A waste of everyone's time. Sounds like entitlement.
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
World News
38563 readers
2274 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's entitled to exclude.
people actually don't have a job
It sounds like you’re trying to argue nobody should fight discrimination while there are still ditches to dig and toilets to scrub.
I don't understand.
It's okay to discriminate against men but not transgender women?
Trans women are women.
I down voted, not because I disagree with the claim, but because it doesn't make any sense in the context and just reads as a knee-jerk dismissive response of a valid point.
It's true though. Gender is a performance, and as a woman your womanhood is always under scrutiny from everyone else. You can get your identity as woman taken from you if you don't "look woman enough". Which if you say have more masculine features, cut your hair short as a cis woman you become less woman. For example Butch lesbians are actually the most often de-womanized. Same goes for less masculine men. It's a box no one fits into perfectly and having certain genitals doesn't include or exclude you from either.
This person wanted a safe space where they wouldn't have to deal with cis straight men. Which makes it that if men want inclusion in such spaces they need to be better.
Another question for you all, why as cis men do you want inclusion in these spaces?
"trans women are women" is pointing out this isn't about men vs women but the given sex at birth.
We all accept that trans women are not cis women. The obvious point by the poster was why is it okay to discriminate against men but not trans women?
I define a woman as a female who has a uterus, how should I define them?
Biological gender: A Person with two X-Chromosons
Social Gender: Anyone who wants to be a woman
What about someone who has Swyer Syndrome? What is their "biological gender?"
Male
So you are male even if you have a complete set of female sex organs and no male sex organs?
Literally the only way to determine 'male' or 'female' is a DNA test?
We've never been able to determine that before Flemming discovered chromosomes in the late 19th century?
That's really weird, because the etymology of the word male traces it back to the 14th century.
Now I'm not math expert, but I'm pretty sure 14 comes before 18.
So you are male even if you have a complete set of female sex organs and no male sex organs?
Biologically yes. At least according to my definition, but thats a different discussion.
Literally the only way to determine 'male' or 'female' is a DNA test?
Biologically, yes.
We've never been able to determine that before Flemming discovered chromosomes in the late 19th century?
In the 19th century we assumed, that social and biological gender are the same and ignored, that basically every definition of „male“ or „female“ at the time had exceptions and wasn‘t applicable to everyone.
That's really weird, because the etymology of the word male traces it back to the 14th century.
I am surprised it doesn‘t traces back even further. People believed in all kind of shit back then. Thats no argument.
Now I'm not math expert, but I'm pretty sure 14 comes before 18.
That doesn‘t make sense in the slightest. By that logic the earth is flat, because the first models of a flat earth were published before the first models of a round earth.
Why do you get to unilaterally determine biological definitions when science is based on consensus?
Also, from where did you obtain your doctorate in genetics?
As you may have guessed I don‘t have a doctorate in genetics, just like you, I assume.
I don‘t get to determine biological definitions, but the definition of a biological sex, if such a thing exists, is still heavily debated in science. Therefore a consensus couldn‘t be reached so far. I just argued for the definition, that sounds the most logical to me. If you have other definitions or models I am open always open to learn.
but the definition of a biological sex, if such a thing exists, is still heavily debated in science.
Maybe so, but your definition has nothing to do with said debate, which has moved far beyond it in terms of the science of genetics.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi1188
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/
That's a small sampling.
Incidentally, if you do base biological sex solely on chromosomes, birds have four sexes. What shall we call the other two?
Thanks for the sources.
The first article doesn‘t invalidate my thesis. It explains the difference between sex and gender.
The second article argues against the sex binary, which I never defended. I view „male“ and „female“ (in the context of the biological sex) as terms for a combination of chromosomes. The article still was absolutely worth reading, thanks.
The third article actually lists a bunch of stuff I didn‘t know about. I‘m going to look into that.
Real /r/unpopularopinion moment.
I think the thing that the TERFs ultimately miss is that this person was initially welcomed in as a woman and treated as a woman by her peers. She did not disrupt the community or harass any of the participants, until she voiced support for Trans Rights.
It was at this point that a handful of moderators decided to interrogate her on her original gender and use that as an excuse to boot an active and in-good-standing member.
So she wasn't removed for "not being a woman". She was removed for "disagreeing with the political views of the admin".
Anyone familiar with Reddit politics should be able to sympathize.
Yes you’re right the transphobes are taking over here
More the reverse. If you say "Girls Only" and then exclude a girl, you've violated your own terms of service.
Your account is a day old so I’m thinking you’re arguing in bad faith and are likely transphobic.
Time to identify as a cis lesbian and not as a trans woman.
How does that even work?
I mean, to be a cis lesbian also implies being a cis woman....
I just call you a bigot if you deny me my identity and treating me properly as if I was that identity. I am a cis woman. You will treat me like one because I will not be misgendered or treated with misogynistic bullshit.
I'm not trying to be rude, I'm trying to understand.
As far as the language is concerned, I'm just trying to understand how a trans woman could be a cis lesbian, when my understanding is that being cis and being trans are mutually exclusive.
Am I missing something?
There's nothing to understand, they're just talking bullshit.
What’s the point of a woman’s only app (or any women’s only space) if they let anyone in simply based on them saying ‘I’m a woman’?
Maybe because everything about the space still caters to women's concerns, and the presumption for a random-ass social media app should be that your appearance doesn't determine your intent? If somebody's daily life is being a woman, then why the fuck should it matter which parts they have? Are you also going to exclude gay women, or women who cut their hair short, or women who choose not to have kids? After all, they're not having all the same issues that long-haired cis-het mothers have.
Not to mention it's a technologically stupid gate to keep. In what fucking world does it deter anyone who is willing to be dishonest?
Wow an app based on gender descrimination is being sued for gender descrimination. I'm shocked
You know what this means though? It means that no one ever needed to push back against it at all just not engage in it themselves. Cuz they just eat each other in a vacuum. Without some enemy to band together against like the boogeyman of boogeymen whitey, their inner chaos is all they're left with with no enemy to project it on, so they eat each other and everything just crashes and falls apart. No one needed to do anything, not even complain, just look at it in amusement and take another sip of their coffee and go about their day thanking god that's not you.
Did you forget you're not in your sleazy little far-right bubble?
I'm not a right winger. I just see an ouroboros when I see it, it's the snake eating itself.
Blantant lie.
Epic name
I think she will win this. They didn't require a genital photo so what's even their proof? Arbitrary requirement anyways. Rules like that only leave people out. I understand the want for a space like that though. I hope this woman finds a space where she can feel safe.
I think she'll lose. Because regardless of the issue, a private company can terminate service at any time, for any reason.
It's also been upheld that a graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. What this means is, again, a company can pick and choose who to serve.
a private company can terminate service at any time, for any reason
Not after they've accepted payment.