That is not an accurate description of how the human sex hormones' traits are embodied, intersex people exist, sex chromosome disorders exist, and conveniently ignoring those people makes the model simpler but denies a more complex underlying truth.
All biological categories are fuzzy around the edges. The existence of small numbers of people on those edges with truly physical intersex conditions in no way invalidates the usefulness of the categories for science, medicine, and our ability to protect the physically weaker of the two.
Yes, the edges are fuzzy but biology and sociology, the 2 domains defining gender, are not one dimensional. There are many ways an individual could step out of the majority cohort with different body, brain or social perception traits. There are many gender determining factors.
Imagine a empathetic, low testosterone and muscle structure male that loves to be a kindergartener. Lets say he develops homosexual tendencies in his 30s and tries to late transition in his 40s. The role he played in society never changed, "he" has always been the same feminine guy caring for children but somewhere in is life, your perception of him changed. At what stage in his life would he fall out or into your category of "protecting of the weak"? What if the same person transotions before puberty and is indistinguishable from a 'real' woman from the outside?
I could keep toying with you by using your simplicity against you, since there are fuzzy edges everywhere.
> stop demanding the world to see you as something you aren’t.
What if its you seeing someone as something they arent?
If you dont like that transwomen want to be called and regarded as "real" women, just remind yourself about the complexity of what a "real" women is and that this person primarily just wants to fit in the role and is satisfied with that social, and not biological, definition of a "real" women.
In essence, the entire topic is about broad category mismatches, human dignity and respect and cognitive biases around out groups and disgust. And no matter how long you keep stare on ot, your dick wont give the full picture.
None of that has anything to do with there being two sexes. There can be two sexes, even if members of those two sexes chose among an infinite variety of ways to express themselves sexually, even if members of those two sexes, sometimes choose to modify their bodies to resemble the opposite sex that they are. It doesn’t change the underlying reality of our species having two immutable sexes.
Pointing of the reality of biological sex does not imply disgust, hatred or even dislike.
It is possible to acknowledge that there are only two biological sexes, while also believing that basic human rights include the right to wear atypical clothing, and the right to body modification, the right to sleep with whoever will have you. These are the rights we can all have and share. They are not in conflict.
> empathetic, low testosterone and muscle structure male that loves to be a kindergartener
I think you are confusing the concept of a biological category, and the concept of a cultural stereotype. Everyone knows that secondary sex characteristics such as height, muscle structure, etc normally distributed (i.e. on a Bell curve) and that the two overlap. The fact that the two overlap does not change the fact that there are two curves, nor does it imply that members of either curve have any requirement to dress or act a certain way.
That said, an adult who “loves to be a kindergartener” is not an indicator of good mental health.
> want to be called and regarded as "real"
women
… however, getting what you want is not a human right. I want to be called and regarded as a real billionaire. That not everyone complies with my desire is not a violation of my human rights.
> That said, an adult who “loves to be a kindergartener” is not an indicator of good mental health
This sentence is insane and reflects on a narrow and egocentric worldview, which is a bad prospect for further conversation.
You think i am not toying with you, because you dont fully grasp my example.
> I think you are confusing the concept of a biological category, and the concept of a cultural stereotype
The feminie kindergartener is a biological male with a female-ish brain. I added one more important dimension besides your genetics/reproductive organs angle. This alone should be enough to make you rethink your clear dichotomy of biological sex and culture/behavior.
Is the development of the brain only biological or only cultural. (This is a trick question. The nature vs nurture debate is decades old and messy but certainly non-binary.)
You can only regard the kindergartener as male, when you exempt all his female traits, including biological ones. Why is this not simplistic or ignorant? And ontop of that, calling such a person mentally ill is just evil to me.
> That said, an adult human who “loves to be a kindergartener” is not an indicator of good mental health.
No mention of male or feminine, simply an observation that an adult of any sex who says they “love being a kindergartener” is not an example of a healthy and well developed adult human.
If you consider my opinion “evil”, an opinion surely shared by 99.9% of humans who’ve ever existed, then I think you’ve got a pretty unique definition of the word evil.
Honestly, I'm from NJ and I'm still shocked they actually charged Gold Bar Bob for what he did. He's so influential in NJ politics, I thought they'd let him get away with it like he did all the other bribes he's taken over the years. I guess literal gold bars from Egypt with obvious provenance was just too on the nose.
Collabora is the blessed one currently, but you can use either, it supports either one, and you can easily swap them. The EuroOffice image will likely default to OnlyOffice, but NC has not announced any plans of switching that to the default. It could change in the future, but I don't foresee them discontinuing support for either if they have any say in it.
They're referencing Trump's constant insistence that we won or are currently winning. He never, ever admits defeat or concedes any ground, everything is a victory, nothing is a loss. Trump also famously said (paraphrasing) "We're gonna win so much, we'll be tired of winning".
Best bet is an adversarial image, which is essentially reversing what a classification algo is looking for to get out the "Most banana-looking image", for example, and then using that. It, to the AI, looks so much like the category it's designed to look like, that all the weights of everything else in the image are too low in comparison and nothing else gets recognized.
You're really playing fast and loose with your definition of war here, you change it depending on the country, but aren't clearly delineating which you're using. So let me ask a question to try to clear this up:
By the US's standard of what is considered a war, is China at war, and have they been at war in the last 10 years? If so, where and when?
Russia obviously has been at war with Ukraine, no question there.
China has been conquering territory from other nations, making it their own, always advancing (even in cases where it makes no sense whatsoever, read some articles about the Vietnamese border). If that is not war, then what is?
People keep saying this and this case from 2000 is the one instance anybody has been able to cite. Most police agencies use standardized domain-specific written exams --- the PELLETB, NTN, IOS --- that are both not general cognitive exams and have no ceiling score.
This really seems like one of those too-perfect Internet myths that just isn't ever going to die. I think the balance of evidence is that if you picked any police department in the US out at random, it would have the opposite of the incentive claimed in your comment, and no ceiling on general cognitive ability whatsoever.
Sure, you can argue that despite being allowed to, most police departments do not discriminate in that way, but the legal precedent provides credence and legitimacy to the stereotype, regardless of its truthfulness, which is what I pointed out. I don't think any real data on this would be available, though, so I think most people (you and I included) just go by vibe, so in the absence of evidence one way or the other, the stereotypes will prevail, regardless of accuracy.
No, they're pointing out the "right" way is also corrupt and the problem is deeper-rooted. It being done plainly is obviously worse, but the corruption runs deeper than just this.
Supposedly DOGE was to fight corruption. We were all going to get checks back!
Not only did they find zero cases of corruption that were referred to prosecution, they ended up costing us MORE money even than they hypothetically “saved”.
That’s before we even add in “stupid wars of choice” to the “savings” mix.
The idea that “well everything is corrupt so it doesn’t matter” really needs to be confronted, especially when it’s so easily dismantled as an argument.
(I agree though that this administration has massive corruption, and see how you were explaining the above, so I’m talking generally.)
reply