mstdn.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
A general-purpose Mastodon server with a 500 character limit. All languages are welcome.

Administered by:

Server stats:

15K
active users

"Nature itself is not natural: nature is
cultural". Or, to put it another way, when you naturalise something, or want to naturalise
or denaturalise something, THAT IS A CULTURAL MOVE. Haraway's way out of this is simply to talk of naturecultures, to say that natures and cultures are entwined (and obviously in implicitly multiple ways). Natures beget cultures beget natures beget
cultures. As a result, "nature" is no longer an authority any more than a culture is. As a
consequence of this, perhaps we need to stop playing authoritarian games about what
counts as final authority in a game of "who is in charge?" and start thinking about
naturecultures as spaces for queer desires to find liberation.

(From "Queer" in my book "Black Seeds" - see pinned)

#queer#trans#lgbtq

"""
Judges at the Supreme Court in London were asked to rule on what that law means by "sex" - whether it means biological sex, or legal, "certificated" sex as defined by the 2004 Gender Recognition Act.
[quoted out of order]
The UK Supreme Court has unanimously backed the biological definition of "woman" under the 2010 Equality Act.
[...]
They said a "certified" definition of sex would weaken protections for lesbians, citing the example of lesbian-only spaces and associations as it would mean that a trans woman who was attracted to women would be classed as a lesbian.
[...]
The judges added: "The practical problems that arise under a certificated sex approach are clear indicators that this interpretation is not correct."
"""

#uk #trans

bbc.com/news/articles/cvg7pqzk

Entrance to the Supreme Court in London, a white brick building covered in ornate carvings, including a big blue sign reading "the Supreme Court"
www.bbc.comSupreme Court to announce ruling on definition of a womanThe Supreme Court is to issue its judgement on how a woman should be defined under the law.

"Wir können dich nicht aufnehmen. Frauen wie du könnten die anderen triggern."

Es ist Doppelmoral, dass die Gesellschaft trans Frauen mit gewalttätigen endo cis Männern gleichsetzt.

Selbst Opfer.

Hätte sie nicht gesagt, das sie trans ist, wäre das nicht passiert. Denkt darüber mal nach.

queer.de/detail.php?article_id

queer.deNicht Frau genug fürs FrauenhausIn einer Notsituation wurde die trans Frau Jessica nach eigenen Angaben vom Frauenhaus Pirmasens abgewiesen. Sie wusste dann nicht mehr wohin. Das hat System. (Politik - Deutschland)

Imagine how many living, breathing, BIOLOGICAL people you'd have to physically ignore with your own eyes (and other senses) in order to insist that "sex is binary".

And that's just even if it was only a matter of "sex" - which it isn't.

Make no excuses for the willfully, legally and politically blind. The are like the crying child frustrated the square peg can't be forced in the round hole.

#trans #nonbinary #queer #lgbtqia #lgbtq #intersex #dsd #

TERFs jubeln - der oberste Gerichtshof in UK (so gesehen England, ging gegen Schottland) hat Geschlecht als rein binär definiert und alle anderen exkludiert.
"Für sie bleibt kein Schutzraum über – wenn sie sich nicht selbst helfen können, sind sie der Gewalt schutzlos ausgeliefert."
queer.de/detail.php?article_id Das obige Zitat bezog sich auf die Abweisung von Schutzsuchenden #trans Frauen. Die laut dem UK Urteil eben keinen Schutz als Frauen genießen sollen. 1/2

queer.deNicht Frau genug fürs FrauenhausIn einer Notsituation wurde die trans Frau Jessica nach eigenen Angaben vom Frauenhaus Pirmasens abgewiesen. Sie wusste dann nicht mehr wohin. Das hat System. (Politik - Deutschland)

"Queer theory, as a body of ethics, values and ideas, has no truck with the essentialist argument. A queer theorist would not argue that "Sexuality X is natural (and so normal) because it is an inherent, essential characteristic of an organism". This, ironically, would put said theorist at odds with some queers who "explain" their queerness by recourse to exactly such an essentialist argument. Sometimes in comments I have posted on social media I have had one or two gay people angrily remonstrating with me if I have said that gayness (I would say the same of transness) is not an inherent biological characteristic of a human being (or, in fact, of anything else). I myself tend towards more social (although not entirely social) answers. These people seem to find an all-consuming value in the idea that they are gay (or trans) simply because they were born gay (or trans) where "gay" (or "trans") is a built-in biological feature they can do nothing about in the same way as they can do nothing about the chromosomes they received either. Essentially, they are saying they are gay and/or trans robots who cannot defeat their genetic pre-programming much like most others are heterosexual and cis robots in exactly the same "locked in" situation.

People like me, however, see all this as a fiction - even if some see it as a necessary fiction - and there are obviously people in the world who do not like to be told that they are
believing a useful story - because they don't like the idea that what they are believing is a "story" in the first place. Instead, they want to believe that other most useful of stories that the story they believe in is real, material, part of the fabric of matter itself. But this is
not queer. This is simply an appeal to nature as authority. It is what Alan Moore has called "Nazi science" in that all eugenicists anywhere ever have thought that people just were things essentially and so that, therefore, what we need to do is eradicate the ones we don't like and keep the ones we do. When you make people into a thing, in their very fabric, you condemn them to a fate (nature) complete with a past and a future and a set of its meanings and values. This is nature as a determinative script. But is that something we should want to do? Should we want to naturalise and essentialise sexuality and gender into things? Or is the queer thing to do in the context of a wild, feral nature of experience something else entirely, something more "natureculture" as (theorist) Donna Haraway puts it?"

(From "Queer" in my book "Black Seeds" - see pinned)

UK Supreme Court: 'Woman' means biological female under law.

The ruling entails that a transgender person with a certificate that recognises them as female should not be considered a woman for equality purposes, since UK law defines a woman as someone born biologically female.

mediafaro.org/article/20250416

People awaiting the ruling outside the Supreme Court in London, UK. | Image: Maja Smiejkowska/REUTERS
DW · UK Supreme Court: 'Woman' means biological female under law.By Ramisha Ali

Saying "woman in law refers to 'biological sex'" is a meaningless statement - because then you have to define - in words rather than in "biology" - what a linguistic definition of that is.

And it is linguistically impossible to do that because no woman who ever lived is made of words. But a linguistic definition can only ever be made of words.

When they tell you its all about biology THEY ARE FULL OF SHIT. Its actually all about how they use words.

#trans#lgbtq#queer

Scottish Government loses the legal case on #gender as the #UK #SupremeCourt rules that the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex.
IMHO: back to the drawing board for lawmakers, but it's really important that this is not used to make life even worse for #trans folks
bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql3

BBC NewsUK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex - live updatesJudges say the "concept of sex is binary" while cautioning that the landmark ruling should not be seen as victory of one side over another.
404Not Found