Looks correct, but boring as you kept it pretty readable, the total opposite of what a regex should be.

^(?:(?:feddit\.(?:i[te]|uk|org|de|nl))|(?:lemm(?:\.ee|y\.(?:ca(?:fe)?|ml|(?:sdf\.)?org|world|zip|nz|blahaj\.zone|dbzer0\.com)))|(?:sh\.itjust\.works|programming\.dev|sopuli\.xyz|jlai\.lu|aussie\.zone|beehaw\.org|slrpnk\.net))$

I am a weirdo who actually like regex

^(?:(?:feddit.(?:it|ie|uk|org|de|nl))|(?:lemmy.(?:cafe|ml|ca|org|world|zip|nz))|(?:sh.itjust.works|programming.dev|lemm.ee|sopuli.xyz|jlai.lu|lemmy.blahaj.zone|lemmy.dbzer0.com|aussie.zone|beehaw.org|lemmy.sdf.org|slrpnk.net))$

Shout out to my favourite lemmy instance, shmitjust🎃works. Real cool people.

I wouldn’t see an NHS study/report as “politically motivated”, and I don’t think it’s right if that’s the position of this instance. People claim that the science in favour of the COVID-19 vaccine being safe and effective as “politically motivated”. Some claimed that the dangers presented by COVID-19 were actually just politically motivated as well. Some real lunatics claim that science showing the earth is round is “politically motivated”. To me, it kinda just feels the same, I hope you understand. And in a way, I am concerned that an admin is using their rejection of a report that was produced by the National Health Service, and supported by the elected Government and His Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition to write rules.

I don’t know what to say, the Cass review is just a bad piece of medical literature, it wasn’t peer reviewed and Cass herself isn’t even an expert in this area. From a peer-reviewed critique of it:

Using the ROBIS tool, we identified a high risk of bias in each of the systematic reviews driven by unexplained protocol deviations, ambiguous eligibility criteria, inadequate study identification, and the failure to integrate consideration of these limitations into the conclusions derived from the evidence syntheses. We also identified methodological flaws and unsubstantiated claims in the primary research that suggest a double standard in the quality of evidence produced for the Cass report compared to quality appraisal in the systematic reviews.
[…]
We have demonstrated that the Cass report’s application of EBM to GAC for children and young people is deeply flawed. Our critical analysis reveals significant methodological problems in the commissioned systematic reviews and primary research that undermine the validity of the Cass report’s recommendations. During our review of the report and supplementary primary research, we found insufficient statistical rigor, unreliable datasets, claims presented without evidence, and misrepresentation of quotes from primary research participants. These flaws highlight a potential double standard present throughout the review and its subsequent recommendations, where evidence for gender-affirming care is held to a higher standard than the evidence used to support many of the report’s recommendations. Considering this, and the Cass report’s poor understanding of transgender identities and experiences, it is vital to question the integrity and validity of the Review’s recommendations and the appropriateness of basing health policy on them. To uphold its commitment to evidence-based medicine, future gender-affirming care research must generate robust observational data, involve transgender communities, and prioritise patient-centred outcomes, ensuring validity, generalisability, and cultural relevance.

I can understand how with no context my comments look conspiratorial, but come on, my problems with the Cass review are clearly more substantive and based in reality than people who burned down 5G towers over a microchip injection conspiracy.

I do understand that context matters, though. I moderate a religious forum over at lemmy.world (which by the way- faces constant downvote brigading unfortunately), and our policy is to remove any mocking content. That’s just not the place.

That makes sense and I do wish people wouldn’t just downvote a community because they disagree with the idea of it, I hate AI slop with a unrivaled passion but I don’t mass downvote stuff in the “Stable <noun>” communities. Religion isn’t important to me, but it is to many and there should be space for it here.

I appreciate your work in navigating such a landscape - moderating isn’t easy. And I’ll do my best to follow whatever regulations you choose to put in place, regardless if I protest the regulations themselves. This is a good and well-run instance.

Thank you, we set out here from Reddit with big dreams of building a better social media, I just wish better wasn’t such a murky term. I do genuinely believe these guidelines are a part of achieving that.

What are you talking about, giving one of the only programming languages where binary sizes matters a tiny standard library is a great idea!

This is Dragon Age Veilguard.

Is this about protecting the instance though or enforcing an opinion? This wasn’t a problem before Blahaj got upset.

It’s about protecting a vulnerable minority. One in four trans people report experiencing abuse online personally directed at them and hate crime against trans people is at record highs. I don’t want this place to be a contributor to these statistics and I’m going to prioritise the safety of our trans users over some notion of neutrality. That rise in transphobia I mention in the post we have experienced is real and I would’ve introduced these guidelines regardless of if they got use LBZ federation back, I didn’t even know beforehand that it would.

cass report seemed to show

I cannot express how little respect I have for the Cass review, it is a piece of politically motivated sophistry mostly disconnected from the medical science it tied itself in knots to discredit. Like seriously, double blind puberty blocker trials? The participants are going to know they’re on the placebo when they start growing facial hair/tits.

