I get one of these long hairs on the very top of my ears. It’s weird.

60% less than the last presidential election. The one Biden won.

Stop blaming third parties for the Democrats’ failure to build a coalition within its own party.

It’s been so frustrating to have to put up with Democrats that try to enforce a Republican-style party line instead of building the coalition they need to win.

It’s even more frustrating when they put a hundred times more effort into trying to build a coalition with members of the party they claim to be a threat to Democracy instead of their own left wing.

“Thoughts and Prayers”

Seems a fitting epitaph for America.

Literally all of the third party voters could have voted a straight Democrat ticket and it wouldn’t have affected a single swing state. Third-party voting was down by about 60% versus 2020.

This argument has always struck me as odd as in virtually every other discussion we would accept that the exception ‘proves the rule’.

This is category theory, the existence of exceptions means that the model is incomplete because it cannot categorize everyone. In this case, the exceptions prove that the rule cannot be binary, but must instead be bimodal to allow for the variation seen in the population.

Humans have two hands, except when they don’t due to something impacting fetal development.

Are you defining people without two hands as non-human, or are you admitting that defining humanity as exclusively two-handed will necessarily fail to account for all the exceptions to the rule?

Or just let the exceptions be exceptions with no social stigma rather than refusing to recognise that the vast majority of humans, and mammals, can be accurately identified as one of two distinct sexes.

Again, this is category theory. Exceptions mean you have forgotten to account for someone. Admitting that some people don’t fit neatly into the only two boxes you’ll recognize as legitimate is itself a form of social stigma that you perpetuate with your desire to “let exceptions be exceptions”.

All you have to do is recognize the obverse, that regardless of how vast the majority of allosexual folks and critters might be, it is not the totality.

Reality isn’t even objective, relativity is the rule.

Also, we can’t even impose a religion’s brand of morality on its own priests, why would you pretend that doing so globally would even be possible?

I use Masa Harina, that same Mexican corn flour that’s used to make tortillas.

Don’t discuss plans on a public forum, do it in person, in private, in a room with no cell phomes or smart devices.

There was never any democracy here to save, and no way to make it sustainable without tearing down the constitution and starting over, and no way to hold a new constitutional convention that wouldn’t be poisoned by money and power from the start.

an AI market that’s projected to reach $1.3 trillion by 2032.

I wish there was a way to short an entire industry., I could get rich on betting against techbro hype.

I think I was fairly clear, it is a binary system that has some rare exceptions.

You are describing a “Bimodal Distribution”, where most but not all fall into one of two categories.

If it were a binary system, there would be no exceptions.

Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females.

In healthy examples of mammals where development has occurred normally this is true.

Intersex mammals aren’t “unhealthy”, they’re simply different.

This whole ‘its a spectrum’ argument is like saying humans aren’t bipedal, there’s a spectrum because some people are born without legs! It doesn’t make any sense.

That doesn’t mean that society should refuse to accept, include and support people born without the ability to walk.

Make up your mind, are people who are not bipedal still human?

If they are, then obviously humanity is not exclusively bipedal and attempting to define us as such will cause problems with everyone from non-bipedal infants to the non-bipedal elderly and disabled folks of all ages.

Depends on what sort of god you are. Most are harmless, but the malicious ones get Nietzche’d.

Why does morality have to be objective to keep you from raping animals?

Then where do they come from, if there’s no objective morality.

They come from people, of course. Here’s a history lesson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jurisprudence#History

Not true, abortion is becoming rampant because political factions are trying to change a moral fact.

False, abortion rates in the US have been in decline since the 80’s:

Hey @1984@lemmy.today, did you forget about me?

Who are you talking about that is insisting there can be no deviation from the norm?

Right-wingers, the only people who have ever had a problem with diversity.

Banning words and discussions is absolutely the wrong way to go.

I’m confused about what you mean, because the only people doing that are the “Don’t Say Gay” Florida Republicans.

And my point is very simple. Don’t ban words.

I get the feeling that you’re going to be angry when I point out that the only people banning words are the ones who want to make it illegal to teach kids that people like me exist.

Have open discussions. Don’t support censorship of opinions or words.

Make up your mind, do you want to actually have open discussions or do you think that avoiding censorship of the “opinions and words” of discriminatory groups is more important than the presence of the groups they discriminate against?

Stop trying to control what people should think, and stop trying to teach them what you think is right.

…

What do you think “teaching” is?

But I think instead of trying to change words and ban conversations, maybe it’s better to teach people to accept and even enjoy more variations?

This is naive.

How are we supposed to teach people to accept variation when they insist that there can be no deviation from the norm?

Because right now it’s a bit ridiculous. We are told to ignore obvious differences between people so nobody feels marginalized.

I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. Just a moment ago you were complaining that the language we use to talk about this topic was a problem, now we’re supposedly telling people not to talk about it? Pick a lane!

I think it’s fine that everyone gets to say what their gender is, as long as the archetypal roles stay the same - man or female.

But otherwise, sure, people can define their gender how they like.

I’m noticing a contradiction here.

Gender can be a word for how people define themselves, as long as we instead use “archetypal roles” to define what our physical body looks like.

And for those of us who don’t fit those archetypes?

I think what is frustrating is when people start to say that we shouldn’t include our physical body type at all in discussions. That’s taking it too far in my opinion.

Generally, it is considered impolite to talk to strangers about one’s genitals.

Going to the doctor and not telling what body type you are makes diagnosis impossible in same cases.

The medical setting is one of the few contexts where talking about one’s anatomy isn’t considered a faux pas.

And for what reason? That part doesn’t make any sense to me.

Do you want the historical explanation of how puritainism affected our culture?

Race, body type, and other things are important to know in many cases.

They’re relevant a lot less often than you’d think.

I’ll take this as a good faith question, and the short answer is that gender is a lot more complicated than that.

Yes there are two archetypal roles involved in sexual reproduction, but even that isn’t so simple. There isn’t just one feature that defines male or female, but a combination of traits including chromosomes, gametes, anatomy, hormones, etc. In the real world, some folks are born with features that don’t all agree with one or another archetype. Intersex people aren’t common, about 1 in 2,000, but their existence proves that sex isn’t just a binary. There’s diversity to sex that requires a more complicated scheme to account for everybody.

Gender, likewise, doesn’t follow the one-or-the-other model. Most folks are cisgender, but some folks have a gender that doesn’t agree with what people assume their sex is, or no gender at all, or a gender that doesn’t fit into the man/woman spectrum. It gets complicated quickly because gender is where sex and society intersect. Some cultures have different expectations based on gender, and some even have more than two recognized genders. That’s why we say “gender is a social construct”, because we all get to define for ourselves what it means to be a man, woman, or otherwise. And that’s also how gender is constructed, it’s a social project we all engage in collectively whether we realize it or not. Most just pass along the traditional gender roles that were passed to them, but those can change rather rapidly as society changes, like when clean-shaven faces became “manly” in response to WW1 soldiers having to shave so that their gas masks could maintain a good seal.