'Not the laws of Australia': Sex discrimination chief reacts to UK ruling on definition of a woman
Submitted 11 months ago by Zagorath@aussie.zone to australia@aussie.zone
Comments
spudsrus@aussie.zone 11 months ago
eureka@aussie.zone 11 months ago
For me, I’m studying cyber women.
slazer2au@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Tell me more of these psychology or guerrilla woman. I don’t suppose there are several in my area?
spudsrus@aussie.zone 11 months ago
Seems statistically likely 😂
Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 11 months ago
Zagorath@aussie.zone 11 months ago
Ha. When UK Supreme Court judges have the same level of comprehension as a kindergartner…
TransSynthesist@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
“biological” is a poor definition. Trees, bacteria, and my dog are all biological.
guillem@aussie.zone 11 months ago
[deleted]melbaboutown@aussie.zone 11 months ago
Yes. And probably. The end goal is for trans people or anyone who doesn’t neatly fit the binary to be harassed into the closet.
eureka@aussie.zone 11 months ago
I don’t get where do they see the accomplishment in defining “woman” as “biological woman”
It just seems like a mental-gymnastic pseudo-intellectual way of just saying “female”. It’s a weird coping mechanism to try and handle the idea that a feminine gender (woman) doesn’t have to match to a biological sex category (female). And yes, you’re right, biology is complex and doesn’t just have two neat sex categories.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 11 months ago
Cease your investigations! The conservative mind can not understand nuance. Only binary, like a primitive computer.
You need to think less like an empathetic human, and more like a narcissist — a robot — else you’ll find yourself in a gulag like the treat of the radical left.
Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 months ago
Upvoted because it’s good news I’m sure some people could really use right about now, but fuck me, what a shit article.
Why is it quoting the opinion of some children’s author who was mid even before she fell off and who has absolutely no qualifications or expertise to contribute on the topic? And to do this while offering neither any substantiation of said takes nor any opposing voices?
Failed attempt at journalism tbh, and it’s disgusting that SBS is resorting to pivoting the topic of an article to be about some fascist celebrity billionaire who’s tangentially relevant, I guess, just for clicks. It’s irresponsible use of a platform and it’s so fucking cynical.