you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]BEB[S] 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Did you get the sense that the person who wrote the title was a bit snarky? By which I mean the wording, "redefines sex as non-biological" seems to be a little deadpan.

So maybe that's a tiny step forward because most US journalists fall right in line with gender woo woo.

[–][deleted] 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'd like to think there is a hint of snarkiness and maybe a little understanding of where we're coming from. I don't put hope into this though, it's just one person and the subtlety may have snuck past the editors.

in an effort to prevent “discrimination”

I noticed the quotes

sexual identity, rather than simply banning discrimination based on biological sex ...

"sexual identity, rather than" ... the wording feels deliberate

may decide to fight the disputes in court for a number of reasons, including to control cost via a medical necessity determination and to prevent controversial medical procedures from being performed in the state

"control cost via a medical necessity" and "controversial medical procedures"

I don't know who the journalist Caroline Downey is, but I think you're right that she probably gets it. If Yahoo as a tech-corporation jumps the shark and starts combating this, I will absolutely eat my words and start supporting them.

[–]BEB[S] 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I was shocked that Yahoo published this article because of the snark.

Maybe the editors are too up their own asses to see it, or maybe gender discourse has become so insane that even if sincere it sounds like snark.

There was a Reuters article recently that also seemed like the author was being snarky. I would hate to be a journalist right now and have to go along with the Flat Earthism of the Left AKA Genderology.