A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
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.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
I was confused, but then the article was about the UK, where they stupidly did Brexit. Don't worry, everybody. This is just about people who make dumb decisions.
You say that, but I mean have you looked around here lately? The Bri'ish don't have a monopoly on stupid.
It's so obvious that so many here didn't even read the article.
This really isn't about toilets as much as locker rooms. Where each person must go to the gendered locker room for their biological sex. Unless there is an alternative. Such as a "trans locker room"
The whole toilet part is adressed in that most businesses will just remove the symbol for M/F on single stalls and call it a day. And most have a handicap friendly stall, which already is gender neutral.
This is more of an issue for places like hospital's that are required to have gendered spaces.
single sex toilets must be forever prohibited from existing, says actual equality and human rights
Why?
Just have a bunch of single stalls and sinks. Why do we need gendered bathrooms?
I'm there to take a shit. I don't care if a woman is washing her hands.
People don't just wash hands in a bathroom sink. They wash their face, groom themselves, admire themselves, apply makeup, etc.
Also, why waste space with stalls, when you can use urinals instead? I don't want to wait outside a stall to take a piss.
The first thing you named everyone does so it doesnt need to be private.
The second thing is a urinal takes up a stall space so just have more stalls.
After being to places that do this, I can tell you it works fine.
So, a bathroom ban for the entire UK?
Did you guys see the US speed running a regression arc and decide to try your hand at it?
Terf island at it again.
Surely the legal challenge against this is already started?
The supreme court didnt actually mention toilets, and said changing rooms may work ( if they have privacy rooms)
I once heard one gender critical person who is against excluding Transgender people from toilets cause they need to pee too. He told he would be confused saying transgender person with passing(MTF) in male toilet. He also have a unsual idea of Passing Licences that in his opinion this licence should require the surgery. I don't have contact with any transgender person who had a surgery, but some of these that I know and don't have surgery have 100% passing. Imo stupid idea. Some gender critical people want to ban the surgery.
There is a solution to all of this. Unitary WCs. Each has one toilet, one sink, at least one method for drying hands and at least one sanitary disposal for non-flushable items. Mirror optional. A toilet brush might also be a good idea.
Communal rooms should go the way of the dinosaur.
That way, anyone, regardless of persuasion, intent or comfort level, can use a toilet in peace. And if they want to invite someone else in for safety, so be it.
All the problems with this solution are excuses, and usually not very good ones.
Communal rooms should go the way of the dinosaur.
obliterated by high velocity rocks?
evolved with the times into various forms perfectly adapted to whatever their niche may be.
just like pigeons, owls, crocodiles, finches, etc.
Thankfully, there's an even better, easier, cheaper, and just solution to this as well
Negate the ruling and allow transgender people to use the correct bathroom that is congruent with their gender identity
better
just
it is neither of these
its way better than bathroom bans but defintely not better than unitary wcs
it divides us, is heteronormative, and still excludes some trans people (those for whose identity there is no bathroom for (nonbinary people))
unitary wcs eliminate creeps entirely, segregation provides a flimsy superficial defense against some of them
I believe that communal bathrooms are cheaper to build and maintain, hence we still have them, not because anyone enjoys using them.
More frequently it's individual toilets and shared sinks.
Single-sex toilets and changing rooms in England, Wales and Scotland must exclude transgender men and women, according to a new code of practice from the equalities watchdog.
But the long-awaited guidance also says that businesses and service providers have to offer practical alternatives such as gender-neutral toilets for people who do not wish to use services for their biological sex.
I guess I’m naive to hope that a business would rather convert existing facilities to two multi-sex bathrooms rather than have to build and give up existing space to a third bathroom.
I hate, with a burning passion, the term "biological sex".
We have frankly, no fucking clue how our genetics and gender are intertwined.
We used to think it was "just chromosomes", but then we discovered "biological men" with double-X, or double-X and a Y, or vice-versa.
Or intersex individuals.
Then, we also got to consider that, say, a "biological woman" can transition to a "transgender man", which renders no change to their genes, just hormone levels, and they see physical development, voice deepening, hair growth, etc, just like a "biological man", or vice-versa.
In conclusion, "biological sex" is just another gross simplification created by people who's minds are so pathetic they can't comprehend reality and so choose to live by mantra founded in disproven pseudo-sciences, religion, and other excuses to avoid critical thinking, and then put themselves in positions of power.
Doesn’t sound to me like you know the difference between sex and gender. We do have a pretty solid idea of how genetics and sex are intertwined, including intersex conditions. Gender is a whole different thing.