If someone were to be in a hospital, and the nurse needed to know if they were a man or a woman for medical purposes, an AMAB person saying “yes” would be different from an AFAB trans man saying “yes”. I don’t think it’s fair to claim their identity socially is less than or different, or that he is a second class man when it comes to drinking with his mates down the pub.

That just sounds like a bad question on the nurse’s part, they should ask specifically if they’re AMAB or not. I’m AMAB and I’ve been asked if I’m pregnant by nurses plenty of times, even before I realised I was trans, so it’s not like this is out of the norm for the NHS. AMAB/AFAB are also term the NHS uses all over the place.

But if it comes to let’s say, a discussion of men’s rights issues, and it’s someone who started identifying as a man yesterday claiming that male mental health issues are overblown, compared to an AMAB person talking about life being a struggle, wouldn’t there be a difference there, even though it doesn’t make the trans man any less of a man?

That does sound like a lack of intersectionality on the trans man’s part, and sure, a day is hardly long enough to understand the nuances of living as a particular group. I doubt a trans man would do this though, as from my experience, trans people are overly conscious about fitting in.

It also interesting how you frame society’s lack of attentiveness to men’s mental health as a men’s rights issue, would you agree that society’s lack of attentiveness to trans mental health is a trans’ rights issue?

Yes, there is no appropriate place on feddit.uk to discuss if a trans person’s gender identity is less valid than a cis person’s.

The part you quoted was aimed at a Flax’s comment as a whole, who expressed a disinterest in this particular debate.

One, that would be a bad subject for a linguistic philosophy community, and two, no as that’s pretty clearly within the stated definition of transphobia. I’m not going to let bigotry propagate because someone obstinately rule lawyered a comment I made an hour after waking up.

That seems a bit presumptuous? What if someone creates some [email protected] community?

That wouldn’t really change the fact this is a place for discussion of things with other people. It would just be another place to have social discussion, but with a narrower range of topics than, say, an ask-a-question community.

Instance-level rules and guidelines are going to be general purpose.

Yes, feddit.uk.

Damn, Jedward got old.

Some vetting process:

Cllr Broadhurst has previously posted an image to the platform which compared Islamic dress to bin bags.

A now-deleted post on his page included an image of Nazi leader Adolf Hitler saying he would have been a “legend” if he had targeted Muslims.

Apparently the game has AI generated CSAM in it. Something, something, every accusation is a confession.

I’m not sure about all of it and had to remove the racist/sexist stuff, just because I don’t know any software on the fediverse with controversies like this…

Soapbox, a fork of Pleroma, is made by a TERF who previously worked for Gab.

This is pretty categorically not a conservative forum, so I don’t really see your point. If you want to discuss the Biblical definition of man/woman and whether that includes trans people in a theology post then sure? That would be appropriate context.

What do you mean by epistemologically?

I mean that fundamentally, there is nothing more true about a cis person saying they’re a man than a trans person saying they’re a man.

I don’t really think it’s fair equivalence to make. I think it would be transphobic to claim someone is less intelligent or should be penalised in society, although I am probably approaching this with a philosophical/theological view rather than how people should be treated.

I don’t really like the idea of being told how to think about things. I think this is a slight step too far, if it means forcing someone to agree with something they’re not comfortable with agreeing with.

This is a social discussion forum not a linguist philosophy one, the rules and guidelines are going to reflect this. Part of that is setting the boundaries for what opinions are and aren’t acceptable, and what the working definitions of what we consider bigotry are. Saying these opinions aren’t allowed is necessarily going to exclude people who actually believe them.

Besides, epistemologically, there is no reason to see a trans person’s “I’m a man” as less than a cis person’s “I’m a man”. If you want to have these discussions, then you need to do it in an appropriate context. The comment section under a trans article isn’t really the best place as this comes across as trollish and like you’re trying to sneak in transphobia under the guise of philosophy.

Is this really unbiased if it’s what "Twitter lefty shitposter"s think? I’ve found that group to be pretty toxic and malicious, and chosen to avoid that crowd.

That video is mostly an application of Wittgenstein’s idea of family resemblances to the ‘what is a woman’ debate, should be right up your ally if what you want is philosophical discussion.

Depends on which guideline they break. The 41% one will probably be an insta-ban. Others will likely be an initial warning followed by temp bans escalating to a permaban.

Good point, that’s definitely something I see fairly often. I don’t like it myself (also trans), but should be on here.

Use a native app like a mobile client or Blorp if you’re on Mac?

Reminder, the SC didn’t rule that trans people had to be excluded from gender segregated things, only that they could. Labour doesn’t have to do this, they’re choosing to, and even if they did, they’re the fucking government. What is the point of an elective dictatorship if the party of government is going to be so unwilling to actually change anything?