Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.
PaperclipPerfector
1mo ago
(text post)
998 thread views
Transnational Thursday for September 4, 2025
- 26
- 4
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The UK Supreme Court ruling and the NHS roll back of gender identity treatment are concrete changes.
"NHS England no longer routinely prescribes puberty blockers for people under 18 and has halted access to them outside of specific clinical trials, following a review by Dr. Hilary Cass, due to a lack of evidence for their safety and efficacy in this age group"
"In an “interim update” on how the ruling should be interpreted, the Equality and Human Rights Commission said on Friday that in workplaces and services open to the public, such as hospitals or cafes, “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use the men’s facilities.”"
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/12040/13358660/gender-policy-in-sport-what-are-the-rules-in-football-cricket-boxing-netball-and-others-after-supreme-court-ruling
The current position is basically that trans-women are not women with all that entails for sports, bathrooms and laws, but also don't be a dick about it, because that is not the done thing and they're still a protected group.
OK, I see your point. I guess there is some turning afoot. Makes me feel doubly weird though - first time because I'm not used to UK policies being less insane than US ones, usually it goes the other way in my experience. The second time because the stance of "trans women are men, but you go to jail if you say it without government approval" is still completely insane, just in a different way - now we have a choice between the clown would where a man can become a woman just by saying it, and the clown world where a man can force you to say he's a woman, under the threat of government prosecution, even though the same government does not think it's true - so you are officially forced to lie.
Generally only if you do it in a way which contravenes another law. To demonstrate, If you stand outside a convicted rapists house and yell over and over Bob Smith is a rapist for days on end you might be charged with harrassment. The truth value of your statement isn't what the law is taking issue with. They agree with you hes a rapist, but how, when and how often you say it is the issue.
The trans part isn't really the issue, its just the UK in general is less bothered about restrictions of free speech than the US, especially when it comes to maintaining the peace (charitably put, not rocking the boat if less so) so our harrassment and other speech statutes are fairly broad.
As an anecdote I was back home recently and at a public event a man was (as my mum put it) carrying on about the Good Friday Agreement. He wasn't being threatening, but the police rolled up and hauled him away anyway, with the assistance and full support of the public. Were his free speech rights abrogated? Probably. But it made the event a lot more enjoyable.
But that's not what is happening. I mean yes, if you stand near someone house and yell anything for days on end, that'd be harassment, even if you yell the multiplication table. But nobody camps under trans people homes and yells for days. At least not any of the prominent prosecuted cases did that. The prosecution clearly is done for the contents of the message, not for the form it's expressed in. People get arrested for tweets, and not even for directed tweets. That's about the easiest form of speech to ignore of all possible forms. You can't say it's about "how" - it's all about precluding the possibility of discussing certain topics.
I, of course, exaggerated a bit when I pretended it makes no sense. It makes a lot of sense, if only you let go of the premise that the government is the representative of the people and wants to do what's best for them (or at least wants to align in the general direction of interests of the people). If you face the reality - that the government is a parasite which seeks control over the population and is hostile to anything that threatens this control - then it all makes perfect sense. It doesn't matter whether the government agrees with you or not on the truth value - the mere fact that it told you not to speak that and you did is what must be shut down (you rocked the boat!). That's why in Russia people who say Putin goes too easy on Ukrainians can get jailed as much as people who oppose the war - the problem with both is that they allow themselves to think something Putin didn't think first. That's the offense. UK is not there yet, but they are already on the rails that lead there.
I know. UK never had freedom of speech, not even before the Great Awokening, though the abuses usually concentrated along the lines of sleazy lawyers exploiting the system, not governmental censorship per se. Now the government is leading it, hard. Of course they claim it's for "maintaining the peace", though how it makes more peaceful to allow Hamas banners but jail people for English banners, it's a bit hard to understand, unless in the terms of most base cowardice. It's not that rocking the boat is not allowed, it's that some people are allowed to rock the boat, and some aren't.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"... oh, and don't forget that we'll arrest you for mean-posting about them on Twitter..."
Seems like a bit of a mixed bag tbh
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link