Seconds after the last human being dies, the Wikipedia page is updated to read:

Humans (Homo sapiens) or modern humans were the most common and widespread species of primate

"Unwomen" rings a bell for me.

I looked it up, and in Margaret Atwood's novel The Handmaid 's Tale, Unwomen were infertile women sent to clean up toxic waste in the colonies.

:(

"Welcome! What brings you to the homeless shelter today?"

"Well, it's that bench. You see, I was choosing the unhoused lifestyle, and I was fine with all the other stigma and physical discomforts, until I realized that the city wants to discourage my presence in public spaces. Fuck these armrests, I decided I'd just come to this shelter, get treatment for my addiction, get counseling for my traumatic past that fed the addiction, get an education, get a job, rent a house, save money, then buy a home instead. It's just not worth trying to get comfy on that bench."

Good points, and I think we generally agree. I definitely didn't mean to exclude anyone in those real or hypothetical situations you mentioned. To me, those examples are more about showing how gender is, or can be, biologically fluid. There are many "odd" situations that aren't binary. So amongst the many unusual ways that sex can occur biologically, "male brain in a female body" or "I reject the concept of gender entirely" are valid and believable.

I agree with your last point as well, but in the context of this post, would you tell Rachel Dolezal that she says she's Black, so she's Black? I guess I was trying to find some sort of difference between gender and race identity, the way the question was posed.

I'm definitely not claiming to have an unassailable argument, so thanks for responding with good points.

Aww, thank you!!

I don't see it as a cage at all.

I know my comment was long, but you haven't answered:

• Why you think that the same people who advocate for services within 15 minutes also advocate for confining people within a certain zone as part of that goal - have they ever said so? Why would they want to do so anyway? What do they get out of it?
• Why you think that traffic calming is a slippery slope to confining vehicles, or all modes of transport, within a certain zone, instead of just trying to balance the ease of access between vehicles and bikes, scooters, skateboards, buses, pedestrians, etc.

If you want to believe in a conspiracy, why not look at the ways in which the auto industry has suppressed other modes of transport, from inventing the term "jaywalking" to suppressing electric trams to building giant highways through poor neighbourhoods?

"oh, Trump wouldn't do that, it's illegal"

Phew, what a relief!

Also, when Trump does illegal stuff, people tend to allow it and obey him. If they try to shut him down using the legal system, he goes ahead and does it anyway.

I kind of just roll my eyes when someone says, "Aha, it's illegal! He can't do that!" We don't really live in that world anymore.

I looked this up and found this information about it:

In its Local Plan 2040, Oxford City Council proposed installing elements from the 15-minute city urban concept in neighborhoods throughout the city over the next 20 years. These plans included proposals to improve accessibility to local shops and other amenities for residents so they didn’t have to always drive. Separately, Oxfordshire County Council announced traffic-reducing measures throughout the city, with infrastructure to encourage car travel around the city by using the ring road rather than already congested roads. Initial opposition to the plans led to proposals to introduce permit schemes to facilitate car travel at certain times, allowing car access to areas that the council planned to restrict to motorists.

First, the article says it was separate. Nobody said, "We are blocking everybody's access to this road because the goal of 15-Minute City is to restrict people and forbid them from leaving their zone."

Second, it was just traffic-calming. They put up some planters blocking roads to vehicles to encourage access by bike, pedestrians, etc. That's not restricting access, that is INCREASING access. By bikes.

They decided that a different, busier road was more appropriate for cars. How on earth does that equate to restricting access? So your car had to drive further, using a big busy road instead of a local quiet street - boo-hoo! This, to you, was a sign that the government wants to confine you to a 15 minute area and never let you leave?

Are the following measures, to you, a sign of nefarious "restricting access"?

• An ambulance can drive the wrong way down the street, but you cannot
• A bus can travel in a bus lane, but you cannot
• A commercial vehicle can park in a loading zone, but you cannot
• A vehicle with several people can travel in a special HOV lane, but you cannot if you are driving alone
• A toll bridge reads your license plate to check if you paid a fee to access that route, and charges you a fine if you did not
• The city takes out a vehicle lane to build a dedicated bike lane and plant some nice shrubs
• The city closes a street temporarily for a neighbourhood block party
• The city installs speed bumps on a quiet street
• The city builds a traffic circle at a quiet intersection
• The city puts up a sign limiting the speed you can travel
• A highway cuts through an existing quiet suburb, meaning your car cannot cross it on a quiet street; you have to use an onramp and get on the busy highway

All of those technically "restrict access" by your seeming definition. Well, at least by vehicle. Is it your assertion that private vehicles reign supreme, and if the government does anything to slow down, discourage, or increase the cost of vehicle travel, it means their future goal is to create walled mini-cities that folks can't leave?

Edit: also, you say that people threatened to hang the city council to get them to renege - are you proud of this? Your "side" is threatening to murder people if they don't govern the way they want, and that's just "being vigilant"? To prevent planters from being placed on a street? What the hell?

It really is. You'd think they'd choose a positive news story.

The eyeballs are a good example. But perhaps an ignorant pro-vag-washing man could retort, "Well, nobody jizzes in my eyeballs!'

Maybe the issue is self-loathing as well as misogyny - they think their cum is disgusting, so they assume it contaminates a vag?

I agree. Many people are imagining, "instead of using his vast wealth to fix the world, he dedicates all his money and mental energy to an elaborate bunker that will ensure his survival in a specific apocalyptic scenario he believes is likely to happen."

It might be more like, "amongst all the random wealthy-person shit he's bought, there are guns and motorcycles (because he thinks they are cool) as well as a pantry full of canned food (because everyone should have an emergency kit and you never know).

But I could be wrong.

Not even a grown-up book! Read a different magical fantasy book aimed at children or teenagers. And see how good those are, too. Many of them were written before Harry Potter.

I do think HP is good at the pacing and mystery aspect of it. The magical world isn't really that alluring, unless you are a 12 year old kid in 2001 who never read another book until now.