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

World News

46174 readers
3036 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago (10 children)

There are only two reasonable definitions. One is: born with genitalia that look female (i.e. female on birth certificate). The other is “identifies as”. Both of these could be important in different contexts.

Your definition has the downside that the government would have to check your medical records to determine gender. That is an insane breach of the medical records.

[–] massacre@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (7 children)

No? You've just invalidated your own original argument by acknowledging you would add the "born with" despite the fact that I said there are women who were NOT born with the reproductive apparatus organized to support production of the large gamete (ova).

In other words, your own argument is not self-supporting. So I don't feel I need to elaborate further than the point here is that OP is saying "define biological female" is defeatingly complex and requires assumptions to even proceed, and even then any answer doesn't land in the "definitive" answer you probably want.

[–] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world -2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Fair. I think my point was related to what makes sense in any reasonable social setting, not what is the exact biological definition which appears to be more of a scientific question.

Just to be clear on this, in my opinion anyone born with a vagina who wants to identify as a woman, should be treated as such. That’s if you have grown up thinking you were a woman, such an identity cannot be taken away.

[–] massacre@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

Opinion is a whole other ballgame. Glad to support it as an opinion. And logically that's where this law is going to reside... not in any science. I suppose, upon reflection, that is my underlying message.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)