"it's not my problem" and "it's got nothing to do with me".
Funny, I get that exact same response from women when talking about circumcision.
My work environment is 75% female, and it used to be around 95% female before the economy collapsed.
I have no idea how you expect me to make this environment any more female-friendly. One thing that has happened since the economy collapsed is that it's become less male-hostile. I took the job because I needed one and more or less just sucked up all the male-bashing because the job paid.
There is distinct institutionalised anti-woman bias in tech culture. It is always passed off by saying "it's just joking; all for fun", "women are free to learn on their own if they don't like it" or "in my experience women rely on the gender-card to get where they are". We know the problem exists and denying it will not make it go away.
I have never witnessed this or been a part of it. However, I have been on the receiving end of lots of male-bashing to the point I am simply sick of this notion that the reason women don't get into tech careers must be a man's fault, somehow.
Would you please explain how the hell a potential applicant would know what the work environment is like before they even decide to send in a resume or make a phone call? Would you please explain how the hell a 75% female environment could possibly be female-hostile because of something I've done?
What am I supposed to do? Just sit here and take male-bashing? Is it sexist in your world or hostile in your world to not confront females when they say something sexist?
I have been directly accused of sexism because a woman didn't know what a variable was and was unwilling to learn. I tried and tried and tried. I want a female co-worker. Hell, one of the reasons I haven't been able to go full time as a woman is because my female co-workers have this idea that you need to be a man to work a computer so far up their asses that I wouldn't be surprised if, when the time comes for me to change my name, being good at computers will be used against me as a sign that I'm not really a woman.
I simply ask you and those like you to reconsider your biases and to not hold all women accountable for the actions of a few people.
Seeing as though I got here out of sheer frustration, I'll be happy to reconsider my biases if I ever meet a womyn-born-womyn who is interested in computers beyond bashing me over the head with Ada Lovelace, blaming me for the actions of other people, and in general not being a complete and utter sexist.
The trouble is that feminism happened, but it turned out that the feminists were no less sexist than the "patriarchy."
Feminism has never argued for personal responsibility, and that's why it failed. Feminism argues that "all men" are rapists and sexists, and that "all men" are collectively responsible, in some vast conspiracy, for keeping "all women" down.
Feminism never takes a step back and asks an individual woman, "Why can't you do maths harder than basic algebra. Why do you think math is just 'hard?'" Instead, feminism leaps to the conclusion that those attitudes among real flesh-and-blood womyn-born-womyn must, somehow, be the fault of "all men."
Computing used to have many more women in it than it does now, and there is no evidence that females find such things inherently less interesting. Why are there fewer women in computing now? Something changed.
Yes, something did change, that's for sure. What it is will remain a mystery as long as we use sexism and the feminist dynamic of all men being rapists and all women being victims.
Personally, I think what happened was that feminism went off the deep end. Female students are routinely privileged over their male peers and routinely coddled all in an effort to bring about some kind of "equality" on paper. I've met waaay too many womyn-born-womyn who are simply illiterate when it comes to math and abstract reasoning; they don't even know what a variable is. I've met some men like this as well, but the point is that feminism needs to clean house before it goes about leaping to sexist conclusions.
We need to rethink the idea that feminism is somehow about gender equality. It isn't, and as far as I can tell never has been. We need to stop presuming that women are incapable of sexism; they're quite capable of it. In fact, from what I can see, males tend to be too busy trying to do whatever they can to avoid being accused of sexism while women get a complete pass any time they say or do something sexist. Nearly all the sexism I've encountered has come from womyn-born-womyn (and the occasional trans woman who's bought into feminism).
We've made it loud and clear to men that sexism is wrong. When will we start communicating that same message to women?
I've been becoming more anti-feminist lately, not because I want to see womyn-born-womyn stuck back in the kitchen with a child at her ankle, but because I believe that feminism and its profound sexism has done more damage than good. Maybe gender equality is futile, I don't know. As a trans person, I'd love to see real equality, as in judging and individual by his or her merits instead of his or her body parts. However, feminism doesn't care about real equality or personal responsibility.
If women want these careers, there's absolutely nothing stopping them. However, feminism can only blame "all men" so long before it becomes apparent that blaming an entire gender for this problem isn't making jack shit of progress towards solving it.
Additionally, sometimes, just sometimes, when a man gets chosen for a job over a woman, he really was a more qualified individual than the woman. Men can't choose to start a family and live off child support and welfare like women can choose. Maybe we need to start being as harsh on women as we are on men if we want them to "catch up." Maybe we should start throwing women who have children they can't afford in jail like we do with men, and maybe women will make life choices in a manner more similar to men.
I sure have. It sucks. Yet somehow these women believe that a woman with no skill would be a better programmer than an individual who has experience and education in the field. All on the basis of gender.
Now, would you agree that it's sexist to suppose that a woman with no prior experience or education would make a better employee in a computer-related role over a man with prior experience and education?
Every time this subject comes up, it's women who are the ones being sexist.
The basic fact that women never talk about is why so few women are even learning these skills. These are skills that one could learn on one's own with nothing more than a $300 computer and an internet connection.
Instead, we have this feminist propaganda that begins with than the observation that there are no womyn-born-womyn (because trans women clearly don't count to these sexists) in computer career and then jumps to the conclusion of sexism.
It is sexist to presume that the reason there are so few womyn-born-womyn in computer careers is the fault of an entire gender ("all men"). It is sexist to presume that women should even be getting these jobs without being qualified. Therefore, we should look at why there are no womyn-born-womyn who choose to become qualified in the first place.
I agree that it's a problem. What I don't agree with, and why I've decided not to shut up, is that this is a problem that anyone except womyn-born-womyn can do jack shit about. I mean FFS, when you talk to these idiot women who spout off this crap and then go on about Ada Lovelace, it becomes entirely apparent that it's not even good enough for them if I complete gender transition. I'd bet that even if I found a genie and was able to wish myself just to be biologically female, that would be good enough for them. I don't count. If their objective were to get more women in computer careers, one would think they would be cheering a trans woman on towards going full time because that means one more woman and one less man. However, their objective is not to get more women in computer careers. Their objective is to bash anyone assigned the male gender at birth.
