General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, 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.
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.
This is what always happens with terfs. They hate women. Nobody hates women more than terfs. Women who are different than them in any way. Women who don't fit their extremely narrow definition of what a woman should be. What a woman should look like. What a woman should think.
Terfs hate women.
She doesn't even look male.
They can always tell.
They can always guess
This is what transphobes want, gender policing not just against trans women, but any woman who doesn't match up.
Transphobia harms everyone, not just trans people. It's sad that this argument needs to be used, but I've heard some cis people find it convincing.
Two cynical takes on “transphobia harms everyone”:
(Not apologizing for transphobia, just deconstructing the thought)
Sure, ideally the way it impacts trans people should be enough. But anything that affects more people negatively is a worse thing.
If I wanted to influence car safety policy, and I can pick from two examples to make my case:
I'd be a fool not to use 2 as an example.
I often think about this. I don’t think it’s wrong to provide selfish reasons to do the right thing.
In the end, the world is full of people with different priorities and ways of thinking, if you restrict yourself to only the “pure” morality arguments it’s not like you can use the purity of your argument to correct the brains of all the people who are not swayed. But if you provide a variety of arguments you’ll convince lots more people.
And in reality most people are not pure selfish or pure selfless. Spoonful of sugar (selfish benefit) helps the medicine (selfless morals) go down.
Not trying to entirely quench your cynicism, just lightly cool it.
I need to copy this down. What a mature and well-reasoned response to much of what is fucked up in the world and how to answer it.
i only care if it affects me
Thats pretty much my stance, but you must always be thinking "if it can happen to them it can happen to me"
Sadly even this doesn't help with some people.
I once had a conversation with a particularly tall cis woman who'd briefly been the target of transphobic abuse in a womens' toilet. She somehow managed to blame this on the existence of trans people 🤷
harass 99% of cis women to "protect" them from 1% of trans women, it's genius
As long as I live, I'll never understand why some people are so determined to be cruel to others based solely on their own preconceived notions of how the world around them should be. These people are the most entitled and awful creatures on this planet.
When we were paying for parking he chased after us and gave me a bunch of flowers.
That Tesco manager chasing after Helen and her husband with flowers was a class act though.
Helen said she feels the incident in Tesco may have stemmed from the debate in recent years over transgender rights. She said: "I suspect it's stemming from this which is a shame but I think potentially why people are being more cautious.
"I can understand the cautiousness from a business point of view but they've also got to be aware of diversity and people being different. They should not make assumptions on visible differences.
"I just think that we need to raise awareness of the condition and that people do look different. If you're concerned about something ask privately or sensitively."
What is this "cautiosness" she's talking about? There has literally never been a case of a transgender person doing anything inappropriate in a public toilet..
"I can understand the cautiousness from a business point of view but they’ve also got to be aware of diversity and people being different. They should not make assumptions on visible differences.
Isn't that exactly what the law forces though? To somehow decide based on looks alone who should be in which toilet?
Couldn't they also just not do that? Surely the law doesn't require them to hire someone to police the toilets.
Gender neutral toilets could also get around it surely. Worked in multiple places with them and no one has ever cared.
Surely the law doesn’t require them to hire someone to police the toilets.
It pretty much does. Not specifically to have someone dedicated to check everyone, but they have to take reasonable measures and a member of staff speaking up would fall under that.
Why though? Its a toilet. Couldn't they just say the sign is only suggested genders. Women can clean men's toilets still.
I think she was just trying to be diplomatic.
Even if there were, that person is responsible for their actions, not an entire category of people.
If the business were to be cautious, they'd fix their damned toilets to not be gendered, divisive and exclusionary.
What is this “cautiosness” she’s talking about?
The law requires businesses to police toilets somewhat.
That's nuts.
Just get rid of gendered toilets already. If you can't play nicely with it, you shouldn't have it.
The SEATAC airport has a few non-gendered restrooms and they're pretty nice. There's a big shared area with sinks, a wall of "stalls" (really fully enclosed toilet rooms, no panel gaps and floor to ceiling doors), and a separate room off in the back with urinals (and an automatic sliding door). Kinda seems like a pretty good solution all around.
TERF Island having a normal one, I see
Better an island than a whole fucking continent of more violent TERFs.
Helen, who appeared as an actress in zombie movie 28 years later, said she decided she did not want to hide her hair loss by wearing wigs.
I just saw that film and didn't remember which role she had, so I checked IMDB, and it just says "infected women".
Turns out they gave her really shitty patchy strands of hair as part of that role: https://www.facebook.com/groups/379052361293089/posts/725981959933459/ That was accidentally kind of funny and unexpected.
Helen said she feels the incident in Tesco may have stemmed from the debate in recent years over transgender rights. She said: "I suspect it's stemming from this which is a shame but I think potentially why people are being more cautious.
"I can understand the cautiousness from a business point of view but they've also got to be aware of diversity and people being different. They should not make assumptions on visible differences.
"I just think that we need to raise awareness of the condition and that people do look different. If you're concerned about something ask privately or sensitively."
So she's not against the public harassment of people using toilets per se, just doesn't want them directed against people with her condition specifically? Girl, visible differences are almost entirely what this boils down to in practice—people being uncomfortable when they see someone who doesn't look "normal". Justifying the underlying motive but not the outcome just means you want a carve-out
I don't see where she gave any such negative opinion? Closest was she said she understood from a business point of view, as in, a business needs to follow the law.
Least surprising instance to be getting pushback from lmao
We're talking about transphobic nonsense laws that should be rightfully ignored and challenged in court
Sure, but a business isn't going to be able to do that. The law isn't unfairly discriminating against businesses, aside from giving them a near impossible task. It's people affected by these laws who would have to take it to court.
They should not make assumptions on visible differences.
“I just think that we need to raise awareness of the condition and that people do look different.
The concern isn't about people being targeted, it's about the wrong people being targeted.
"Visible differences" encompasses everyone.
She has a condition and wants to take the opportunity to highlight the difficulties people with it go through.
Neither of these imply malice towards trans people. They're neutral statements.
Maybe she does feel that way, maybe not; she hasn't really let on either way.
Once idiots feel empowered to become the Pants-contents Police, this is where it leads.
Why has a company as rich as Tesco still got mostly gendered toilets anyway?