4l3xsworld

Latest Posts by 4l3xsworld

generative AI literally makes me feel like a boomer. people start talking about how it can be good to help you brainstorm ideas and i’m like oh you’re letting a computer do the hard work and thinking for you???

Chapters: 1/1 Fandom: Call of Duty (Video Games) Rating: Explicit Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: John "Soap" MacTavish/Simon "Ghost" Riley Additional Tags: Choking, Not Actually Unrequited Love, Angst and Fluff and Smut, Anal Sex, Crying, Simon "Ghost" Riley is Bad At Feelings, Top Simon "Ghost" Riley, Bottom John "Soap" MacTavish, Lack of Communication, Idiots in Love, Pining John "Soap" MacTavish Summary:

Ghost and Soap have been hooking up lately, but John wants more, he just doesn't know how to ask for it.

apologies if this post is formatted strangely, I have no idea what I’m doing

Hiya, I’m Alex, or just Lex !

I’m British, transmasc + queer, autistic, and really into CoD and 9-1-1 ! I find the social norms of social media incredibly stressful to navigate, so any posts will be sporadic as and when I feel brave enough and manage to convince myself no one will hate me if I fuck it up a bit

I sometimes write here ! I only write call of duty (for now) but maybe one day I’ll branch out

My asks are on + anonymous, just don’t be weird and I’ll try to answer :]

UK Supreme Court Ruling - 16 Points of Clarification and Reassurance

Welcome to day 2 comrades, we survived the night and now we're going to pick up arms and fight back; what are the most effective arms you ask, seductively in my ear? KNOWLEDGE! That's right, let's look at this ruling that's so full of holes it'd make an orgy a logistical nightmare.

My job deals with legal documents and legislation so I have attempted to translate some of the ruling and clarify it for everyone, to expel the rumours and present the facts as written in all their bigoted glory. Facts are in black while my comments and opinions are in red italics.

A special thank you to Transactual and QueerAF for their resources and articles (linked at the bottom).

Also included are some of Timothy Snyder's "20 Lessons on Tyranny". Because it's fucking relevant.

The Supreme Court chose not to hear from any trans people, choosing to listen to only hate groups. This suggests anti-trans biases from the beginning. The only pro-trans source allowed was Amnesty International who affirmed that the Scottish Court's interpretation is correct, Amnesty's mention is in passing however the court notes that it is "particularly grateful" to the TERF lawyer for his input, "particularly grateful" is just a phrase but it potentially hints at further bias.

The crux of the judges "logic" seems to be that the basis of being a woman is being born that way and the basis for being trans is possessing a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). My brain literally cannot process the stupidity of this. Obviously inter-sex people are not mentioned. What about people who no longer match the definition of biological woman (i.e. cancer survivors who have had organs removed or due to health conditions) what are they protected by? If a woman has had her cervix removed for health reasons makes a sexual harassment complaint against her line manager, can it be dismissed because she, legally, isn't a woman? There are hundreds of unanswered questions and examples the court just vomitted into public with no intention of solving.

An element that the judges came to repeatedly was that if trans people were not recognised by their sex at birth then the Equality Act would be "inconsistent". For example the EA refers to 'pregnant women' but because trans women cannot get pregnant and some trans men can, by referring to women', Parliament was clearly intended 'woman' to mean 'biological female' because only 'biological females' can become pregnant. And that's it. That's fucking it. The judges decided it would be easier if women were all grouped under one category with no variation, that clarity around pregnancy was too difficult and it was best to rely on a single word written 15 years ago when inclusive language was very uncommon, let alone in halls of power.

The ruling makes zero (0) mention of Inter-Sex people. Once again Inter-Sex people have been left entirely out of the discussion and are bound by their birth certificates.

The ruling refers to "biological" and "certified" sex but doesn't define either, only suggesting that "biological" is what's on your birth certificate and that "certified" is people with a GRC. I'm not a midwife but I'm reasonably sure that babies don't come out holding a birth certificate, in fact in the UK it can take 2 weeks to get a certificate in which time decisions can be made for inter-sex babies that are not represented on the birth certificate. Additionally the court only recognises two binary sexes which is provably false. Gender is a spectrum according to every biologist who ever lived. Now that "biological" and "certified" sex are different, trans people cannot make claims based on "biological" sex, for example trans people now can't make a claim for equal pay or sexual harassment. Transgender people can now legally be forced out of the work environment and are at a higher risk of harm from others because their "certified" sex doesn't match their "biological" sex.

Single Sex Spaces have always been protected by the Equality Act. Let me say that one more time: SINGLE SEX SPACES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PROTECTED BY THE EQUALITY ACT. The law already allowed keeping transgender people out of 'single sex spaces' (which is another bullshit term we could spend an hour taking apart) which raised the question why was this case even brought forward? More and more the ruling just seems to be ideologically based with little regard for solving or clarifying anything.

Single Sex Spaces are also never defined, does a space have to be declared a 'woman only space' under the Equality Act or is it a space where one may expect to find a large number of women? It is in the ambiguity here that a lot of people will be targeted, told to get out or they're calling the police because this is a 'single sex space' even though the law never once tells us what that is.

