I'm not going to link it actually, you can look it up.

[cwebber@social.coop]

UK supreme court (seems to have, I'm not sure how deeply but it def seems bad) just invalidated trans peoples' (legal) existence. I'm not totally sure of the implications but the high level articles I'm reading don't look good. https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/16/supreme-court-uk-trans-woman-definition/

I'm so sorry to everyone who's being hit by this

Also, you *are* valid, no matter what the state says. Fuck this shit.

(Updated with link, ty @ki)

[cwebber@social.coop]

If anyone has an article they can recommend linking, lmk

[ki@chaos.social]

@cwebber
https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/04/16/supreme-court-uk-trans-woman-definition/ this is the best one that I could find, although it does not state or explain that "biological sex" is not a well-defined phrase but utter bs

[jackeric@beige.party]

@cwebber the scotpol groupchat is pointing out it makes GRCs meaningless, and maybe makes the UK in breach of the ECHR 2004 ruling that brought in GRCs in the first place

[jackeric@beige.party]

@cwebber kinda mix of "this is bad but it might backfire on the GCs and lead to self-ID (in Scotland) (if the Scottish gov has the guts to push for it)"

[jackeric@beige.party]

@cwebber
[from the ruling]: "It is fanciful (even perverse) to think that any reasonable objection to the presence of a person of the opposite sex could be grounded in (gender recognition certificate) GRC status or that a confidential GRC could make any difference at all."

[from a pal]: So, orgs who can't conduct biological sex checks (so, almost all of them outside medical settings) have basically no choice but to use SelfId