Jesse Bachir

Talia Mae Bettcher, Trans Women and the Meaning of ‘Woman’ - PhilArchive

Though, I’d also recommend philarchive.org/rec/BETQWA

Ah, you beat me to it. 😅

I’m not a historian of that particular element of law.

However, as an English lawyer, I know it’s more than appropriate to use ‘Anglo’ to describe the rule of law tradition in this context, given the relevant common law/doctrines.

It seems the problem here is that you don’t know rule of law.

This is disingenuous. And you’ve been repeatedly told you’re incorrect.

Your Q was why ‘Anglo.’ As you had been repeatedly told, by many experts, it’s because the rule of law is grounded in English law.

You simply are not aware of legal doctrine and English law, so didn’t understand why ‘Anglo’

And you seem unaware of the doctrine of the rule of law and its development within English common law, going back more than 400 years.

It's wildly unclear to me why someone who has absolutely no qualification in English law is commenting on a matter of English law.

Because US law is based originally on English law. Early US lawyers trained in English law, some in the Inns of Court. They consulted English case law. English legal doctrines are very obviously present in US law. English cases are very obviously cited.

This is a rather odd hill to want to die on.

But, to point out the obvious, the Case of Proclamations and Case of Prohibitions are actually more than 400 years old at this point.

I’d consider them foundational rule of law cases 🤷🏼‍♂️

I am deluded.

Too much reading philosophy has most certainly ruined my brain and made me deluded! 🫡

What cruel punishment

The moral degenerates are one thing; but when they come for the philosophy, then it’s too much!

Are we all having a party? Let’s go.

She also frames much of her 'argument' here in terms of foetal personhood, raising the issue of the domain of 'moral concern.'

Sure, to an undergraduate this might be an interesting question/issue; but, this isn't really an accurate picture of the literature she seems to be referring to.

I've been thinking for a while about how anti-trans feminist philosophy is fundamentally illiberal*; Stock's recent publications on both abortion and immigration suggest at least coincidence, though I suspect it is all underpinned by some core set of illiberal values.

*illiberal/dominating

We fix racism by…. Doing the racism? And that will fix the division by… making us all racist?

Excellent plan. 🙃

Table describing how those entering under certain routes will be subject to a rule adding 20 years to the minimum 10 year qualification period.

Labour proposals: If you're rich, we'll expedite your qualification for settled status. Earn more than £125k/yr? Then you only need to wait 3 years!

If you came via small boat/on a visitor visa (because you were escaping and seeking refugee status), you'll need to wait perhaps at least *30 years*

As has become common with GOP attacks on free expression….

First Amendment, who is she?

This.

Refugees make up a proportionally small population. The likelihood that the majority of people are encountering refugees in sufficiently numerous instances to form such negative opinions is probabilistically unlikely.

Instead, it’s scapegoating politics 101.

I was going to say…

You don’t download all the pdfs and put them in folders and/or print them out? 😱

Starmer’s anti-asylum policies show how utterly clueless he is about the right-wing media’s role in politics.

He’s trying to fix a “problem” contrived by Farage, GB News and The Telegraph. He’ll never win, because ultimately he’s fighting a ghost – he’s fighting something that doesn’t really exist

Left-wing parties shifting to the right — maybe on issues like immigration and refugees (hey, Labour?) — does not save anyone.

It legitimizes the far-right narrative. Fundamentally, it concedes the far-right argument: it agrees with their diagnosis of the purported problem. (Which is wrong).

It’s almost like…

Legitimizing extreme positions, normalizing them within public discourse, and failing to fight back…. Shifts the Overton window.

No person has ever thought this before! Unknown! There is absolutely no historical proof of this… oh.

Mahmood’s announcement certainly didn’t make me feel any better.

Writing to my MP to point out that Article 3 is an absolute right; and seizing people's possessions, including valuable jewellery and heirlooms, harkens back to a much darker period of history.

Not how I wanted to be spending my time today.

In the end, we no longer operate in a marketplace of ideas.
Platforms run a marketplace of feeling, where attention, not evidence, decides what rises. Emotional charge beats truth every time. Politics adapts to that logic, producing hollow performances instead of functional decisions.

the enemy within are demonstrative of just this kind of purported freedom.

Rather than being antithetical to freedom, this IS freedom in its ultimate form. Get in line, and serve the state; or get out of the way.

Exemplified in “Work sets you free” “Arbeit macht frei” — haunting words.

will of the nation; they are defending the nation. And ‘patriots’ can demonstrate their devotion to the nation by aligning themselves with the state’s interests. By doing so they achieve real true freedom.

Trump’s demands for loyalty coupled with public demonstrations of excessive force against

In this case, the “common good.”

This should sound familiar to some — some contemporary legal theorists use “the common good” to justify anti-democratic views on what the law should be/mean.

And contemporary populists (Trump), enact widespread state violence to enact the purported collective

An astute observation by EB White on the fascist philosophy of freedom. On their view to be free is to hold and enact their anti-liberal values, regardless of the consent or will of those over which such policy be enacted. Instead, individuals are subordinated to the state and made to serve the good

American politics is dominated by a two-party system in a way that UK politics is not.

For those opposed to Labour, Liberal Democrats and Greens provide (potentially) viable options.

Imagine:

Two refugees get here, fall in love, and have children right away; or imagine, they came pregnant.

That child will have been born in the UK, spent their entire 18 year childhood in the UK, and now face deportation. Because jus sanguine applies.

They will be deported to that country.