stoneparchment

GLAAD's Accelerating Acceptance is the most comprehensive survey we have to determine changes in public sentiment about LGBTQ+ acceptance. It's literally what I cite when writing research papers about queer issues. The difference is absolutely believable, and they validated the results with sampling bias in mind. There is no reason for you to cast doubt on the result like this, and it reads as disengenuine for you to do so.

Also, you don't get to decide what queer lives deserve to be in articles about LGBTQ+ people. Thankfully.

I don't think that's how this usually works?

IANAL and also I'm a dumbass but from when I've participated in these things in the past (and therefore when I've read the fine print), by the time they're soliciting claims they have already gone through the entire process of confirming that the lawsuit is valid and deciding how much the company owes as a settlement. So once it reaches this point, the amount the company pays is already known, and it's just equally divided among all the people with standing who file a claim.

So yeah, file a claim, because that's your money that you deserve because you have standing. But if you don't file a claim, everyone who did will just get a slightly larger amount of money

The point this guy is trying to make is that people are conflating Israel, Judaism, and Zionism in ways that don't always make sense

Like, the polls you're quoting are sentiments of Israelis, so this guy (and the vast majority of Jewish people in the world) are not included in those polls.

Even within Israel, that's, what, 3-4 million people that disagree with that sentiment? And Israelis are only ~73% Jewish anyway?

On top of that, tons of zionists arent even Jewish, they are even likely to be antisemitic tbh.

So.. what you said sounds a lot like "I don't have anything against one particular group, but the sentiment of the citizens of this one country makes me second guess the perspective of a person in a totally different country just because they share one dimension of identity"... In essence, it sounds a lot like prejudice

(free palestine, in case that isn't obvious)

because the very first thing you say in this post basically amounts to "I think I have the authority to decide the basis on which we determine who deserves to vote"

like, yeah, most people can navigate to their secretary of state websites. And it's not really your responsibility to have to link the pages anyway.

But doing it for that reason aligns you philosophically with people who think that the illiterate, the elderly, the poor, the disabled, the critically ill, etc. somehow don't deserve to vote. It aligns you ideologically with other people who think they can decide who deserves to vote, with people who want to disenfranchise others-- in essence, it aligns you ideologically with many Republicans

Using Jesus as a reference is unfortunate, yeah, but any other world calendars have to pick a nearly equally arbitrary way to contextualize the start and end year.

Take your pick: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Year_in_various_calendars

I personally use "2024 CE" for "common era", with BCE referring to "before common era". This allows us to communicate relatively clearly with other people who use the Gregorian calendar without explicitly endorsing the birth of Jesus as the important event defining the switch-over between CE and BCE... A bit of a cop out, but

Anyway have fun, there are lots of options

Edit: also the one you're referring to in your post is the Holocene Calendar

I don't think you're wrong, but I think this might be over simplifying.

For one thing, in the USA, our building codes and standard methods for making apartments makes it very difficult and space inefficient to make apartments with enough bedrooms for families. Affording a SFH is only so desirable because there aren't apartments big enough for families to grow into, and while moving to a rural area might allow for enough living space, now the family has to figure out how to have a job that supports them.

For another, we don't make as many apartment-like buildings you can own part of. This deincentivizes staying in apartments, because with the way our real estate economy is structured, owning any real property is one of the best ways to secure a spot in the middle class.

Another aspect-- a lot of desirable places to live have populations that literally and directly state they don't want to build more dense housing, they don't want people who can't afford the sfhs to live there. It's not just about pricing people out of homeownership, it's literally trying to gatekeep access to specific towns by class. Plenty of people would gladly accept living there even without SFHs, so the housing shortage is not caused by the people who want houses, and is instead caused by the people who don't want apartments next to their houses.

It's also like, if they made $29,000/year before plus $12,000 during the study, they're still making less than someone with a full time job making $20/hour.

$20/hour felt AMAZING as a promotion to a broke-ass food service 20-something, and is a hell of a lot better than $29,000/year-- but having been in that pay-range before, 100% of that increase is going towards stability and comfort stuff.

Imagine-- you can afford more than just scraping by on rent! Wow, what if I can buy a video game?! You mean I can actually say yes when my friend invites me out for a drink this month??? I CAN BUY THE NICE CHICKEN NUGGETS???

