LGBTQ+

6820 readers

21 users here now

All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.

See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC

Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

cityboundforest@beehaw.org

Kuromantis@beehaw.org

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

jennifilm@beehaw.org

UngodlyAudrey@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

Transgender row rape charity starts new service for biological women (www.bbc.co.uk)

submitted 3 days ago by sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al to c/lgbtq_plus@beehaw.org

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 32 points 3 days ago

The new group for biological women will exclude trans men

????? Just say you hate trans people you can't even keep your own narrative straight

[–] ada@piefed.blahaj.zone 26 points 3 days ago

Unless they're robots, trans women are biological women, being that they're women and they're "biological"

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 22 points 3 days ago (1 children)

🎶 Biological sex is a social construct.

[+] sunglocto@lemmy.dbzer0.com -7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

This is probably the dumbest comment I've read on this site but I'll let it slide because I'm not in the mood to get into an argument

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 33 points 3 days ago (1 children)

No but like it actually is. There is such diversity within what most people would call a rigidly defined "biological sex".

[–] chosensilence@pawb.social 8 points 3 days ago (2 children)

while all of this is fascinating, i think the user was replying off a gut instinct to the interpreted rejection of biological drivers factoring in to sex. hearing "biological sex is a social construct" doesn't read the same as "biological sex as an enforced standard is a social construct that prefers the binary of male and female," because that is ultimately the point being made; not that genes themselves don't matter, which is what people like the poster hear/see when flat statements without context are made.

[–] apotheotic@beehaw.org 13 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, I don't disagree. But also genes are not a suitable criteria for the post context (r*pe survivors receiving support) so the distinction is moot here imo

[–] chosensilence@pawb.social 4 points 3 days ago

ah sure, i get ya.

[–] SweetCitrusBuzz@beehaw.org 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

My point is that 'sex' is a label applied to traits, whether genetic or in more obvious ways but it is not a useful label and honestly very transphobic.

If anyone or anymany ever called me a sex I didn't agree with them I was then I would simply tell them I am not and not to come near me again with that unscientific bullshit that they likely do not understand anyway.

Sex is not really useful in most places, not even in the medical field, it does not really tell you anything useful about a person nor their genetic or other bodily makeup. It's better to be specific about what you want to know if it truly is relevant to you, which the only places that would be the case are the medical field or if you're dating someone or somemany. All other places most likely do not need to know 'sex' nor most traits either not sports, nor these charities, nor anything else. Some might need to know gender, but not very many actually do, sports can be based on things like weight classes etc. Charities like this really only have to care about gender, so really this is kind of bullshit

[–] cupcakezealot@piefed.blahaj.zone 4 points 3 days ago

finally a service for biological woman only like jk rowling friend and groomer nicola murray