They are absolutely blind to the forces that turn women away from mathematics and science, because the ugly thing is that most of it these days it's older womyn-born-womyn letting their daughters feel good about themselves without knowing even basic algebra---when they're not outright training their daughters that things that are "hard" like computers are just for boys. I don't know if it's intentional or not, and frankly I don't care.
I am not a woman to these people, and I don't have mind control powers to force women to sit down on a computer and learn Python or what have you. I have never once made a sexist decision at work. The one time years ago I was working for a smaller company and I was responsible for interviewing some candidates, I didn't even have one damned female apply. I can't hire somebody who doesn't apply!
I also will be assisting with hiring another computer person for the company I now work for in a few months. We've only had one woman apply. One. Unfortunately, as much as I want to hire her (no idea what her background is but a female in this position will probably improve things 100%), she's an internal applicant and somehow she managed to piss off a few of the women who will be her direct co-workers. How can I do jack shit about that? Our sole female applicant, and she's probably not going to get the job because other females don't like her. So, once I start training the new hire, who will inevitably be male, I'll be put through yet another round of "you're sexist because you didn't hire a woman."
Btw, to respond to your earlier post as well, I don't know why I would want women around me. I am interested in computer stuff and science fiction. While I
I really don't care what/. moderators think of what I have to say.
There are a few women with absolutely no skill where I work. I have to put up with comments about how a woman should have my job because the workplace is mostly female frequently enough that I am sick of it. So I come here to bitch.
At every single turn of my life I've been discriminated against---from when I was circumcised and left with 19 years of physical pain; to when the administration at my middle school decided that they wanted to have a story in the newspaper about having a computer cub founded by a girl, not a boy; to when I was required to attend date rape training that girls weren't required to attend to start taking classes in college---and now I have to listen stuff at work about how the production floor is a "pink ghetto" and how I have my job, not because of any skills I may or may not have, but because of my legal gender.
Turnabout is fair play. If women want programming careers, there's tons of information on the internet they could use to learn. But they don't.
Yes, it should raise a concern. We would do good to figure out why women aren't learning computer programming. It doesn't do any good to blame "all men." I mean, really, how else could we possibly fix the problem. Force women to work in computer careers?
There are absolutely. no. barriers. Really. Show me a barrier. Does having a vagina prevent one from installing Linux and poking around at GCC or learning Python? Are women being turned away from CS programs at universities? No? Well, it could be that the gender doing the discrimination isn't the male gender.
Really. Being born with a vagina does not make one incapable of sexism, and the contention that "all men" are sexist is sexist itself!
If women would spend half the energy actually learning programming that they spend on bitching about a lack of women in programming...
Here are three things women can focus on if what they really want is to end gender discrimination:
#1: Recognize circumcision as child abuse.
#2: Push for paternity leave.
#3: End selective service.
Well, there are two more things.
#4: Women need to stop telling their fucking daughters that "math is hard" and that all that's expected of them is to get pregnant a few times.
#5: Women need to start being aware that they have the privilege of being unaware of their female privilege.
This is not a problem that men can solve, and it's becoming apparent that it isn't a problem that women want to solve.
I was assigned the male gender at birth, and that means my options are 1.) get a job and make myself useful or 2.) die homeless in a gutter. So, I learned how to program. Maybe we should give women this same deal and lock them up in jail if they have a child they can't afford on their own. Maybe we need to stop giving women a pass on personal responsibility.
A while back I overheard a conversation in the break room at work. One of the girls was complaining about how her boyfriend wouldn't let her take a higher paying job at a factory. Well, you know what? You know the fuck what? I CAN'T CONTROL HER DAMNED DECISIONS. If I found a genie and could wish to be completely biologically female I wouldn't let my boyfriend control my fucking life. You know what? I STILL WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CONTROL HER DECISIONS. I'M NOT HER.
The only thing a genie would fix for me is that maybe my co-workers who think I have the skills I have and have the job I have just because of my gender would rethink their own biases once they were presented with a woman programmer who has a job because of her skills, and maybe they'd realize that programming actually involves skills and really is hard and has nothing to do with body parts. Getting a programming job isn't something that's handed to you as a matter of social status. It involves skill, and I've seen time and time again that a lot of women who say they want to learn programming immediately fold when they realize you need to know basic algebra, too.
All I know is I'm sure as hell not the one being sexist here. I'm not "all men." I'm an individual, and maybe it's time for women to stop being "all women" and take personal responsibility for where their choices have landed them in life. Maybe if women and feminism would stop being sexist for five minutes, they'd advance past blaming "all men," and we might actually be able to get a handle on this problem.
Women don't want to be icky computer geeks, and there's not one damned thing me or anyone else assigned the male gender at birth can do about it.
Wake me up when there are womyn-born-womyn in IT classrooms.
If you can't get womyn-born-womyn into IT classrooms, there's no fucking point in angsting about why they don't get hired for tech jobs.
When do we tell womyn-born-womyn to take some fucking responsibility for their own lives? I can't make their fucking decisions for them. I don't control them. I'm an individual, and I'm sick of being blamed for their own shortcomings because of the gender I was assigned against my will.
Oh, I don't know. Put together some low-brow supernatural love story bullshit with characters you don't care about, get it on a bestseller list, maybe make it into a triology, get a movie deal, then become rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Ditto for "popular music."
Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
Hmm, just need to figure out what the public's going to fall all overthemselves for after A Song of Ice and Fire is finished.
