World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
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. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating 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 10/19
-
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Remeber how when there was a fight for gay marriage a good portion of people said they didnt mind the legal concept and just wanted to call it "civil unions" and we totally did that as a first step to placate those people before going full on equal marriage...
I wonder why the approach to trans rights has been so all or nothing with people It seems like there is no real desire for progress from eithet side the way things stand now.
Well, that whole civil union thing didn't really work out so well and those same people were still (and are still) homophobic to the extreme so why give them anything? They are clearly not interested in compromises anyway.
And why the fuck is there a compromise position at all? Bigots don't have a right to discriminate against people. If they don't want to get on board they can fuck off.
What happens when that attitude ends up creating more biggots and we find ourselves even more outnumbered. I dont know what the best solution is but surely its not to alienate a full third of the entire population and expect that to work out well for everyone.
On a personal one to one level i do agree they can fuck off. But from an observing the reality of living in a country that just elected a fascist, im worried all the demanding people accept things they disagree with lest they be shunned, its just going to lead to more pushback against trans and other vulnerable people.
A full third of the population is already alienated. It's not working well for anyone. I'm simply saying we should leave a full third behind in the dust if they don't want to give up bigotry. These people are not helpless, they know that they're wrong, and they're doing this shit anyway. Compromising with them is exactly why we elected a fascist.
And to be clear, conservatives drove this, they had a million opportunities to turn around, and refused every time. I'm not the one who brought us here.
Again i agree with this 100% on a personal level, my concern is just that it seems like that third is growing and the other side is shrinking due to increasing in fighting. Im not really sure what the solution for that is, i just think its a bad trend and leads to more hostility.
It certainly did work out in many countries, which transitioned from it to Marriage for all in the end
Thanks to the people who were in favor of marriage equality in the first place, not thanks to the bigots who wanted "civil unions" instead. Those are even more vicious in their bigotry these days.
How didnt it work out? It lead to eventually getting marriage equality world wide, in large part because those first states tried to do civil unions.
By your logic, when they freed the slaves, they really should've done it slowly instead of all at once, because look how many racists it made!
Or was civil rights too fast as well?
Im not sure you have my logic correct... Im not saying we should do things slower, im saying its concerning how black or white everything has gotten, everyone has purity tests and if you dont pass you arent worth engaging with and im concerned that will have a lot of negative consequences and lead to increased hostility.
I am sharing an observation, not suggesting a solution. I am saying the way things are is concering and while i hope for a positive outcome (one where people are accepted for who they are) i see a lot more pushback than acceptance with the current strategy/mindset.
What is there to compromise here? Every building with gendered facilities has to build a third set of toilets for trans people? The government has to build a third set of prisons for trans people?
An example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women.This is not an extreme or hateful idea. Other issues like sports or bathrooms can still be nuanced discussions that acknowledge peoples concerns and work to educate rather then alienate. Acceptice means different things to different people and it wont come all at once.
To compare a similar example imagine someone who comes out as gay to parents in the 90s: strict chrisitan parents might kick them out of the house and never speak to them again, - OR- they could be the type of conservative parents who say "well i dont agree with it but i still love you". Whch would you rather have? Which one would potentially lead to a potentially better outcome/changed mind?
It seems to me that completely alienating people who have reasonable objections to relatively new ideas is not the best way to go.
That didn't answer the question you replied to, and didn't actually say anything. What does that all look like in real world terms in your mind? How does this "compromise" manifest? I'm guessing that it involves putting trans folk in harms way...
They asked "What is there to compronise" and i answered "an example of compromise would be to acknowledge that trans women are biologically different from cis women"...
Its called agreeing to disagee, have civil discussions with people who you might actually find you have more in common with then you disagree on and minds can be moved that way.
This whole all or nothing approach is just turning more people away, you want to talk about putting trans folk in harms way, but what happend to just wanting to be able to live a normal life?
I guess when you are in your own bubble its hard to see other perpectives, but surely you dont honestly think if you surveyed a random set of a few hundred people, the majority of them would not be on the same page about any trans rights issues, insulting or chastising them wont win them over and will only cause more resentment against trans people.
Literally no one thinks cis women and trans women are the same, so your compromise doesn't mean anything in and of itself.
I'm asking you what your position means in real world terms. What are the consequences of these differences? Because that's what really matters.
Feigned outrage because I asked you for specifics seems counter to your stated goals of reaching compromise and makes me question your motives.
For instance, if someone expresses concerns about safety in locker rooms, a helpful response might be: "Can we find a way to ensure women's safety without assuming all trans people are a threat?"
