• Formfiller@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    With facism, inequality and the impending threat of ww3 threatening the stability of the world this certainly doesn’t seem like a bs waste of time and energy at all

  • Ekybio@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Reality and science disagree, but whatever.

    Truth doesnt mean a thing to people full of hate…

    • Wanderer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      That’s bullshit.

      The rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time. Changing the definition after makes no sense. It changes what the rule was about in the first place.

      There are still laws about trans people.

      • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Trans people are just people. It’s like saying “there are still laws about black people” in the Jim Crow South.

        Laws should be written to be inclusive, not exclusive. When laws are written in these fragmented ways it is the exact purpose of right wingers to exploit them. It is written to SERVE THE POWER OF OPPRESSION.

        This is the same as “gay people can have civil partnerships”. While ignoring that it is literally just a method used to exclude gay partners of the same rights married partners have.

        It’s the same “separate but equal” bull shit that has existed over and over. I don’t know how “well intentioned liberals” keep falling for this same trick over and over again throughout our history.

        The rules on “sex” are entirely based on social definitions of gender norms. Or tell me you would be confused by seeing this guy walk through TSA with F as his sex.

        https://www.olympics.com/en/news/transgender-boxer-pat-manuel-makes-history-with-first-professional-win

        Edit: I really should not have to use “passing” trans people to make my point. But I feel like people live in a different reality where every ID check is followed up with a genital inspection.

      • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        rules obviously got set up with a specific definition that was understood at the time

        Oh boi, having studied law, i can confidently say that using words with no clear definition in laws and trying to apply them is one of the main problematic and debate fuel of judges and lawyers.

        And “man/woman” are clearly not words with one specific definition, even in the past (maybe people cared less about the definition, but it does not make it more specific).

        • LeninOnAPrayer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          This is the precise reason why that clip everyone lost their mind over was using the wording “birthing person” when discussing rights related to abortion.

          You can get your “anti-woke” panties in a bunch for terms like this. But there is a reason they are used when deciding laws. It is meant to very very specific and at the same time being very very inclusive to the rights the law is meant to protect.

          It’s so no asshole tries to take away your rights on a technicality they made up in their mind.

          No one is calling women, nb’s, or trans men “birthing persons” except in this specific context and for very good reason.