this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
294 points (97.4% liked)

World News

46615 readers
2130 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ekybio@lemmy.world 90 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Reality and science disagree, but whatever.

Truth doesnt mean a thing to people full of hate...

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 32 points 1 month ago (6 children)

That's bullshit.

The rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time. Changing the definition after makes no sense. It changes what the rule was about in the first place.

There are still laws about trans people.

[–] Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago (1 children)

rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time

Oh boi, having studied law, i can confidently say that using words with no clear definition in laws and trying to apply them is one of the main problematic and debate fuel of judges and lawyers.

And "man/woman" are clearly not words with one specific definition, even in the past (maybe people cared less about the definition, but it does not make it more specific).

[–] LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

This is the precise reason why that clip everyone lost their mind over was using the wording "birthing person" when discussing rights related to abortion.

You can get your "anti-woke" panties in a bunch for terms like this. But there is a reason they are used when deciding laws. It is meant to very very specific and at the same time being very very inclusive to the rights the law is meant to protect.

It's so no asshole tries to take away your rights on a technicality they made up in their mind.

No one is calling women, nb's, or trans men "birthing persons" except in this specific context and for very good reason.

[–] overload@sopuli.xyz 27 points 1 month ago (13 children)

Makes sense. I think it's possible to hold this belief and still be pro-trans rights. There's literally not a limit on the number of laws we can have, seems silly to change what a legal woman is rather than include transgender women people as an additional group that these laws can apply to.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Naich@lemmings.world 82 points 1 month ago (25 children)

Now define "biological female".

[–] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 48 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Right? Is this phenotypic or genotypic?

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] Letme@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

DNA or TNA he says, that's gold! 😂

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago

"Annoying outgrowth around the pussy"

load more comments (23 replies)
[–] PalmTreeIsBestTree@lemmy.world 67 points 1 month ago (18 children)

UK really wants to be an American colony so badly right now. Get ready to lose your NHS and pensions soon enough.

[–] rpl6475@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Off to the EU I go

[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

They now thinking about repealing hate speech laws to please JD Vance.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 38 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Isn't just mind blowing what a colossal waste of time this whole thing is? Imagine if we spent this energy on solving real issues but I guess idiots need to be occupied with something or they'd become self aware.

The highest court in the country is spending time on deciding what a word means. This should be emberassing.

[–] multifariace@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

If we weren't distracted by this we wouod have to unify against the top 1% earners of the world and nobody(TM) wants that.

[–] apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world 30 points 1 month ago

Wonder how much money that notorious TERF Rowling paid this court.

[–] Frjttr@lemm.ee 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Then they should update the Equality Act.

[–] Nighed@feddit.uk 8 points 1 month ago

Yeh, my understanding is that this was a ruling on the current law, they said that if they rules otherwise, the law would be unworkable I think?

So therefore parliament should legislate properly about it rather than just trying to bend what already existed.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] thingAmaBob@lemmy.world 20 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Scottish courts ruled, and then upheld in the Scottish government’s favor, that sex is “not limited to biological or birth sex,” and must include those in possession of a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

But that was challenged in London’s Supreme Court by campaigners. And, in its ruling Wednesday, the country’s highest court said the meaning of the terms “sex,” “man” and “woman” in the U.K.’s Equality Act must refer to “biological sex” — with any other interpretation deemed “incoherent and impracticable.”

And here lies the issue. Maybe I am understanding how society and science are defining terms in these cases, but: doesn’t woman/man = gender (which differs depending on culture, time period, etc) and female/male = sex (which is a medical/scientific term)? It appears both sides of the table are trying to make these terms mean something they do not.

Either way, I see no practical point in actually making a law defining these terms, especially when the legal definition is not even correct scientifically speaking. There are so many biological changes that trans individuals go through when they medically transition and society will see them differently if they “pass” in their society. Also, sex isn’t so black and white either.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Jumuta@sh.itjust.works 17 points 1 month ago

goofy how the "equality act" differentiates between different types of people

[–] Eideen@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I am not following this topic.

As I understand it this means that a man that in some way transforms to a look like a woman (since the internal feeling is that of a woman) are still considered a man.

What are the practical rights differences between a man and a woman under UK law?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So a baby girl is a woman???

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (8 children)

I get what you're saying, but no. The ruling is specifically "woman" means "biological female", not "everything is a woman".

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

A baby girl is a biological female.

[–] CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Yes.

I have a feeling you think you're saying something different than what I said.

[–] Danquebec@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Oh, ok. Not a synonym "All women are biological females, but not necessarily all biological females are women."

Got it.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] missandry351@lemmings.world 9 points 1 month ago

Of course , I never saw a non biological woman. Do stones have genders?

load more comments
view more: next ›