this post was submitted on 18 Dec 2025
336 points (96.7% liked)

World News

51337 readers
2116 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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 !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Children as young as 11 who demonstrate misogynistic behaviour will be taught the difference between pornography and real relationships, as part of a multimillion-pound investment to tackle misogyny in England’s schools, the Guardian understands.

On the eve of the government publishing its long-awaited strategy to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) in a decade, David Lammy told the Guardian that the battle “begins with how we raise our boys”, adding that toxic masculinity and keeping girls and women safe were “bound together”.

As part of the government’s flagship strategy, which was initially expected in the spring, teachers will be able to send young people at risk of causing harm on behavioural courses, and will be trained to intervene if they witness disturbing or worrying behaviour.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip -2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Devils advocate here:

  • trans people are far, far fewer
  • trans people are a lot less socially accepted
  • trans people are not objectively required for the continued existence of a society and/or country
  • trans people make for great social lightning rods because they are so controversial

As for the royal pervert, you know as well as i that nothing will happen in that regard. The man is literally royalty.

[–] onehundredsixtynine@sh.itjust.works 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

trans people are not objectively required for the continued existence of a society

Every person is required for the continued existence of a society. What an absolutely braindead and unhinged take.

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

Okay in case this was not entirely clear, this isnt my opinion, supposedly evident from the term devils advocate. I was merely illustrating the thought processes involved in making women a bigger political priority than trans people.

Leave it to lemmy to read everything in the most antagonistic way possible. Really getting fucking tired of this place

[–] onehundredsixtynine@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

making women a bigger political priority than trans people

Because trans people are famously not "women" or "men", they're simply "trans".

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago

Leave it to lemmy to read everything in the most antagonistic way possible. Really getting fucking tired of this place

Are you trying to prove me right? Lmao

Since i apparently need to justify every fucking grammar choice i made on the shitter, i opted for the terms "trans people" and "women" as a matter of expediency and under the assumption the reader would be making a good faith effort to interpret the words as context suggests.

Also, way to ignore entirely what i said for an opportunity to bitch about phrasing.

[–] onehundredsixtynine@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

this isnt my opinion, supposedly evident from the term devils advocate

"I'm just spreading blatant bigotry under the guise of someone's thought process, why do people think I'm an asshole??? These freak lefties are such snowflakes."

[–] GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

Okay my friend, lets start at the beginning:

  • someone asks, in a thread about misogyny, why the british government doesnt instead do something trans related first before caring about the cis women
  • i respond with the most common and pragmatic political reasons not to do so
  • some twat accuses me of being a bigot over this
  • i point out that i merely responded
  • the twat doubles down on hostile accusations
  • we are here 👈

Can we move on now?

[–] fenrasulfr@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Isn't it former royal pevert now?