this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025

157 points (95.4% liked)

UK Politics

3681 readers

339 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

157

British medical association issues condemnation of the recent supreme court anti-trans ruling. (imgur.com)

submitted 1 week ago by Djehngo@lemmy.world to c/uk_politics@feddit.uk

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Nice to finally hear some small positive news from here on terf island.

top 40 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 20 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

I agree with the statement but I've downvoted this as I can find no reference to it anywhere on the BMA website or any other official public communication.

What I did find was an article about it here, and when questioned for a reference the author responded with an ever unhelpful "I have been told it is on the members only part of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) website."

OP, if you can provide proof of this I'll gladly turn that downvote into an upvotes.

Edit: The Guardian has reported on it so it appears to be true, nice one!

[–] Djehngo@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's fair, as far as I know it's a screenshot form the redient doctors conference.

I went digging for more information after your (very fair) comment, I didn't find it in the agenda https://www.bma.org.uk/media/g2ofmswk/resident-doctors-conference-2025-motions-for-voting.pdf

But I have found an explanation for that and a somewhat dubious confirmation via this thread on Reddit, https://old.reddit.com/r/doctorsUK/comments/1k97tti/british_medical_association_conference_calls/mpc84s8/ wherin a doctor states that it was an emergency motion and they voted in favour. (Side node; a lot of people in that thread are unhappy about the BMA acting beyond the role of a trade union)

On the one hand it's a random Reddit thread, on the other hand, a lot of people who are likely to have first had knowledge aren't actively disputing the presence of success of the motion and there are anecdotal confirmations of both.

I will admit I probably jumped the gun here, I was just happy to finally see some trans positive sentiment from a UK institution.

[–] frankPodmore@slrpnk.net 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The BMA residents conference did pass the motion, but it won't be official policy unless it passes at the annual meeting this year:

Resident doctors working in the NHS also condemned the supreme court’s ruling on gender as having “no basis in science or medicine”. Medics at the British Medical Association’s (BMA) resident doctors conference in London passed a motion stating that “attempting to impose a rigid binary has no basis in science or medicine”. While the motion was passed at the conference it will not become BMA policy unless voted on at the union’s annual meeting later this year.

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 3 points 1 week ago

That's more like a credible source, thank you!

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I'm absolutely ignorant apparently. Why is it "terf island"

[–] 4am@lemm.ee 11 points 1 week ago

Government and many prominent Bourgeois are rabidly anti-trans; most basing their arguments on it being some kind of insult to biologically cis women. JK Rowling in particular has been absolutely unhinged and is just digging deeper on the daily.

[–] frazorth@feddit.uk 8 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Because there is a small war going on, backed mostly by Americans, because of the generally positive LGBTQ+ nature here.

Americans then like to call other people names as to try and deflect from how much worse it is at home for them.

An example for reference.

https://lemmy.world/post/28203389

[+] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Wonder how much of this was scientific and how much of it was due to political agenda. On either side. Very confusing debate.

[–] minnow@lemmy.world 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The problem is that, for many, their "political agenda" is to take a position that's supported by scientifically backed research. If some research appeared tomorrow unequivocally and clearly invalidated the existence of trans people, the BMA and others like them would change their tune to match that research. However, there's over a hundred years worth of clinical and scientific studies supporting the validity of trans people, including studies showing that

Gender is a real thing that exists in the brain.
Multiple means by which a person's body may develop as one sex but the opposite gender.
The brains of trans people match those of cis people who are the same gender identity (ie trans women's and cis women's brains work the same, ditto for trans men and cis men).

Meanwhile the research against trans people is just... Bad research. One of the most famous studies on whether trans kids persisted as trans conflated transgender with gender non-conforming people, meaning that cis gender people were labeled as trans because they didn't fit the researchers' assumptions about how a man or woman should look/behave. That same study assumed outcomes of subjects that they lost track of instead of omitting them from the study.

Another that coined the phrase "rapid onset dysphoria" had serious selection bias issues, only interviewing parents who were in support groups for folks who don't want their kids to be trans. Additionally, the phrase given above was only mentioned in the conclusion of the study as one possible explanation for the observations made about trans kids, with the caveat that more research was needed to confirm/deny this explanation. Of course the right wing media leaves out that part.

My third favorite example wasn't a research study at all, but basically an opinion piece published as research. In it the author insists that trans women are "gynophiliacs" who transition ONLY because they get turned on by vaginas. No evidence was given to support this assertion, just some twisted logic by the author going "well the other reasons don't make sense to me."

But no, it's the people who are supportive of trans folks who keep getting accused of having a political agenda. My dude, it's the opposite; they just care about the truth.

[+] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Curious to what your second and third paragraph is referring to. As for the fourth- is there a possibility of that? I see an obsession online with "egg culture" and people fetishizing femboys at time and flirting with themselves. Also the infamous Chris Chan case (although I would be among the first to call out that using Chris Chan as a model for all trans people is MASSIVELY disingenuous.)

