This post links unrelated trade disputes, infrastructure policy, and China anxiety into a single apocalyptic narrative where hockey itself somehow becomes collateral damage. The absence of causal logic, evidence, or institutional reality pushes it from ordinary political exaggeration into full schizopol flair world.
https://redlib.catsarch.com/r/stupidpol/comments/1r0fdcl/noam_and_jeff/
I know we’ve all seen the e-mails and know that Epstein was functionally illiterate, but still…😆
Now Imane Khelif is admitting it directly:
In an interview with a French sports daily, the 26-year-old Algerian, who has been the target of repeated attacks, confirms that she has the SRY gene and took treatment to lower her testosterone levels in order to compete.
This is not the case of female XY, and so Khelif is biologically male.
This is often a point of confusion, but human sex is binary. There's edge cases that require clarification as to how they fit into the binary, but don't disprove it.
Human sexuality overall is complex and that's why we differentiate gender from sex. The sex binary and gender spectrum complement each other though, and don't clash.
If you're interested in learning more, here's some background reading:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonochorism
We fall into that category, where we have two body plans, each organized around producing either sperm or ova. Other species have more body plans, such as recognizably distinct males, females, and hermaphrodites:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trioecy
Those species are a good contrast. Humans don't have that variation, and so sex is binary in humans.
There's literature that explains this specifically in detail, though most of it doesn't really explicitly talk about it, much like math papers don't generally explain that integers can be added together.
Male seahorse get pregnant, but that doesn't make them trans, they're unambiguously male. This is a great example of why sex is defined by gamete size. If it weren't, we couldn't talk about males and females in any useful way across the animal kingdom.
Clownfish would be a better example as they're sequential hermaphrodites, but that doesn't have any bearing on the human sex binary.
I disagree with everything you've said, but upvoted because you answered the question.
The law states that “reproductive cancer of any type” be covered. Officials added male breast cancer under that category after a working group of experts reviewed the science. The decision noted “the marked similarity of male and female breast cancer.”
The Trump administration’s memo argues that designation is a mistake. “The Biden Administration falsely classified male breasts as reproductive organs,” Kasperowicz said in his statement to ProPublica.
A former official who was involved in the VA’s decision last year said that while there were discussions about how to interpret “reproductive cancer,” the scientific consensus among VA oncologists was clear. “The evidence showed that male and female breast tissue respond similarly to toxic exposures and share nearly identical biological and mutational profiles,” said the former official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, citing concern for his job prospects in government. “Expanding coverage to male breast cancer was the right call.”
Rosie Torres, who advocated for the PACT Act after her husband became sick, said the current administration is putting politics above patriotism and people. “It shouldn’t matter who signed the bill,” Torres said, referring to Biden. “If you don’t like the ‘reproductive’ word, do it under another category. Don’t remove it. These are peoples’ lives.”
That's a dumb technicality. Wonder if they're really that dumb, or this was pushed through because someone's benefiting from denying care. The right thing to do if you want to "well aktually" the term "reproductive cancer" would be to figure out how to cover it under whatever term brings you joy, not just leave them to die.
Far fewer people hate AI in the general population as a percentage than on Lemmy. Your average person either doesn't care or has found it useful in some way.
Right, "equivalent to" in the sense that legs are "equivalent to" fins in that they provide locomotion.
Not quite - mating types aren't sex (though the post confuses them). Their gametes are the same size (isogamy), so it's called mating types. Humans have gametes of different sizes, so we have sexes.
It can be true that something is both an important right and used unethically by people that don't actually care about the topic. See Rainbow capitalism as a very related example. Nutomic is right that identity politics are used to create division among the working class, because anything that can create division will be used to do so.
The "people will never vote for a woman" crowd is sort of right. A woman will never be elected with the current DNC, but only because they view a woman candidate as an excuse to be shittier. They think their base will hold their nose and vote for a worse candidate just because of what's in her pants.
AOC might get elected because she's interesting on her own merits and has enough name recognition to not be buried by the DNC. They'll do their best to prevent it though.
No thanks. There's some minor benefit in knowing the lingo, like there is for any other woo, but most people haven't read the source material and quoting it at them won't accomplish anything.