Like, damn, of course they aren't like, "starting an entrepreneurial endeavor", they're still broke as hell. The might work a little less, but maybe that's because they're like, taking time off when they're sick, where before they would power through to afford rent? Or maybe they will feel more like they can call off work to help for family or friend emergencies? Like it's pretty obvious that this UBI amount still falls into the category of bringing people out of poverty stress into "normal human decision making" mode, not like into "has the space to be able to dream about visionary possibilities" mode

I'm trans

I don't support murder

Not of 80 year old Trump supporters, not of anyone

Absolutely!

Two eggs:

Booth et al. (2014). "New insights on facultative parthenogensis in pythons". Biological Journal of Linnean Society, 112(3)461-468

Two sperm:

Tinti, F. and Scali, V. (1992). "Genome exclusion and gametic DAPI-DNA content in the hybridogenetic Bacillus rossius-- grandii benazzii complex (Insecta Phasmatodea)". Molecular reproduction and development, 33(3)235-242

One egg:

Ryder et al. (2021). "Facultative parthenogensis in California Condors". Journal of Heredity, 112(7)569-574

One sperm (surprised me too!):

Heesch et al. (2021). Evolution of life cycles and reproductive traits: insights from the brown algae." Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 34(7)992-1009

These examples are non-exhaustive (so many parthenogensis examples!) so if you want to know more, or if you're interested in learning about the increased reproductive fitness post-homosexual mating activities, no one primary publication will give you a complete picture. I recommended reading the book I mentioned-- Evolution's Rainbow by Joan Roughgarden-- because it details this in ways I can't summarize in a social media comment.

I will have a PhD in molecular, cellular, and developmental biology. I have publications in epigenetics/chromatin/gene regulation and similar fields. I also research equity in the sciences, and one specific research focus is inequity for LGBTQ+ individuals in STEM. Therefore, I have expertise in these social issues as well as the biological ones. I will have a certificate added to my PhD in biology that validates this expertise in LGBTQ+ justice and social research methods.

I just want to be clear (not to this person but to anyone reading) that they are wrong.

They are assuming what they will read as evidence in books and literature. It's frankly kind of astonishing that I can say "I'm an expert, I'm a biologist, and trans women are women with tons of biological evidence for that validity" and then have this person say "AH but the SCIENCE says I'm right, you just have FEELINGS!"

To be clear, the science says I'm right, the feelings are irrelevant. Toodles!

This is the last comment I will make to you.

Those who carefully read my previous replies will notice that I absolutely did not step over this question. The book I recommended details more than just animal and ecological examples, it also addresses physiological differences people of different sexes, sexual orientations, and gender identities.

Here's the truth: the binary categories of male and female are not simple biological ones. Organisms cannot be neatly categorized as male or female, including humans. To put humans into these boxes is to ignore huge grey areas in our understanding of the biology underlying these traits. Even among XX or XY individuals, sex characteristics are polygenic and vary continuously, meaning that even looking at a person's karyotype (which, you should understand, we hardly ever do) you could not reliably predict the appearance of external genitalia, the presence or absence of other sex characteristics like body hair or breasts, or the identity or orientation of a person.

Although I do not personally believe that having an underlying biological justification is necessary for a trans woman to be a valid woman, there definitely are physiological and biological realities that validate her experiences. Moreover, I don't think we determine womanhood by biology at all-- for example, a XY human with complete androgen insensitivity would likely not even know HERSELF that she had a Y-chromosome, perhaps for her whole life, and you-- a random person on the street-- would be absolutely unable to tell.

If the question is, then, is there natural precedent for an organism's sex chromosomes to be unpredictive of their sex characteristics or social roles? The answer is YES, unequivocally. If the question is, is there natural precedent for organisms to be able to intentionally change their sex? The answer is YES, absolutely. If the question is, is there natural precedent for organisms to have a social role that does not match the standard for individuals of their sex? The answer is also YES, 100%, certainly.

Thus, if the question is, are trans people representative of the norms of nature and the biological sciences? The answer is: You fucken BET.

Anyone who claims that trans women are somehow categorically distinct from other women is ignoring how loose the boundaries of womanhood already are. They are trying to twist the facts present under close examination of the biological world to fit their own human social narrative of gender essentialism. The facts of biology are absolutely on the side of trans individuals, this is the consensus among researchers-- and it is being ignored for political purposes in the same way the consensus among researchers on climate change is being ignored.

Like I said, I don't have all day to engage on this, especially since almost everyone talking about trans people in relation to biological essentialism is not engaging in the discussion in good faith. The take home message is this: if you are earnestly wanting to understand what biological science says about trans people, go read that book, and listen to myself and other experts that trans women have every right and every fact on their side to support their identities.