Eh, on the other hand, self-pubilshing seems to be becoming more viable, leading to the question of whether it's better to make a gamble on writing the next Twilight or Harry Potter, going through traditional channels, and having money fall from the sky like manna from heaven or to write a story with characters and a theme that I do care about and own the rights to but will only appeal to maybe 100,000 or so tops and never see a movie deal or even a shitty low-budget TV series, and try to use that at least to get out of "paycheck to paycheck" living.
On the other, other hand, one could create truly challenging works of art with deep themes about the human condition and commentaries about the present world we live in, then die in obscurity until some academic 100 years later finds your work. Every student from then on will be exposed to your work, it will be referenced and cited in thousands of other academic works, and authors will make allusions to your work for ages to come, but unfortunately by then you'll be mostly decomposed six feet underground.
Good points. Thanks for the clarification. One example I find interesting is the way the word queer has changed from being derogative to now being a legitimate label that certain people use to refer to themselves (e.g. genderqueer, queer folk, or simply queer).
The word normal is a vague word that can be a loaded term while simultaneously having a more objective statistical meaning. Normal can mean anything from socially acceptable to pedestrian to commonplace to usual to mode (of a set) and I'm sure tons of other senses I'm not thinking about. Unfortunately, feminism, psychology, and religion have done a very good job of painting transgendered identities as a sign of serious mental illness possibly indicating the potential for violent behavior. Those attitudes are changing, particularly in psychology and clinical protocols, but those attitudes still linger fairly strongly in the public mind. I agree it's self-defeating to be overly sensitive, but there is some merit to being circumspect to whether the word normal is being used as a weapon or as an observation.
Some people seem to care, but it seems we're in the minority.
Another poster brought up the Occupy movement. Everything I've heard about how that movement was "dealt with" frankly made my skin crawl. Another example is the Tea party. It started out as a grassroots libertarian protest against "too big to fail" back in 2008, but by 2010 it had been completely co-opted into an astroturf wing of the Republican party.
The thing is that the powers that be have a very good understanding of psychology and sociology to the point of being expert manipulators. However, the only way it works is if enough people have their bread and circuses. When enough people are "getting by" (but only through "hard"/stressful work, so they can feel as though they've earned what they have and deserve no more and no less because after all if they wanted more they could just work "harder" and the magic Invisible Hand or else the magic Sky Wizard will provide more) they tend not to care about what's going on in the larger picture.
The thing that's been really creeping me out honestly in the past two to three-ish years is just how damned well the powers that be understand this dynamic.
It seems that the real trick is that people don't care right up until one of their family is targeted. Then they start caring. Until then, however, they'll reason that if they're doing ok that the propoganda in the mainstream media must be true. They want to pat themselves on the back for their hard work and good decisions like not getting "into drugs" (i.e. they've successfully resisted the devil in marijuana all these years so they must be good people and anyone who even gives into the devil/marijuana/"drugs" once must be a bad person). So, if the mainstream media says that the Occupy movement is just a bunch of aimless drug seekers who are defecating in public spaces, it must be true.
Of course, the trouble is programs like the oft mentioned here on/. COINTELPRO. All a powerful entity needs to do is plant enough people in enough highly visible places in a movement, and they can effectively control perception of that movement. Want to paint Occupy as a bunch of dirty hippies without jobs looking for handouts? Send in enough people to loudly ask every passer-by if they have any weed, and tell them to harass local businesses and generally be obnoxious.
A more prosiac example would be federalized Romneycare/Obamacare. The ACA seems to be utterly set up to fail. Insurance companies are already raising their premiums and blaming the ACA while really none of the provisions of the ACA that matter have kicked in yet (health insurance exchanges, vouchers/subsidies as I understand it, and the personal mandate). The thing that really worries me is how many people buy into the narrative that health insurance companies just have to raise premiums because of Barry and his Kenyan socialism so blindly instead of being more sceptical of the insurance companies themselves and demanding better justification for premium hikes than just "because ACA." The lack of critical thinking in the masses is truly terrifying.
Sure, it all sounded like a lot of tinfoil hattery even a few years ago. However, the more information that comes out, the more we can begin to suspect that perhaps our tinfoil hats really weren't on too tight after all. Now we have verification of things like "parallel construction," wide-scale domestic spying, incestuous data sharing among agencies, secret courts, national security letters, and a complete breakdown of due process.
However, the public isn't too worried. After all, they haven't come for me or anyone I know personally, and all the people I know are hard-working Americans, so therefore, there must be an element of truth that if I don't have anything to hide, it must really be the case that I don't have anything to worry about. History be damned.
So of course these "leakers" are just malcontents the reasoning goes. They're access information t
There are two things specifically you're not being rational about because you're using hyperbole:
* Referring to bottom surgery as a "mutilation." It is a cosmetic procedure. I brought circumcision into my post to illustrate that. I call circumcision "mutilation" (and I'm glad you're against non-consenual circumcision), but as I understand certain individuals who are intact do decide to undergo it as adults for cosmetic reasons.
* Calling estrogen HRT "out of whack" when administered to trans women. Womyn-born-womyn sometimes seek estrogen HRT for menopause symptioms. Testosterone HRT is indicated in older men with "grumpyness" and trans men as well. Would you suggest withholding HRT when a doctor recommends it to a menopausal woman or to an older man just because it's not what their bodies are naturally doing? In addition, birth control pills are also typically a form of HRT. Do you believe birth control pills should be withheld as well?
What is rational about any cosmetic operation, for that matter? What is rational about women who get breast implants? I've met a lot of men who disagree with breast implants. Yet, maybe the woman receiving the implant is a breast cancer survivor who only had mastectomy in one breast and desire a symmetric form?
I also brought circumcision into the fold because I wanted to illustrate that your appeal to nature may not be correct as concerns somebody who was born male in the USA. It may not be a perfectly healthy limb... that's certainly the case with me, crap goes wrong, but I digress.
