this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
19 points (95.2% liked)

Feminism

289 readers
2 users here now

Welcome to the feminism community on Lemmy.World!

Rules:

  1. This is a feminist community, meant for discussing issues around equality and gender. Disagreement is acceptable but anti-feminist statements are not. Similarly, TERF-aligned comments, including anti-trans or other anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments are not allowed. This does not preclude debunking anti-feminist talking points.
  2. Posts must be related to feminism, gender issues, or related content. Topics can include current issues/news, historical topics, personal questions/thoughts, or discussion threads. If you are unsure if your post is on-topic, feel free to message the mods before posting.
  3. Memes and humor are allowed but should not be excessively posted.
  4. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Utilizing such language in your username will also result in a ban.
  5. Follow site-wide rules.

founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
jeffw@lemmy.world
19
What is a woman? Australian court rules in landmark case (www.bbc.com)
submitted 2 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/feminism@lemmy.world
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 12 points 2 months ago

Known as “Tickle vs Giggle”, the case is the first time alleged gender identity discrimination has been heard by the federal court in Australia.

I know this is a serious topic, but it’s really hard to remember that with a name like that

[–] YungOnions@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago

Grover is a self-declared ‘TERF’ - an acronym that stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist.” TERFs’ views on gender identity are widely considered to be hostile to trans people.

This bit feels like it should have been earlier in the article and gives more clarity on the potential reason Grover rejected Tickles application in the first place.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Damn, whoever wrote that seemed upset. I dunno if it was just me but the article seemed disapproving about the ruling. That said, it was written for the BBC, so it wouldn't be surprising if they disapproved.

[–] andrew_s@piefed.social 6 points 2 months ago

I got the same vibe from reading the article - I feel like there was a time when the BBC wouldn't have given so much space to the views of a person who actually just lost a court case over them.

[–] mondoman712@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

Not really surprising from the bbc