Engaging in good faith helps ensure that passive observers see reasoned, respectful dialogue not just the loudest or most disingenuous voices.
"I think people should have respect" isn't something you can say when the thing that follows is a list of arguments to exclude those very same people.
Even your framing highlights why trans folk are so frustrated. You talk about women's safety, as if trans women aren't part of that discussion, and on top of that, you completely brush over the fact that trans women are even more likely to be victims of violence and sexual assault than cis women.
And your response is that trans folk should just be OK with that, they should just compromise by accepting that their needs are viewed as less important than the needs of cis folk, and just silently accept exclusion.
The truth is, rights are won through social push back and confrontation. They are fought for, because they don't just get handed over otherwise. Especially when there is political capital in exclusion.
I'm also going to highlight that despite engaging with you in good faith, you almost certainly haven't become more accepting, and in fact have most likely become more entrenched in your position as you consider comebacks to my points.
That's why
Just to clarify, I’m not disagreeing with you. My concern is about how certain approaches on all sides of complex issues can unintentionally lead to greater pushback. I’m not saying people shouldn’t push back at all, but rather that the "all or nothing" mentality often shuts down meaningful dialogue and hinders progress.
My original point was an observation, not a prescription. I'm reflecting on how discourse today feels more polarized compared to the more incremental, dialogue-driven progress we saw during earlier movements like gay rights 20–30 years ago or civil rights 50–60 years ago.
You do. You are suggesting that trans people should offer to exclude themselves and give up our rights, because demanding equality is too much.
Giving up some of our rights, rights that everyone else has, to appease the folk who enjoy those rights, when we are the ones more at risk of violence, and exclusion is not a viable middle ground like you seem to be implying it is.
Your framing of that as "all or nothing" means I very much disagree with you. You may think trans folk deserve rights and dignity, but you don't believe trans people deserve the same rights as cis people
Just to be clear AGAIN I'm not suggesting trans people should give anything up, nor that seeking equality is "too much." That’s a misrepresentation of what I said. My original point was observational, not prescriptive. I was commenting on how polarized discourse has become, especially compared to previous civil rights movements, like the fight for gay rights in the 90s and 2000s.
I'm not arguing against pushing for rights or progress. On the contrary, I support continuing that fight wholeheartedly. My concern is about how infighting and rigid framing can stall progress and alienate allies. That’s the issue I was trying to highlight.
Yes there is. I asked you what you think compromise looks like in real world terms
You replied with this
That is quite explicitly a suggestion. Or rather, two suggestions.
In this suggestion, you use the word "women" as if it doesn't apply to trans women. ie, you say "women's safety" when you clearly means cis women's safety. Dangerous, because it normalises the attack on trans women that they aren't women. And dangerous because it implies that trans women are a risk to cis women, when in fact, trans women are more at risk of sexual assault and violence than cis women are! There is danger here, but it's not coming from the trans women, and framing it as if it is, and as if that is something that should be compromised on is dangerous to trans people.
There is no compromise, when that compromise involves having our safety ignored, and our rights rolled back. That's not compromise.
when I offered examples earlier, I wasn’t endorsing those views I was referencing arguments I’ve heard others make. Sharing an example doesn’t mean I personally support it, any more than mentioning a conspiracy theory means I believe in it.
When I mentioned “women’s safety,” I was reflecting how some cis women frame their concerns not my own view. Many of them aren’t transphobic, but simply misinformed or exposed to fear-based narratives, often through social media and sensationalist news. That’s part of why I left platforms like Facebook it was full of that kind of rhetoric even in unrelated spaces.
I absolutely understand if some people don’t want to engage with those views. But I do believe there’s value in having allies who are willing to engage in good faith, challenge misconceptions, and bring people closer to understanding and empathy especially in a climate where trans rights (and many others) are under attack.
This isn’t about compromising trans safety or dignity. It’s about strategy and outreach—about trying to build broader coalitions and prevent further regression. We may not change everyone’s mind, but we can still work to prevent them from siding with those who want to strip rights away entirely. In that, we’re all on the same side.
I very much understand that. However, this conversation is a classic example of the fact that even being told those statistics and having the context made clear, doesn't actually change anything.
There are. Lots of them! It's why I am defensive with you, because despite the existence of folk like that, you don't see them, and instead categorise trans people as largely being "all or nothing". You are part of the group you were just talking about. The group that isn't exposed to the right content, and instead, only knows what they see in an actively transphobic media and social media environment.
And as I said earlier, you won't shift your opinion, you won't ease off and stop fighting me, to become one of those people that helps trans folk. Instead, you'll fight me, for daring to take issue with your framing of the situation, whilst blaming me for it at the same time.