The point is: A.) People have to take lots of different kinds of medications on a daily basis for a lot of different reasons; calling something "out of whack" because in your nonmedical opinion the unmedicated state of functioning is "natural" or "healthy" is simply ignorance. B.) People undergo cosmetic operations all the time; it is simply hyperbole and wrong to classify a cosmetic operation as "mutilation." (Feel free to call me a hypocrite since I refer to circumcision as mutilation, but perhaps I can justify it by saying that perhaps the difference between a mutilation and cosmetic procedure is whether or not the subject is consenting.)
You're not objectively wrong, but that's not the problem. You're assuming the term cisgendered is a PC term, which from my understanding of what I read in Julia Serano's Whipping Girl is not where it comes from or what its intended use is.
It's a technical term like you or I might refer to hard drive connecters as PATA, SATA, or SCSI because we understand the difference.
The problem is that people, especially feminists, are not objective. Many, especially feminists, don't simply view trans women as not normal, but sick and mentally ill. There's a lot of baggage that needs to be cleaned up in order to have an objective discussion about trans women and cis women in the context of feminism or larger/different contexts of transgender discrimination. Therefore, it's necessary to develop terms that put trans women and cis women on equal footing by adding a prefix to qualify womyn-born-womyn that's more functional than that hyphenated mess I just used. It's like recognizing handedness by saying left handed or right handed.
I don't think that trans women as a whole have a desire to be identified as different from cis women, so trans- and cis- are not a terms that anyone generally wants paraded around outside of discussions like this one where it's necessary to draw a distinction.
So, of course it's not normal in a statistical sense the same way left handedness and Usain Bolt's accomplishments aren't normal.
The problem is individuals, especially feminists, who seek to dehumanize trans women by pointing out that they're not really women despite living, working, and being gendered by strangers on sight as being that gender. So, the solution is to fire back and call womyn-born-womyn "cis women."
Protip (somewhat unrelated, but related to the feminist contention that trans women are not real women [which is about as detached from any argument from biology or geneology as you'd expect a feminist to be because they're arguing for gender castes, not objective criteria]): I've noticed that nearly 100% of the time a trans woman is portrayed by a male actor in the media, that actor hasn't had a drop of estrogen in his blood and thus does not have any of the physical changes that estrogen HRT brings. There are a lot of trans women out there you'd probably never guess are trans (Google HaRiSoo) because their facial features, voice, and body shape match what you've come to expect a woman should look and sound like, and at the same time, there are a lot of cis women out there you've probably suspected of being trans because their facial features, (uncommonly) voice, or body shape don't match what you've come to expect a woman should look like. (Then there are trans women who utterly don't and can't "pass" and don't care.)
Joining Yet Again is partially correct but also being obtuse in his/her own way.
The brain has gender just like reproductive organs have gender. However, you need expensive equipment to measure it, and frankly that equipment is better served diagnosing people who are actually sick and just taking a transgendered person's word for it instead of wasting millions upon millions of dollars trying to "prove" that any particular individual has a legitimate claim to womanhood to every last bigoted stick in the mud out there.
The argument comes to down to what to do with an individual for whom those two genders don't match. Currently, there's no known way to change the brain's gender. Unfortunately, we're so attached to the idea that what's in one's pants is the end-all be-all to gender that it's almost impossible to frame a debate in terms of how to bring the two different gendered parts of an individual into agreement.
Yet when they ask to have their genitals mutilated and hormones thrown so far out of whack to the point of permanently handicapping them to a degree, it is viewed as a human right
So delicious.
Because she (Manning) was presumably born in the USA, her genitals were likely already mutilated at birth. Secondly, the organ between your ears also has gender just the same as the organ between your legs. The process of HRT brings one's hormone levels in line with normal female levels, so I don't understand why you think anything is going "out of whack."
I used to experience very painful headaches on a weekly basis before I started estrogen HRT. Apparently, that's not an uncommon experience. There's definitely something going on, although research is admittedly lacking (there was a study I can't seem to find again that was able to use MRI to determine brain sex in 75% of individuals in the study).
Worse is that today there is very little in the way of counseling done, and some half of them end up regretting it after the fact.
Sorry, a link to Experience Project isn't evidence, and there have been many flawed, biased studies on the subject to boot, sort of like the studies that back up the practice of routine infant male genital mutilation in the USA.
I'm not taking issue with transsexualism BTW, I'm taking issue with the idea that surgery is the answer.
Yes, you are, because not all trans women undergo bottom surgery. Bottom surgery is a personal choice and not a requirement to live as a woman or get an ID as a woman, although it may be a requirement in certain states in order to amend or change one's birth certificate.
If you're really as rational as you're trying to present yourself as being, I'd recommend the book Whipping Girl by Julia Serano.
Because transexualism is still considered indecent and indicative of severe psychological problems by our society. Manning is being demonized as a a nut, a freak; certainly not someone to look up to as a patriot standing up for the ideals of his country. The release of this information is an attempt at distracting the public from the much more important problems his actions brought to light, and as a warning to other whistleblowers.
Mod parent up. That's about all that's going on here. It's easier to justify locking up Buffalo Bill than a hero.
I know you're trolling, but attraction to women is fairly common in trans women. However, the desire to "be a lesbian" doesn't factor into the decision to undergo gender transition for the vast majority of trans women. All of the trans women I know have a horrible time of dating women and pretty much have to give up hope of finding a girlfriend after beginning transition. Additionally, they typically lose their current relationship if any in a spectacular explosion of drama.
That's not to say that all trans women find women attractive. Some like me prefer men, which actually means additional soul searching before beginning transition and weighing alternatives such as adopting a homosexual identity.
Assuming 1 in 10,000 is accurate, 99.99% would be accurate as well. Nobody really knows for sure, though. I've heard other numbers that it might be even fewer, e.g. 1 in 50,000 or 1 in 30,000. IIRC, that doesn't count crossdressers or other genderqueer categories, only diagnoses that result in the patient pursuing gender transition. OTOH, adding in trans men (people born with their reproductive system on the inside who take testosterone HRT and live as men), you might bump to around 99.92% or so to make a wild guess.
