this might be a stupid question but why is a court defining what is and isn't a lesbian? like, when does that come up in a legal context? - ThreadSky

jtp.bsky.social • 7 days ago

this might be a stupid question but why is a court defining what is and isn't a lesbian? like, when does that come up in a legal context?

Reposted from QueerAF

👨‍⚖️ The UK Supreme Court just redefined what a lesbian is

🧵👇

Comments

audiebellpt.bsky.social•7 days ago

I left a comment before I read this assuming it was hate speech clause but this is definitely just a way to ban lesbians from stuff

audiebellpt.bsky.social•7 days ago

As in trans lesbians aren’t allowed to legally be lesbian and therefore aren’t protected or permitted in any space or community defined by lesbianism (such as a lawsuit against a company for discrimination)

katiedarcy.bsky.social•7 days ago

Having rules around how you have sex is so very British though.

kingriptor.bsky.social•7 days ago

I figure they just decided to marginalize as many groups as they could with this bullshit

jtp.bsky.social•7 days ago

i mean i figured that was the intent but how does legally defining the term lesbian do that? are they gonna arrest you for being a lesbian illegally if one party is trans?

kingriptor.bsky.social•7 days ago

I assume same sex couples have protections on place that a trans/cis couple will now no longer have and a Transfem couple will have to say in court they're gay men to get

20xdee6.bsky.social•7 days ago

they're in the process of writing a "rulebook" as to who gets to be recognized as queer by the state in order to pit everybody against each other as different privileged groups in order to destroy collective power

20xdee6.bsky.social•7 days ago

they looked at hitler, thought "well of course he failed, his approach was rubbish" and then spent all these years coming up with ways to get back at the gays for being so gay and then forming fake alliances with some gays to destroy the others

ciromo.bsky.social•7 days ago

i'm guessing it's to artificially inflate the amount of lesbians who don't support trans people (cuz then the ones who do wouldn't be considered lesbians anymore)

wroms.bsky.social•7 days ago

The government has always wanted to act as the arbiter on all social and supposed "moral" issues. With this, they have taken away the right for actual lesbians to decide what lesbian means, and instead get to create their own definitions. They do this to take their own identity away from them.

jtp.bsky.social•7 days ago

ok sure but what if you just say who care

wroms.bsky.social•7 days ago

I agree completely. I mean so more in a legal and "official" sense. I'm not British so I don't have much knowledge on their anti-discrimination laws, but it might also take away their protections from discrimination on account of their sexuality.

hiyorimax.bsky.social•7 days ago

atriflemiffed.bsky.social•7 days ago

Presumably so they can charge trans women who have sex with cis women as sex offenders, which is something they've already been trying to make happen

cobaltquill.bsky.social•7 days ago

They're just trying to curry favour with whatever Terry lesbians are out there and make themselves look a little better when this goes in history books.

alexwilson321.bsky.social•6 days ago

It comes up in a legal context whenever they feel like oppressing someone

philomenebellemare.bsky.social•6 days ago

Something important to remember about law/law enforcement is that those fields are absolutely riddled with right-wing BDSM fetishists

rs-glide08.bsky.social•7 days ago

they'll need these sorts of legal mandates once it's time to officially establish transphobia as britain's state ideology

numb.comfortab.ly•7 days ago

My only guess is this is about who falls into category protected against discrimination.

jtp.bsky.social•7 days ago

prior to this were trans people in straight relationships not protected against discrimination? i mean, i assume the answer to "were trans people protected from discrimination" in general tends to be "no" regardless of the law over there, but i don't really see how this changes anything

dynameld.bsky.social•7 days ago

I think the point is to punish any cis lesbian who dates trans women by removing whatever legal protections they may have

amber56.bsky.social•7 days ago

In the uk protections are also based on what you are perceived as. If people see a trans woman and a cis woman's relationship as a lesbian relationship and discriminate based on that, it is still discrimination with regards to being a lesbian regardless on if it legally is.

jtp.bsky.social•7 days ago

can you get fired for being straight in the UK?

dynameld.bsky.social•7 days ago

No idea but my thought process is that employers can now fire them or do other shit without the threat of a discrimination lawsuit

samhain.bsky.samhain.tech•7 days ago

Yup. I was thinking the same thing. It makes it easier for bigots to discriminate against trans people.

princesschoochoo.bsky.social•7 days ago

I believe trans people were and still are protected from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment (although I wouldn't be surprised if they work out ways around this) but I think this means trans lesbians aren't protected from discrimination on the basis of them being lesbians.