The Gender Recognition Act (2004) is now in question because the ruling states that "trans women are men and trans men are women, with or without legal gender recognition." Theoretically the GRA now has no effect which logically follows that GRC's are in-valid. This leads nicely onto the next point:

Transgender people in public bathrooms; the ruling never once mentions toilets, bathrooms, restrooms or anything similar presumably because these are covered under 'single sex spaces'. Seeing as, in the courts view, transgender people no longer match their sex they are, theoretically, no longer allowed in public bathrooms of their sex, so transgender women should return to the mens and transgender men should return to the womens. This suggestion is unclear because, as with a lot of other things in this dogshit ruling, it is never defined or clarified. This is an excellent opportunity for solidarity if Trans Men gather or take selfies in women's bathrooms with your magnificent beards, glorious muscles and wonderful masc energy, that is, apparently, right where they want you. I have seen several claims that there is a specific ruling that forbids transgender men from entering women's public restrooms however I can find no trace of it in the text, if someone knows where it is please let me know.

The ruling has created a lot more legal questions and answered none of those it set out to. Lawyers and Lawmakers will spend the next few months and years arguing over what this means and how to interpret it, further more will the decisions of lawyers and lawmakers hold up in court when challenged? We may spend the next decade finding out. That also leads onto:

Do Not Obey In Advance (20 Lessons on Tyranny) There are a lot of unanswered questions from this ruling and, on a real life level, very little has changed at 1000 16/04 when the court read out its decision. So make sure you do not change your behaviour, hide away or surrender in advance; carry on as your beautiful glorious self and if someone challenges you tell them to sue your perfect arse because this is not a settled issue in the courts so why should you settle in advance? Fuck them. If the want us back in the closet they'll have to shove us in with a fucking bulldozer. Furthermore media organisations will take the bigoted side they always do and boil it down to the simplest point to the extent of being wrong - 'trans women banned from women's toilet's', 'trans women aren't allowed in public without identifying themselves', 'trans women never existed and were actually several queers in trench coats'. You get the idea. Dismiss these misleading headlines. Correct anyone who brings it up to you or you feel comfortable talking to. Remind them that these is no clarity and people are working very hard, every day to restore our rights. Once again, Do Not Obey In Advance.

Defend Institutions (20 Lessons on Tyranny) A fine time to remember that human rights organisiations, law projects and LGBT groups will be fighting this to the bitter end and they will need your support; please do your part for our freedom by donating to any charities or organisation you feel comfortable with, the following are just a suggestion and is not exhaustive: Stonewall - lobbying, activism. Mermaids - youth Equality Network - consultation. Transactual - adults, healthcare and legal, accurate trans news. QueerAF - news

At one point, the judgment explicitly refers to a trans woman as ‘a man who identifies as a woman’. Yeah, no, the judges were never biased at all, they totally had an open mind the whole time.

5 judges with a combined age of 338, 3 men, 2 women, know what a lesbian is better than you do. According to the ruling a lesbian "must be a [AFAB] female who is sexually oriented towards (or attracted to) [AFAB] females." Apparently the concept of sexual orientation would be "rendered meaningless" if we included trans women in relationships and that would "wrongly affect the composition of lesbians as a group." WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN? THE COMPOSITION OF LESBIAN GROUPS? What do those words, in that order, even mean? And just appreciate, for a moment, that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom doesn't believe that transgender should be allowed to enter certain types of relationships, wasn't that a hallmark of South Africa's despicable Apartheid that only certain types of people were allowed in certain relationships?

The Scottish Government is allowed to appeal this ruling however it is unclear if they will do so, they have had a change in leader since the case began and their new leader is significantly less pro-trans than the former; on top of that the Scottish Government are losing on several fronts and may want to drop this if they feel it isn't a vote winner. Because fuck standing up for human rights yeah? All that matters is winning an undemocratic popularity contest, that's where the money is. Not human decency or morality.

What about the European Court of Human Rights? We don't know how they will react to this however they have previously stated that failing to recognise a trans woman as legally a woman violated her Article 8 rights (respect for private and family life) (Goodwin vs UK). Oh look. Europe may be our salvation. Again. If only there was some kind of union we could join to protect us in the future.

According to the court's data there are about 48,000 trans man and 48,000 trans women in England and Wales (96,000), 19,990 trans people in Scotland (115, 990 UK total). Only 8,464 of those have a GRC. Which means...drum roll please... Trans people are 0.17% of the UK population and this law primarily targets 7.3% of THAT population, or 0.012% of the UK population!

Relevant Quotes -

Transactual Statement - “This ruling has no real purpose beyond ideological objection to the existence of trans people. There is no evidence of harms arising from the system of rights and protections which have been in place since 2010, only increasing hostility and hypothetical fears being leveraged to enable anti-trans discrimination."

Queeraf - By rooting misogyny in women’s ‘shared biology’, rather than our shared oppression under patriarchy, the Supreme Court relies on incredibly conservative ideas about gender as a naturalised phenomenon. In reality, trans women experience misogynistic discrimination as much as, if not more than, many other women.

@ayeforscotland - this will never be a doomerism blog.

@theinimitablefuckstormkilligan - If there's one thing I know about my fellow UK folks, it's that we're all tough as nails. So, if you're from the UK and you're trans: I believe in you. You are a powerful warrior. Your soul is a conduit for the light of love and life. You're gonna do just fine.

@on-a-lucky-tide - This isn't the end. We will fight on. We will not comply. We do not bow to fascism. We survived Section 28. We will survive this.

@isabela-merceds - trans women have existed long before those stuffy bigots sitting in a court room have. trans women will continue to exist long after they're dead and rotting in the earth.

Admiral Hackett - "Stand fast. Stand strong. Stand together."