Hell, I've not dated a woman in awhile that knew how to cook even, I've had to show several girlfriends how to prep and do food.
Careful there! Don't you remember? Feminism liberated women from the kitchen, you chauvinist pig!
Just to add a bit more snark, I still remember how irritated my home ec teacher in middle school was when she wound up with a boy in her class that actually liked the class and was better in the kitchen than most of the girls. Funny to reminisce on how much she hated my guts for making her feminazi beliefs implode on themselves on a daily basis. To think I actually bought into the idea that feminism was about gender equality.
And yes, I can confirm that the various women my housemate's dated have an absolutely atrocious idea of what constitutes "cooking." (Not to say I'm very good with that sort of thing either since in the house I grew up in cooking wasn't something boys should know, home ec class was years and years ago, and I haven't had much interest otherwise, but it's funny that when my housemate has a girl living with him, even though it's often what these girls offer to do---I don't ask them to!---it seems either he or I have to do the cooking and cleaning if we want it done properly.) Oddly, though, they haven't seemed to have gained any other skills that feminism was supposed to open up to them either.
I attempt to cross Nunavut in a Range Rover. Captain Slow takes a rather novel approach. And Hammond uses a state of the art stealth/snow mobile/. Tonight on Top Gear. *cue theme*
Well, I don't know. I think it's fairly obvious that high soda consumption being correllated with destructive behavior points the finger at bad parenting. Yet, I can't help but to wonder if there's something else going on.
Ah, if only I could have children. Why do children need beverages that contain aspartame or else sugars? What's wrong with raising a child whose world of beverages is water, vegetable juice (not that V8 shit, V8 is nasty), milk, and perhaps once and a while naturally sugary drinks like orange juice or apple/pear juice?
For that matter, what the hell is wrong with us collectively for having a culture where soda pop seems to be the primary means of hydration among children?
I mean, ok, I remember being a kid. I still can't get me to eat my vegetables without either slathering on unhealthy amounts of butter, drenching them in salad dressing, or consuming them in juice form. Yet when I was thirsty, I went to the tap for water. I didn't even really start drinking sodas on a daily basis until I was a teenager, and that didn't last long. I guess maybe I'm just weird and don't find soda and the sugar/caffeine rush or else the idea of putting aspartame into my body (yes, I know the evidence that it might be bad is tenuous) to be attractive. I'd rather have a nice glass of milk or vegetable juice or just plain water. Then again, soda just wasn't something readily available around the house when I was little, especially in can form.
Maybe we need to start being aware that soda is not a "natural" substance (yes, I know, natural is a very dubious word) and maybe we need to be more suspicious of getting our children hooked on it at an early age. (For the record, I find apple/pear juice to be even more nasty than soda despite its being "natural." Always have since I was little.) Why do we need to present our children with a world where drinks needs to be carbonated, chilled, and full of sugar or sugar-tasting chemicals to be acceptable?
It's as though we're so utterly attached to the idea that if something is popular, it must be right that we've lost all self-awareness. 200 lbs is the new anorexic. Mutilating infant boys' genitals is medically necessary because of all the sex with women infant boys have, I guess, that it's the only way to keep infant boys from giving women cervical cancer. I'm too poor to afford to eat because eating brown rice and simple pasta dishes with fresh vegetables is just *below* me and I can't survive without my food stamp Papa Murphy's pizza. Then wash it all down with 750 calories of soda pop in 3 cans because drinking water is just *below* me but I don't want to be pretentious by buying bottled water. And then I'll head to the fridge if I even feel the slight bit less than stuffed because feeling even a little hungry is the wrost thing in the world! And then when I look at my overweight, obese, diseased self in the mirror in the morning, I'll declare that this is the new healthy, because I've done everything that everyone else does, and everyone else can't be wrong, can they?
Yes, assuming you're saying the current administration is the United States, but who are the United States?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This is about more than playing lawyer. The federal government has been long in contradiction of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and has certainly been skirting what constitutes a "war" in Article 1 sect 8, and now the Executive Branch finds itself at odds with at least the Fourth Amendment, too.
There are processes to follow if one wants to change how that document works. Those processes have not been followed. The entire governmental system set forth in the Constitution is questionable if it does not honor its founding document.
Slashdot Mirror
"it's not my problem" and "it's got nothing to do with me".
Funny, I get that exact same response from women when talking about circumcision.
My work environment is 75% female, and it used to be around 95% female before the economy collapsed.
I have no idea how you expect me to make this environment any more female-friendly. One thing that has happened since the economy collapsed is that it's become less male-hostile. I took the job because I needed one and more or less just sucked up all the male-bashing because the job paid.
There is distinct institutionalised anti-woman bias in tech culture. It is always passed off by saying "it's just joking; all for fun", "women are free to learn on their own if they don't like it" or "in my experience women rely on the gender-card to get where they are". We know the problem exists and denying it will not make it go away.
I have never witnessed this or been a part of it. However, I have been on the receiving end of lots of male-bashing to the point I am simply sick of this notion that the reason women don't get into tech careers must be a man's fault, somehow.
Would you please explain how the hell a potential applicant would know what the work environment is like before they even decide to send in a resume or make a phone call? Would you please explain how the hell a 75% female environment could possibly be female-hostile because of something I've done?
What am I supposed to do? Just sit here and take male-bashing? Is it sexist in your world or hostile in your world to not confront females when they say something sexist?
I have been directly accused of sexism because a woman didn't know what a variable was and was unwilling to learn. I tried and tried and tried. I want a female co-worker. Hell, one of the reasons I haven't been able to go full time as a woman is because my female co-workers have this idea that you need to be a man to work a computer so far up their asses that I wouldn't be surprised if, when the time comes for me to change my name, being good at computers will be used against me as a sign that I'm not really a woman.
I simply ask you and those like you to reconsider your biases and to not hold all women accountable for the actions of a few people.