oozingtulip.bsky.social•7 days ago

my only assumption is it could be a more subtle way to try and stop any research or reporting on violence/discrimination against trans women and bar them from resources for queer women. Probably opens up the door to specifically legislate each sexuality if they wanted to be really stupid

urpgoar.bsky.social•7 days ago

The court consists of old out of touch CIS politicians that were bribed by the TERF Queen. They have no idea what they're talking about.

thatgarthguy.bsky.social•7 days ago

It allows "LGB" organisations to keep trans people out of "Lesbian-only spaces"

Outside of that, can't see any other examples

jtp.bsky.social•7 days ago

there aren't any lesbians in those anyway

thatgarthguy.bsky.social•7 days ago

Yea, but this is the UK judiciary, they're constantly ruling on the most random topics that (usually) has no impact

kittenbitten.bsky.social•7 days ago

The goal of the orgs (like LGB Alliance) is to get other organizations to be infiltrated by a "lesbian" and then complain until the org bans trans women from it.

thequickslash.bsky.social•7 days ago

foxxocreature.bsky.social•7 days ago

It's a surprise tool for later!!

josh592.bsky.social•6 days ago

We interrupt the horrors happening in America to remind ya to give the U.K. shit too for what they do to trans people

elfstrogen.bsky.social•6 days ago

Imagine for example a cis lesbian dating a trans lesbian. Imagine she is discriminated at her workplace - either people lie about her not being a lesbian or she works at some lgbtq org and people demand she be ousted for “not being a real lesbian”

Any legal protection for this cis lesbian is gone.

oweknow3.bsky.social•7 days ago

The UK has many protections against discrimination for same sex couples when it comes to employment, housing, whatever.

Now, those no longer apply when one of them is Trans.

nostikvvvibes.bsky.social•7 days ago

So they can yell at people

samhain.bsky.samhain.tech•7 days ago

I would imagine that it’s related to non-discrimination against lesbians or gay people, and this a cis and trans pair would no longer be able to sue based on some protection.

As far as trans lesbians, I suppose they would be considered gay in the UK, and thus protected by such laws.

samhain.bsky.samhain.tech•7 days ago

I think that it’s ultimately a ridiculous. Attraction doesn’t work like they seem to think it does.

But you know, TERF brain rot is strong in the UK.

beryl.gay•7 days ago

like this is a country built off the idea that some guy was granted by god the magic to give them government.

stating which of his subjects the king considers to be his lesbians seems to be "normal" bullshit for their legal system.

raoulduke1976.bsky.social•7 days ago

They’re just collateral damage in the battle to end trans people. There will be more

cyanlol.bsky.social•7 days ago

Trying to define lesbian as “vagina-lover” feels quite lesbophobic ngl

porkrocket.bsky.social•7 days ago

I would assume so they can redefine legal marriages.

limnipoli.bsky.social•7 days ago

It came up when they were looking at evidence, probably why they felt they had to say summit in the final ruling.

Link to a thread following the case at the time:
https://bsky.app/profile/reactiveashley.bsky.social/post/3lbwrd2tqx225

lexical-lushes.bsky.social•7 days ago

its just a way to make sure trans women can never benefit from any protections allowed to lesbians.

also probably a way to kick bi women out of lesbian spaces, since TERFs love that shit.

helpimolive.bsky.social•7 days ago

It seems like the point is to exclude us from every protected category except gender identity (for now), so we won't have access to the protections it took women/lesbians centuries to win

helpimolive.bsky.social•7 days ago

Regaining those rights becomes a fight every time in a court system stacked against us. E.g. proving employment discrimination bc of gender identity might be a much higher bar to clear than bc of sex. There's less precedent to rely on and it's interpreted in the most hostile way possible

thatmoondragon.bsky.social•7 days ago

It doesn't. This is like trying legally define gravity out of existence

cheesecakechik.bsky.social•7 days ago

they’re listening to goddamn literal political lesbians about what “being a lesbian” should be defined as.

THOSE AREN’T EVEN REAL LESBIANS. JULIE BINDEL IS A SELF-IDENTIFIED POLITICAL LESBIAN

diahane.bsky.social•7 days ago

If it’s the UK thing, IIRC the case was about whether positive actions that required one to be a woman could be applied to trans women. The Scottish government held it so and terfs went to court about it, so they ruled on what woman means under that act. Probably did the same for lesbian 1/2

diahane.bsky.social•7 days ago

I would say the latter definition would matter legally only insofar as there might be some positive actions for lesbians, or perhaps if there’s places with a lesbian only policy and there’s a lawsuit for discrimination 2/2

adamakes.games•7 days ago

Cause transphobes wanted it written down somewhere they can reference, like all the meaningless stuff about sports even though eligibility isn't dictated by the law but by the sporting bodies.

