I don't get where do they see the accomplishment in defining "woman" as "biological woman". Aren't the terms "biological man" and "biological woman" sort of blurry depending on what criteria (chromosomal, hormonal, physiological...) one uses? Or is "biological woman" exactly defined somewhere in the UK? Are they going to define "man" as"biological man" and risk leaving a gap where some people belong to none of those categories, or are they going to define it as "not a woman"?

[–] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 18 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days 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 one day find yourself in a gulag like the rest of the radical left.

[–] melbaboutown@aussie.zone 7 points 5 days 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 3 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] guillem@aussie.zone 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

They should force the SC pronounce itself as to what tf means that for them. I'd bet they are unable to give a definition of "biological woman" that doesn't leave out a lot of what they think "true women" are. Carriers of two X chromosomes? Outliers. Carriers of no Y chromosomes? Outliers. Possessors of a uterus? Outliers. Producers of the big gamete (Rowling's favourite) unless-unable-to-due-to-a-condition-that-is-morally-acceptable? Outliers everywhere. Then those outliers should sue.

Also curious why they aren't worried about defining men. They should be forced to unless they want to tacitly be defining men as non-women. Which would be funny, but probably undesirable for them.

[–] Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 6 days 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.

[–] Eyekaytee@aussie.zone 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3wcxHiorJ4

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 4 points 6 days ago

Ha. When UK Supreme Court judges have the same level of comprehension as a kindergartner…

[–] TransSynthesist@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 days ago

"biological" is a poor definition. Trees, bacteria, and my dog are all biological.