Seeing as though I got here out of sheer frustration, I'll be happy to reconsider my biases if I ever meet a womyn-born-womyn who is interested in computers beyond bashing me over the head with Ada Lovelace, blaming me for the actions of other people, and in general not being a complete and utter sexist.
It's like feminism never happened.
The trouble is that feminism happened, but it turned out that the feminists were no less sexist than the "patriarchy."
Feminism has never argued for personal responsibility, and that's why it failed. Feminism argues that "all men" are rapists and sexists, and that "all men" are collectively responsible, in some vast conspiracy, for keeping "all women" down.
Feminism never takes a step back and asks an individual woman, "Why can't you do maths harder than basic algebra. Why do you think math is just 'hard?'" Instead, feminism leaps to the conclusion that those attitudes among real flesh-and-blood womyn-born-womyn must, somehow, be the fault of "all men."
Computing used to have many more women in it than it does now, and there is no evidence that females find such things inherently less interesting. Why are there fewer women in computing now? Something changed.
Yes, something did change, that's for sure. What it is will remain a mystery as long as we use sexism and the feminist dynamic of all men being rapists and all women being victims.
Personally, I think what happened was that feminism went off the deep end. Female students are routinely privileged over their male peers and routinely coddled all in an effort to bring about some kind of "equality" on paper. I've met waaay too many womyn-born-womyn who are simply illiterate when it comes to math and abstract reasoning; they don't even know what a variable is. I've met some men like this as well, but the point is that feminism needs to clean house before it goes about leaping to sexist conclusions.
We need to rethink the idea that feminism is somehow about gender equality. It isn't, and as far as I can tell never has been. We need to stop presuming that women are incapable of sexism; they're quite capable of it. In fact, from what I can see, males tend to be too busy trying to do whatever they can to avoid being accused of sexism while women get a complete pass any time they say or do something sexist. Nearly all the sexism I've encountered has come from womyn-born-womyn (and the occasional trans woman who's bought into feminism).
We've made it loud and clear to men that sexism is wrong. When will we start communicating that same message to women?
I've been becoming more anti-feminist lately, not because I want to see womyn-born-womyn stuck back in the kitchen with a child at her ankle, but because I believe that feminism and its profound sexism has done more damage than good. Maybe gender equality is futile, I don't know. As a trans person, I'd love to see real equality, as in judging and individual by his or her merits instead of his or her body parts. However, feminism doesn't care about real equality or personal responsibility.
If women want these careers, there's absolutely nothing stopping them. However, feminism can only blame "all men" so long before it becomes apparent that blaming an entire gender for this problem isn't making jack shit of progress towards solving it.
Additionally, sometimes, just sometimes, when a man gets chosen for a job over a woman, he really was a more qualified individual than the woman. Men can't choose to start a family and live off child support and welfare like women can choose. Maybe we need to start being as harsh on women as we are on men if we want them to "catch up." Maybe we should start throwing women who have children they can't afford in jail like we do with men, and maybe women will make life choices in a manner more similar to men.
Should have been:
I'd bet that even if I found a genie and was able to wish myself just to be biologically female, that would not be good enough for them.
Sorry for any confusion.
You've never worked with a man with no skill?
I sure have. It sucks. Yet somehow these women believe that a woman with no skill would be a better programmer than an individual who has experience and education in the field. All on the basis of gender.
Now, would you agree that it's sexist to suppose that a woman with no prior experience or education would make a better employee in a computer-related role over a man with prior experience and education?
Every time this subject comes up, it's women who are the ones being sexist.
The basic fact that women never talk about is why so few women are even learning these skills. These are skills that one could learn on one's own with nothing more than a $300 computer and an internet connection.
Instead, we have this feminist propaganda that begins with than the observation that there are no womyn-born-womyn (because trans women clearly don't count to these sexists) in computer career and then jumps to the conclusion of sexism.
It is sexist to presume that the reason there are so few womyn-born-womyn in computer careers is the fault of an entire gender ("all men"). It is sexist to presume that women should even be getting these jobs without being qualified. Therefore, we should look at why there are no womyn-born-womyn who choose to become qualified in the first place.
I agree that it's a problem. What I don't agree with, and why I've decided not to shut up, is that this is a problem that anyone except womyn-born-womyn can do jack shit about. I mean FFS, when you talk to these idiot women who spout off this crap and then go on about Ada Lovelace, it becomes entirely apparent that it's not even good enough for them if I complete gender transition. I'd bet that even if I found a genie and was able to wish myself just to be biologically female, that would be good enough for them. I don't count. If their objective were to get more women in computer careers, one would think they would be cheering a trans woman on towards going full time because that means one more woman and one less man. However, their objective is not to get more women in computer careers. Their objective is to bash anyone assigned the male gender at birth.
They are absolutely blind to the forces that turn women away from mathematics and science, because the ugly thing is that most of it these days it's older womyn-born-womyn letting their daughters feel good about themselves without knowing even basic algebra---when they're not outright training their daughters that things that are "hard" like computers are just for boys. I don't know if it's intentional or not, and frankly I don't care.
I am not a woman to these people, and I don't have mind control powers to force women to sit down on a computer and learn Python or what have you. I have never once made a sexist decision at work. The one time years ago I was working for a smaller company and I was responsible for interviewing some candidates, I didn't even have one damned female apply. I can't hire somebody who doesn't apply!
I also will be assisting with hiring another computer person for the company I now work for in a few months. We've only had one woman apply. One. Unfortunately, as much as I want to hire her (no idea what her background is but a female in this position will probably improve things 100%), she's an internal applicant and somehow she managed to piss off a few of the women who will be her direct co-workers. How can I do jack shit about that? Our sole female applicant, and she's probably not going to get the job because other females don't like her. So, once I start training the new hire, who will inevitably be male, I'll be put through yet another round of "you're sexist because you didn't hire a woman."