I feel like it's a topic that requires a lot of research. I find my opinion constantly shifting (although I think as well, opinions aren't necessarily important anyway, we should be legislating on statistically what is best for woman's safety and transgender people's mental health. But we shouldn't be enforcing that people must hold certain opinions either)

Starting to think that maybe people from all sides should drop their pitchforks, accept that opinions may differ and it's okay to feel differently about the subject, but then actually write laws that benefit and keep everyone safe and mentally healthy based on statistics.

[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But we shouldn’t be enforcing that people must hold certain opinions either)

We have to draw a line when some people's opinion is that some other people shouldn't exist.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That is true if it's what they're actually stating, but some would do mental gymnastics to claim that "if you don't 100% agree with me, you're claiming some people shouldn't exist"

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Replying as an actual trans woman here. Claiming that both sides are equally valid or have equal issues is disingenuous. When one side is simply asking to be allowed to exist equally with everyone else and the other side is using the courts to take away the rights of the other that is not equal. When one side is advocating for what is already the middle ie. equal treatment and respect for all. You cannot equate them as equally problematic and you cannot compromise.

As an unrelated but clear example of this the half way point between equality for all and slavery is segregation / apartheid.

I’m sure you would agree that equating the want for equal freedom and the want to enslave others as equal is* problematic. This is a clear example of what I’m trying to convey here.

I just want to live my life, trans people like me just want to live our lives as who we are with equal respect for everyone. Sadly there are a lot of people in this world who would rather see me and others like me as erased, dead and gone. I’m sure you can understand that it can get very difficult to tolerate mistakes and confusion from others sometimes considering how much our very right to exist has come under constant and severe attack at a government and court level.

We are only human same as you same as everyone else. We’re not saints we don’t have infinite patience and it is extremely stressful to deal with on a daily basis.

So please do not equate our frustration and exhaustion as equally problematic to the hatred and wrath of those who want to erase our very existence.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

There weren't any rights necessarily taken away- just the invalidation of special privileges that were granted. The trans movement doesn't often advocate for equal treatment, but special privileges or considerations.

The anti-apartheid wanted equal rights. They wanted equal employment and pay with white people. Trans people get the same rights to employment, pay, etc, as everybody else. What's being advocated for is state-funded cosmetic surgery and in many cases, access to sports, bathrooms and in some cases, changing rooms.

I agree that claiming "trans people shouldn't be allowed to work in law/health/teaching because they're trans" isn't acceptable at all. They should be afforded the same dignity and right to life as everybody else. I support and would advocate for your right to exist. But the special considerations should be able to be debated without comparing someone to a racist, like you just did. Which is why I feel disillusioned towards the movement.

It's probably just a me thing- when it comes to politics, I like respect and civil discourse. I dislike the "us vs them" bs that's being perpetuated.

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I literally didn’t compare you to a racist. I explicitly said it was an unrelated example that I used to clearly explain my point. Also I said a couple times that I assumed your position on the matter used in that example was not that of a racist.

Please don’t misconstrue my words to support your argument against my right to be able to use changing rooms etc that match my gender. I’m going to be clear here I hope that you simply misunderstood what I wrote. That is what I am assuming.

I don’t think me wanting to use women’s change rooms / bathrooms counts a “special consideration” as you put it. I am a woman so I should be allowed to use them same as every other woman. That is equal treatment. That is what trans people want. I as a woman do not want to be forced into men’s spaces where I am placed at risk of harassment / assault.

If you are going to argue that I should not be given equal treatment after considering my words then I can only assume that you do not think of me as a woman. If and only if you continue to argue your same point. There would be no other way for it to be understood in that case. If you don’t argue that point further then please disregard this section.

If you want to protect women then you must include trans WOMEN as well as we are women. If you want to support my right to exist then please support my right to not be forced into men’s spaces where I, a woman, would be at risk of danger.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I should be allowed to use the same as every other woman

Except you aren't the same as every other woman.

As a woman I do not want to be forced into men's spaces where I am placed at risk of harassment / assault

And other women wouldn't want to be placed at risk of harassment or assault either by anybody coming in claiming to be a woman. I am a smaller guy, should I be able to use the women's because I am scared of big men?

You could use a disabled and unisex single unit bathroom/changing room?

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Ok so by claiming that trans women having the equal right to access women’s spaces goes against cis women’s rights you are implying that trans women are the danger. We are not. Also, if a man wants to hurt women in women’s spaces a sign on a door isn’t going to stop him. There is no need for a man to pretend to be a woman to be able to hurt women. They can just do it.

Gendered washrooms etc are the norm, non gendered spaces are not always available. Do you expect a trans woman to use the men’s spaces which puts us at higher risk of danger?

Ultimately the crux of your argument comes down to one simple yes or no question.

Do you believe that trans women are women?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I haven't found a place that hasn't had a non gendered space. Disabled bathrooms are a legal requirement in most places.

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe that trans women are women, yes or no ?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Still figuring that one out. The Supreme Court says "no", other people say yes. I don't see a clear-cut answer to the question.

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The vast majority of science going back to pre-WWII says the answer is yes.

Evidence through link.