That's our common ground right there. Yet instead of talking about that, you're suggesting that actually, giving in and being ok with some of those rollbacks might be ok, as long as its trans people!
If you want allyship against facism, focus on the facism, rather than demanding that your allies capitulate to it
You keep putting words in my mouth, at what point did i suggest rolling back rights for anyone?
It seems like you are just looking to be offended, good luck with that, ill leave you to your strawmen.
When you said we should accept our removal from sports, and that we should be open to exclusion from the ability to use bathrooms in public.
As I said though, this conversation is an example of why you don't see the behaviour you're asking for. It's because the responses always look like yours.
Just to correct the record:
I’m not in favor of excluding trans people from sports. That said, I also recognize that access to sports especially at a competitive level isn’t a guaranteed right, and has always been limited to the relatively privileged.
As for bathrooms, I believe all public restrooms should be either gender-neutral or single-occupancy to better ensure safety, privacy, and inclusion for everyone.
The right being lost isn't the right to play sports. It's the right to equality.
And it's great that your for something that isn't going to happen in our lifetimes. But in the mean time, trans people have to navigate the situation we do have.
Yeah exactly so nothing i mentioned was actually rolling anything back, trans people never had equality, women never had equality, minorities do not have equality. You will never have equality under a capitalist system unless you have the $$$ and lawyers to backup your demands for it,.
But please keep being loud about how everyone who disagrees with you is trying to take away your rights (the ones you never had to begin with) and making up strawmen to argue with so you don't have to address anything in reality. I'm sure you'll make progress any day now with that attitude.
Goddamn you're a clown
It is also not in dispute.
What is in dispute is sometimes the extent of those differences, but is usually whether those differences are relevant at all.
Opposition to trans rights generally comes from three motivating factors:
Let's take trans women in sports as an example. There is - for sure - a small number of people who will argue that that anyone who identifies as a woman should be able to compete as a woman in any circumstances, but this is not a mainstream position, even in the trans community. The mainstream position is that trans women should be generally be allowed to compete as women in competition after some suitable amount of time on hormone replacement therapy.
This is because strength is not stored in the balls or in the genes; the difference in strength between cis men and cis women is a result of the effect of testosterone on the muscles, and the presence of testosterone needs to be maintained in order to maintain those muscular differences. Such studies that there are seem to suggest that trans women tend not to have any advantage over cis women after a year or two on HRT when controlling for differences in height.
Some people who are hostile to trans women in sport are unaware of this and think that strength advantages are permanent, and when you explain the reasons that they aren't then those people may become less hostile to the concept. Maybe they have doubts about the specific studies or want there to be more research for any given sport or whatever, but that is the region in which compromise is possible. But maybe they'll just start pulling further justifications out of their arse.
However, the debate is mostly populated by people who pretend to care about biological differences, but in reality simply object to any concession that trans women are in any way women. Anyone who claims that men are biologically better than women at chess or darts is fundamentally unserious. The film Lady Ballers came about when someone at the Daily Wire suggested that they make a documentary about men identifying as women so they can compete against women. When they found out that actually, that's not a thing that happens and there are requirements that you have to meet, did they let that stop them? No, they just wrote a fictional film about it instead because they object to trans women being treated as women for ideological reasons, and they want to poison the well by persuading people that it is a thing that happens.
How do you compromise with that? How do you compromise with someone who objects to a trans woman competing as a woman in a chess competition because they fundamentally object to the premise that a trans woman is in any way a woman?
First off, thank you for taking the time for an execellent response. This is pretty much the kind of compromise im talking about, you acknowledge there are people with genuine concerns, but the vocal majority are acting in bad faith. You didnt just say anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot, you brought more information to backup your positions.
Honestly, i am with you 100% on everything you mentioned already. The reason im posting the question like this is because sadly it seems my partner of 16 years, has fallen down the Jk Rowling rabbit hole, and i know for a fact my wife does not hate trans women, but also wants "women only spaces" because on facebook and twitter you basically get nothing but hateful stuff vaguely disguised as "safety” or fairness concerns. Its not exactly easy to convince a 49 year old life long feminist that they are falling for propaganda.
Its one thing when to have this kind of disagreement with random internet people, and quiet another to have it with someone you respect and care about. The point is conversations can and should be had. If its mostly bad faith actors being vocal with fake concerns, why not respond with something that has genuine aswers to those concerns, like what you did here so that the people who do have good faith concerns but arent speaking up dont get overwhelmed by only seeing the bad faith side of things?