Btw, to respond to your earlier post as well, I don't know why I would want women around me. I am interested in computer stuff and science fiction. While I
I really don't care what /. moderators think of what I have to say.
There are a few women with absolutely no skill where I work. I have to put up with comments about how a woman should have my job because the workplace is mostly female frequently enough that I am sick of it. So I come here to bitch.
At every single turn of my life I've been discriminated against---from when I was circumcised and left with 19 years of physical pain; to when the administration at my middle school decided that they wanted to have a story in the newspaper about having a computer cub founded by a girl, not a boy; to when I was required to attend date rape training that girls weren't required to attend to start taking classes in college---and now I have to listen stuff at work about how the production floor is a "pink ghetto" and how I have my job, not because of any skills I may or may not have, but because of my legal gender.
Turnabout is fair play. If women want programming careers, there's tons of information on the internet they could use to learn. But they don't.
Yes, it should raise a concern. We would do good to figure out why women aren't learning computer programming. It doesn't do any good to blame "all men." I mean, really, how else could we possibly fix the problem. Force women to work in computer careers?
There are absolutely. no. barriers. Really. Show me a barrier. Does having a vagina prevent one from installing Linux and poking around at GCC or learning Python? Are women being turned away from CS programs at universities? No? Well, it could be that the gender doing the discrimination isn't the male gender.
Really. Being born with a vagina does not make one incapable of sexism, and the contention that "all men" are sexist is sexist itself!
If women would spend half the energy actually learning programming that they spend on bitching about a lack of women in programming...
Here are three things women can focus on if what they really want is to end gender discrimination:
#1: Recognize circumcision as child abuse.
#2: Push for paternity leave.
#3: End selective service.
Well, there are two more things.
#4: Women need to stop telling their fucking daughters that "math is hard" and that all that's expected of them is to get pregnant a few times.
#5: Women need to start being aware that they have the privilege of being unaware of their female privilege.
This is not a problem that men can solve, and it's becoming apparent that it isn't a problem that women want to solve.
I was assigned the male gender at birth, and that means my options are 1.) get a job and make myself useful or 2.) die homeless in a gutter. So, I learned how to program. Maybe we should give women this same deal and lock them up in jail if they have a child they can't afford on their own. Maybe we need to stop giving women a pass on personal responsibility.
A while back I overheard a conversation in the break room at work. One of the girls was complaining about how her boyfriend wouldn't let her take a higher paying job at a factory. Well, you know what? You know the fuck what? I CAN'T CONTROL HER DAMNED DECISIONS. If I found a genie and could wish to be completely biologically female I wouldn't let my boyfriend control my fucking life. You know what? I STILL WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CONTROL HER DECISIONS. I'M NOT HER.
The only thing a genie would fix for me is that maybe my co-workers who think I have the skills I have and have the job I have just because of my gender would rethink their own biases once they were presented with a woman programmer who has a job because of her skills, and maybe they'd realize that programming actually involves skills and really is hard and has nothing to do with body parts. Getting a programming job isn't something that's handed to you as a matter of social status. It involves skill, and I've seen time and time again that a lot of women who say they want to learn programming immediately fold when they realize you need to know basic algebra, too.
All I know is I'm sure as hell not the one being sexist here. I'm not "all men." I'm an individual, and maybe it's time for women to stop being "all women" and take personal responsibility for where their choices have landed them in life. Maybe if women and feminism would stop being sexist for five minutes, they'd advance past blaming "all men," and we might actually be able to get a handle on this problem.
Women don't want to be icky computer geeks, and there's not one damned thing me or anyone else assigned the male gender at birth can do about it.
Good god, more of this shit?
Wake me up when there are womyn-born-womyn in IT classrooms.
If you can't get womyn-born-womyn into IT classrooms, there's no fucking point in angsting about why they don't get hired for tech jobs.
When do we tell womyn-born-womyn to take some fucking responsibility for their own lives? I can't make their fucking decisions for them. I don't control them. I'm an individual, and I'm sick of being blamed for their own shortcomings because of the gender I was assigned against my will.
Oh, I don't know. Put together some low-brow supernatural love story bullshit with characters you don't care about, get it on a bestseller list, maybe make it into a triology, get a movie deal, then become rich beyond the dreams of avarice. Ditto for "popular music."
Doesn't sound like a bad deal to me.
Hmm, just need to figure out what the public's going to fall all overthemselves for after A Song of Ice and Fire is finished.
Eh, on the other hand, self-pubilshing seems to be becoming more viable, leading to the question of whether it's better to make a gamble on writing the next Twilight or Harry Potter, going through traditional channels, and having money fall from the sky like manna from heaven or to write a story with characters and a theme that I do care about and own the rights to but will only appeal to maybe 100,000 or so tops and never see a movie deal or even a shitty low-budget TV series, and try to use that at least to get out of "paycheck to paycheck" living.
On the other, other hand, one could create truly challenging works of art with deep themes about the human condition and commentaries about the present world we live in, then die in obscurity until some academic 100 years later finds your work. Every student from then on will be exposed to your work, it will be referenced and cited in thousands of other academic works, and authors will make allusions to your work for ages to come, but unfortunately by then you'll be mostly decomposed six feet underground.
Good points. Thanks for the clarification. One example I find interesting is the way the word queer has changed from being derogative to now being a legitimate label that certain people use to refer to themselves (e.g. genderqueer, queer folk, or simply queer).
The word normal is a vague word that can be a loaded term while simultaneously having a more objective statistical meaning. Normal can mean anything from socially acceptable to pedestrian to commonplace to usual to mode (of a set) and I'm sure tons of other senses I'm not thinking about. Unfortunately, feminism, psychology, and religion have done a very good job of painting transgendered identities as a sign of serious mental illness possibly indicating the potential for violent behavior. Those attitudes are changing, particularly in psychology and clinical protocols, but those attitudes still linger fairly strongly in the public mind. I agree it's self-defeating to be overly sensitive, but there is some merit to being circumspect to whether the word normal is being used as a weapon or as an observation.