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

Knowing now that the scientific consensus is yes, do you believe that trans women are women?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is about the affects on the wellbeing of transgender people when they get a sex change operation.

The answer to the question involves biology, philosophy, theology, neuroscience, ethics, and statistics, among others most likely. You'll probably get a different answer depending who you ask. I think it should be less about that question you asked and moreso how can we ethically make those people feel comfortable with themselves as well as the rest of society comfortable with integrating people who choose to identify as the opposite sex.

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Please stop dodging the question. It’s a simple yes or no question that is fundamental to the discussion of trans people’s right to live as they are equally to cis people of the same gender.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's not a simple yes or no question. Seeing everything in black and white is part of the problem.

As it stands and in light of the Supreme Court Ruling, I wouldn't see a transgender woman to be as equally a woman as a cisgendered woman, but I wouldn't see her as a man either. It depends on what you're talking about, whether it's socially, medically, neurologically, theologically, ethically, in the eyes of everyone else, legally, etc.

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I am a transgender woman. I look like a woman, I think like a woman, I have the hormones of a woman, I have experienced the misogyny that women experience, I have used women’s washrooms and change rooms and other spaces for a decade at this point without issue, I have used these spaces along side cis women who knew that I am trans and cis women who didn’t know. There has never been an issue because I am a woman who uses those spaces like any other. I have been socialized like a woman, I feel like a woman, I identify as a woman.

Am I a woman?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Good question.

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The answer is yes.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Couldn't a cis woman in a changing room tell that you were trans by your... Yknow

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago

I used the stalls that are often in there. Also not every trans woman has that between her legs. Surgery is relatively commonly undergone so there would be no way to tell to the point even gynaecologists assume a person is cis when they’re actually trans unless told before hand.

Regardless I have never had a cis woman be uncomfortable around me in any woman’s space not just change rooms. My experience is not an outlier as I have known many trans women who have used women spaces without issue.

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Learn about things before you make yourself look like an idiot on the Internet, dude

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That's what I'm here to do

[–] gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, youre clearly here to argue against people who know more than you while reading basically none of the replies and actually understanding them

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

😐😑😐

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Hey so I watched a video that really explains all this really well and figured I’d share it with you. For the record I do think our discussion was fruitful and amicable and that you did actually read what I said.

Anyways here’s the link https://youtu.be/BRg3t7KINzw

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That was actually a very informing video. I think as well, it kinda hits home as I have faced transphobic abuse before despite being a cis man. Are there actually any statistics on people claiming to be trans to commit sex abuse?

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don’t believe there are any because generally speaking people don’t need to claim to be trans to do so. As I’ve said previously, a sign on a door is not a magic barrier, if someone wants to commit abuse of any kind they can just walk in and do that. All that this anti-trans bathroom etc stuff does is give people a legal pass to challenge a persons cis-ness and harass them that way regardless of if they are actually trans or not.

That is the real concern and there have already been credible reports of this harassment happening to people. Meanwhile there hasn’t been any credible reports of cis people pretending to be trans to abuse people.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Eh... On your last claim, if IIRC, Chris Chan is believed to have transitioned to try and get with lesbians. I don't think this was a factor in what he later did.

There were some allegations against keffals and having a weird discord server. Again, could have been done without a transition. But it was still off.

I think the main case is the sex abuser Isla Bryson, AMAB who attempted to be moved to a female prison. It was stopped, albeit not soon enough.

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Ok so simply put trans people are people which means there will be bad and good people same with cis people. Just because a trans person did a bad thing doesn’t mean they aren’t still the gender they identify as or that they’re secretly cis.

I’m not excusing their actions but simply saying that trans people are still the gender they identify as regardless of their actions just like how gay men are still gay if they do bad things. It’s a matter of identity rather than action.

Another thing to add is that cis women also abuse and rape other women but they don’t get put in men’s prisons right? Trans women are women and should be placed in the prison that matches their gender.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Eh, I wouldn't go as far as the last point. Cis women cannot impregnate other women. Unless they don't pose any risk to anyone there (due to a sexual/violent history), are on good behaviour and have suitably transitioned enough. Even better if they transitioned before their crime, then I can see it. But Isla Bryson, definitely not. But I think we can agree to disagree, there.

[–] Fallynn@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

HRT ie Hormone replacement therapy makes trans people sterile. Also I previously that there have not been credible reports what you have cited are not credible. You yourself acknowledge in your previous comment that what you referenced was based on rumours. Im also willing to bet that those rumours were mostly spread by cis people as there is no credible evidence of these people you mentioned being secretly cis.

No cis person is going to go through the extensive often strenuous process to get on hormones. Which cause sterility as well as physical changes to their body just so that they can rape/abuse women. That is simply not the case. Also whether the crime was committed before or after transition doesn’t matter because ultimately transitioning as a trans person is about identity, not action.

The action is bad but is ultimately unrelated to said persons identity. A cereal killer can be gay but that doesn’t mean that their gayness is contingent or even because of their cereal killer actions. It’s simply part of their identity a coincidence essentially.