology init'. I actually took someone that amusing to court once.
You don't think biological definition is precise? Why not?
VagueyMcVague.
Arbitrary lines in law are necessary for practical reasons but they differ around the world and they change. They dont always work fine in practice.
It's also very bad imo to enforce them too rigorously. At the boundaries judgement is required e.g prosecuting someone who is 16 and a day for sex with someone who is two days younger would be abhorent.
You know you can write the law to account for that yes? Like in normal countries age of consent for sex is x, but a small gap (defined by law) over x by the other partner doesn't qualify as sexual violence/rape.
Like in Italy if both are over 13 and the difference is within 3 years age of consent limits don't apply (if consensual). age of consent is 14 here
Sure you can remove any boundaries you like but you create new ones. In your example one hour difference over a small gap still can't support a difference between legal and criminal.
Good legal systems always require judgment. Including in who to prosecute.
No, vague was actually your first paragraph chez.
They kinda- and by that I mean absolutely- said a woman is defined by biology, excluding transgender women, so hopefully that unvagues things for you.
No they said the word woman in that law from 2010 (equality act) is defined by biology.
So THAT LAW doesn't cover as a woman a man who think he is a woman (trans).
Not that the word woman legally everywhere in UK law "has" to be defined by biology.
Huge difference.
Sure you can remove any boundaries you like but you create new ones. In your example one hour difference over a small gap still can't support a difference between legal and criminal.
Good legal systems always require judgment. Including in who to prosecute.
Do you get this garbled crap from fortune cookies or do you actually speak like this irl? 😵
Sure you can remove any boundaries you like but you create new ones. In your example one hour difference over a small gap still can't support a difference between legal and criminal.
Good legal systems always require judgment. Including in who to prosecute.
It actually can because legal and criminal are arbitrary definition we invent and we can invent them however we like.
One day difference in when you do something might mean everything under the law actually, and it does repeatedly.
Some laws enter into validity from day x and literally the day before you could do something that you can't do the day after. Happens all the times.
Not sure what your objection is other than "it feels unjust to treat something categorically differently if the difference is tiny under my eyes", but actually it is not unjust if the law is clear and unambiguous.
20 packs of cigarettes are tax exempt when you fly in from low cost places. Not 21.
There is nothing unjust in fining the guy who tries to bring in 21
No they said the word woman in that law from 2010 (equality act) is defined by biology.
So THAT LAW doesn't cover as a woman a man who think he is a woman (trans).
Not that the word woman legally everywhere in UK law "has" to be defined by biology.
Huge difference.
I didn't say "has to be" I said "is defined"
It actually can because legal and criminal are arbitrary definition we invent and we can invent them however we like.One day difference in when you do something might mean everything under the law actually, and it does repeatedly.Some laws enter into validity from day x and literally the day before you could do something that you can't do the day after. Happens all the times.No
Sure you can choose arbitary boundaries and then enforce them however ridiculous it might seem.
There's no requirement to have a good justice system. Or for you and I to agree on what is good.
Do you get this garbled crap from fortune cookies or do you actually speak like this irl? 😵
what make of fortune cookie?
And they said that because in 2010 that was still the normal meaning of the word, not because it's the *legally correct* way to use the word, do you get what I mean?
They just determined the intention of legislators in 2010, not what a woman is under the law in general.
I don't think anyone itt would support prosecuting someone for weeing in the wrong loos, although people in the UK have had their collar felt for less in recent times.
Several posters have made their case for biological sex. Perhaps you could explain why you think gender>sex?
You're the only one who made a case for biological sex.
I have no quarrel with you if you really mean you would count anyone who produces large gametes as a woman . However much they had male attributes in other respects.
JFC this constant stuff about gender, sex, trans is ****ing annoying and takes all the energy out of the room to discuss other stuff (climate, anyone?)
I want a world where people are treated with respect whatever they are or aspire to be (as long as it harms or diminishes no one else personally - and I do not count virtue-signalling issue-warriors on that list of people that need to be appeased), not ticking some box or other. But I'm sick of how much it detracts from other things that really should be the focus of politicians and the media.
And they said that because in 2010 that was still the normal meaning of the word, not because it's the *legally correct* way to use the word, do you get what I mean?
They just determined the intention of legislators in 2010, not what a woman is under the law in general.
I know that. But the result is pretty much the same.