convictclaude.bsky.social•7 days ago

it comes up in the context of hate crimes and discrimination; if a trans woman and a cis woman are in a relationship, and are subject to homophobia, according to this it's not prosecutable as homophobia so the couple has no legal recourse against discrimination

konkondragon.bsky.social•7 days ago

discrimination protections. can't claim to be discriminated against being gay if the government says you're not legally gay

arkheth.bsky.social•7 days ago

The specifics they're discussing in the screenshot are weird, but ultimately you can't have a protected class without a legal definition of that class.

mandoqueer.itch.io•7 days ago

are protected classes in the UK exclusive to minorities? in the US protected classes are generic. "Lesbians" aren't protected but "sexual orientation" is.

waifurious.bsky.social•7 days ago

Sexual Orientation is a Protected Characteristic according to the 2010 Equality Act, so it's likely just a further weakening of that protection for Trans Lesbians - you can't claim discrimination based on being a lesbian if you're legally not a lesbian.

jtp.bsky.social•7 days ago

so are straight trans people legally gay now? does that grant any extra protection that didn't previously exist? can't you just say you're bisexual regardless rendering this whole thing pointless? i barely understand my own countries laws so i'm extra stupid about foreign countries

cyanlol.bsky.social•7 days ago

you’re gay based on whether or not it’s convenient for them to punish you

morfy.bsky.social•7 days ago

Dang

jtp.bsky.social•7 days ago

also does "sexually oriented towards" mean anything here? they put "(or attracted to)" in parentheses which implies a meaning distinct from "attracted to" but i haven't the first clue what it could mean

livfreeorcry.gay•7 days ago

for the political lesbian terfs I guess

stupidweasels.bsky.social•7 days ago

"Sexual orientation would become meaningless" ok who fucking cares? Let it he meaningless if all the meaning before has been used to harm people

cyanlol.bsky.social•7 days ago

“noooo, not the precious, sacred labels I call myself. you CAN’T expand the definition! 🤧

I don’t care if expanding the definition has no effect on my life, give me back the frickin LABELS!”

catastro-v.bsky.social•7 days ago

hey, have some sympathy. the cis men making up 2/3rds of the court only managed to wrap their head around the basic concept of ‘lesbians’ in 2023 and theyve flunked their trans 101 courses for four years running, so hearing about trans lesbians must be really difficult and triggering for them

cyanlol.bsky.social•7 days ago

I get it, it’s very hard for these 70 year old infants to try to learn about people other than themselves. Perhaps these politicians should be given an iPad to watch Cocomelon on instead of settling court cases

draculafactory.bsky.social•7 days ago

They also legally codified asexuals

felixforrester.bsky.social•7 days ago

It's word salad meant to make a simple dumbass idea appear more thorough and well-thought out than it is

mitdasein.bsky.social•6 days ago

“Just because I bang dudes, that doesn’t mean I’m attracted to them.”

akifirebird.bsky.social•7 days ago

The idea of a court trying to legislate queer identities is beyond insanity

jtp.bsky.social•7 days ago

i thought laws tended to be like "you can't discriminate against anyone based on sexual orientation" and left it at that. so like, if a cis lesbian dating a trans woman got fired for that, it wouldn't matter if it was "straight" or "gay" because it would be discrimination based on sexual orientation

verboseminimalist.gay•7 days ago

IANAL, but I'm guessing this gets into distinctions between American and British law that are beyond my understanding.

jtp.bsky.social•7 days ago

yea that's why i'm asking

erinyes.diy•7 days ago

In a discrimination case, your lawyer will be claiming "you fired her, a lesbian, when you wouldn't have fired a straight who was performing identically, thus it is based on sexual orientation."

I believe they are very deliberately redefining C4T as straight to empower bigots' defense against this.

erinyes.diy•7 days ago

They don't just want to expose trans women with a GRC and no reassignment to discrimination, they also want to expose those trans women's partners.

akifirebird.bsky.social•7 days ago

It's such stupid bullshit

erismothslut.bsky.social•7 days ago

It comes up when looking for legal protection

Such cases barely managed to do anything before hand but now it's free raign to do violence against my family

thejkey.bsky.social•7 days ago

I don't wanna make light of a serious situation, but I am somewhat reminded of when they had to define what counted as a "sandwich" for tax reasons, or when they had to argue that Wolverine from the X-men was a mutant so they didn't have to pay the tax for selling "dolls."

maddiequestions.bsky.social•7 days ago

how about what kind of baked good a Jaffa Cake is

xonlic.bsky.social•7 days ago

As I understand it, this was unprompted by the lawsuit.
Like this was just...something they added in there

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply