• Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 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.

  • guillem@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 days ago

    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”?

    • melbaboutown@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 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.