this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2025
479 points (96.5% liked)

World News

46166 readers
3024 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
 

Women who transitioned decades ago feel their safety and security has suddenly been removed

Last week’s supreme court ruling sent shock waves through the UK’s trans community.

The unanimous judgment said the legal definition of a woman in the Equality Act 2010 did not include transgender women who hold gender recognition certificates (GRCs).

That feeling was compounded when Kishwer Falkner, the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is preparing new statutory guidance, said the judgment meant only biological women could use single-sex changing rooms and toilets.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

passing of the Gender Recognition Act in 2004, which allowed trans people to change gender on their birth certificate

this doesn’t make sense to me, if gender is a social construct then why is it on the birth certificate? shouldn’t it be the sex that’s on the certificate and can’t be changed?

[–] vzq@lemmy.world 22 points 23 hours ago (3 children)

A better question is, why is the government administering it in the first place?

There should be no laws that depend on either gender or sex, so knowing it does not help the government fulfill its obligations. Therefore it is not covered by the public interest and official authority grounds of the GDPR.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 18 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

There should be no laws that depend on either gender or sex

Ideally, maybe. In a future perfect society. But let's remember that the court case that triggered this was about whether trans women count as women for the purposes of meeting laws that require gender quotas. Quotas that most of us should support because of their importance in combatting existing gender inequalities.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ReiRose@lemmy.world 16 points 23 hours ago (6 children)

Agreed. The only people that really need to know your biological sex are your doctor and people you're seeking (sexual) relationships with.

For believing that the government has no business with my genitals and also believing that there's nothing inherently wrong with trans people...does that make me a trans inclusionary radical feminist?

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] zulfiqaramer@lemmings.world 2 points 16 hours ago

There should be no laws that depend on either gender or sex

Lol.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›