You're mostly correct, tho the bit about genetics (+++) and sex is a bellcurve meme... There's tons we don't know and a lot of it is a giant interconnected mesh of incredibly complex relationship we barely grasp with very little casual data, and just a tiny bit of epidemiological inference that we can almost try to reason from.
Biological sex is a dogwhistle made digestible to appease the apathetic moderate
What about when you go to the doctor and they need to know what type of organs you were born with instead of what type of clothes you like to wear?
Sex ≠ gender.
It's wrong to try to force "gender" to mean "sex", but trying to force "sex" to mean "gender" is also wrong.
That isn't even a reliable indicator, and it is a discussion between the patient and the doctor and no one else if it even comes up. We have the language to be specific. Besides, doctors don't even know what to do with trans people regardless of gender or surgeries because all medical research on the topic has been blocked, erased, or burned by knuckledraggers
(MTF) When I go to doctors I have to explain to them that if they run my bloodwork as Male, every single damn metric on it is going to be flashing bright red. When it's run as Female, I can get actual data out of it. Also guess who you go to if you have titty problems.
I wasn't saying "organs" was an indicator. Obviously that's not the question on the medical form. I was using it as a placeholder because apparently I'm not allowed to use the term "biological sex." If you rule out the basic term used to describe something, don't be surprised when people use a less reliable descriptor to get the point across.
We have the language to be specific.
Yes, and the language for that is "biological sex." If you go to the doctor, they will ask you for your biological sex. Are you saying every medical questionnaire is really using transphobic dogwhistles?
Besides, doctors don't even know what to do with trans people regardless of gender or surgeries because all medical research on the topic has been blocked, erased, or burned by knuckledraggers
Doctors don't immediately get amnesia when something gets defunded. If a doctor already specialized in gender-affirming care, then they still know as much as they did before this administration shut down new research. If they didn't specialize in it before, then they were already ignorant about it anyway so it's not like this makes them more ignorant.
Using the government to hamper medical research is a bad thing, yes. Giving bigoted doctors an excuse to let their religion or politics influence the care they give is a bad thing too. And so is making doctors who do care have to fear for their medical licenses in order to continue providing medically necessary treatments. But claiming that doctors suddenly don't know what to do is a hyperbole that misses the actual issue.
and if it comes up, it is a discussion between the patient and the doctor and no one else.
I wasn't saying otherwise. You said "biological sex" is a useless concept and nothing but a dogwhistle, so I gave a counterexample of a situation where it's has a legitimate use as a concept.
If a trans man goes to the doctor, it's not transphobic for that doctor to ask if he may be pregnant or when his last period was. That's standard information that doctors ask every patient who has ovaries. When it comes to routine medical exams, gender simply doesn't matter as much as biological sex.
Obviously if someone is on hormone therapy then it changes the indicators and target ranges for lab work. It changes the specific things to mainly look out for, like types of cancers and bone density or cholesterol issues. Having organs removed, whether cis or trans, changes risk factors for a variety of diseases and renders some screenings less necessary. That should all be taken into account, of course, but pretending that "biological sex" is useless in medical contexts is an ignorant take.
And besides, if "biological sex" is such a bogus concept, then what do we even contrast "gender" with in the first place? If those are different things, then each one logically must be something, or else there wouldn't be two different concepts, in which case the two concepts would collapse in on each other and become functionally the same. If you want them to be distinct, then pretending one of them doesn't really exist is counterproductive.
It's like race and ethnicity. Race is a social construct, sure, but nobody takes that to mean ethnicity doesn't exist or is just a useless dogwhistle.
the term "biological sex" doesnt make much sense tho
what are all of those complex medical treatments trans people can get, if not biology? far more advanced and interesting biology at that
and "biological sex" isnt a binary either, 1 in 40 people are intersex, mostly with almost no effect, but not in the binary either
So what do you want to call it then? It's not like I'm attached to the term itself, but the point is that it's a useful and necessary concept in some contexts so there needs to be a term that refers to it, and you can't just assume anyone who uses the most common term to describe it is transphobic.
And I never said it's a binary, but if a person is intersex then that's probably important information for their doctors to know because there may be certain medical complications that they're more at risk for as a result.
I've yet to have any single interaction with a doctor where knowing I was born with a penis has been helpful beyond not having to ask questions like "might you be pregnant?", but so many flags in medical paperwork that just result from them mislabeling me as a male.