Some people seem to care, but it seems we're in the minority.
Another poster brought up the Occupy movement. Everything I've heard about how that movement was "dealt with" frankly made my skin crawl. Another example is the Tea party. It started out as a grassroots libertarian protest against "too big to fail" back in 2008, but by 2010 it had been completely co-opted into an astroturf wing of the Republican party.
The thing is that the powers that be have a very good understanding of psychology and sociology to the point of being expert manipulators. However, the only way it works is if enough people have their bread and circuses. When enough people are "getting by" (but only through "hard"/stressful work, so they can feel as though they've earned what they have and deserve no more and no less because after all if they wanted more they could just work "harder" and the magic Invisible Hand or else the magic Sky Wizard will provide more) they tend not to care about what's going on in the larger picture.
The thing that's been really creeping me out honestly in the past two to three-ish years is just how damned well the powers that be understand this dynamic.
It seems that the real trick is that people don't care right up until one of their family is targeted. Then they start caring. Until then, however, they'll reason that if they're doing ok that the propoganda in the mainstream media must be true. They want to pat themselves on the back for their hard work and good decisions like not getting "into drugs" (i.e. they've successfully resisted the devil in marijuana all these years so they must be good people and anyone who even gives into the devil/marijuana/"drugs" once must be a bad person). So, if the mainstream media says that the Occupy movement is just a bunch of aimless drug seekers who are defecating in public spaces, it must be true.
Of course, the trouble is programs like the oft mentioned here on /. COINTELPRO. All a powerful entity needs to do is plant enough people in enough highly visible places in a movement, and they can effectively control perception of that movement. Want to paint Occupy as a bunch of dirty hippies without jobs looking for handouts? Send in enough people to loudly ask every passer-by if they have any weed, and tell them to harass local businesses and generally be obnoxious.
A more prosiac example would be federalized Romneycare/Obamacare. The ACA seems to be utterly set up to fail. Insurance companies are already raising their premiums and blaming the ACA while really none of the provisions of the ACA that matter have kicked in yet (health insurance exchanges, vouchers/subsidies as I understand it, and the personal mandate). The thing that really worries me is how many people buy into the narrative that health insurance companies just have to raise premiums because of Barry and his Kenyan socialism so blindly instead of being more sceptical of the insurance companies themselves and demanding better justification for premium hikes than just "because ACA." The lack of critical thinking in the masses is truly terrifying.
Sure, it all sounded like a lot of tinfoil hattery even a few years ago. However, the more information that comes out, the more we can begin to suspect that perhaps our tinfoil hats really weren't on too tight after all. Now we have verification of things like "parallel construction," wide-scale domestic spying, incestuous data sharing among agencies, secret courts, national security letters, and a complete breakdown of due process.
However, the public isn't too worried. After all, they haven't come for me or anyone I know personally, and all the people I know are hard-working Americans, so therefore, there must be an element of truth that if I don't have anything to hide, it must really be the case that I don't have anything to worry about. History be damned.
So of course these "leakers" are just malcontents the reasoning goes. They're access information t
There are two things specifically you're not being rational about because you're using hyperbole:
What is rational about any cosmetic operation, for that matter? What is rational about women who get breast implants? I've met a lot of men who disagree with breast implants. Yet, maybe the woman receiving the implant is a breast cancer survivor who only had mastectomy in one breast and desire a symmetric form?
I also brought circumcision into the fold because I wanted to illustrate that your appeal to nature may not be correct as concerns somebody who was born male in the USA. It may not be a perfectly healthy limb... that's certainly the case with me, crap goes wrong, but I digress.
The point is: A.) People have to take lots of different kinds of medications on a daily basis for a lot of different reasons; calling something "out of whack" because in your nonmedical opinion the unmedicated state of functioning is "natural" or "healthy" is simply ignorance. B.) People undergo cosmetic operations all the time; it is simply hyperbole and wrong to classify a cosmetic operation as "mutilation." (Feel free to call me a hypocrite since I refer to circumcision as mutilation, but perhaps I can justify it by saying that perhaps the difference between a mutilation and cosmetic procedure is whether or not the subject is consenting.)
Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks
You're not objectively wrong, but that's not the problem. You're assuming the term cisgendered is a PC term, which from my understanding of what I read in Julia Serano's Whipping Girl is not where it comes from or what its intended use is.
It's a technical term like you or I might refer to hard drive connecters as PATA, SATA, or SCSI because we understand the difference.
The problem is that people, especially feminists, are not objective. Many, especially feminists, don't simply view trans women as not normal, but sick and mentally ill. There's a lot of baggage that needs to be cleaned up in order to have an objective discussion about trans women and cis women in the context of feminism or larger/different contexts of transgender discrimination. Therefore, it's necessary to develop terms that put trans women and cis women on equal footing by adding a prefix to qualify womyn-born-womyn that's more functional than that hyphenated mess I just used. It's like recognizing handedness by saying left handed or right handed.
I don't think that trans women as a whole have a desire to be identified as different from cis women, so trans- and cis- are not a terms that anyone generally wants paraded around outside of discussions like this one where it's necessary to draw a distinction.
So, of course it's not normal in a statistical sense the same way left handedness and Usain Bolt's accomplishments aren't normal.
The problem is individuals, especially feminists, who seek to dehumanize trans women by pointing out that they're not really women despite living, working, and being gendered by strangers on sight as being that gender. So, the solution is to fire back and call womyn-born-womyn "cis women."
Protip (somewhat unrelated, but related to the feminist contention that trans women are not real women [which is about as detached from any argument from biology or geneology as you'd expect a feminist to be because they're arguing for gender castes, not objective criteria]): I've noticed that nearly 100% of the time a trans woman is portrayed by a male actor in the media, that actor hasn't had a drop of estrogen in his blood and thus does not have any of the physical changes that estrogen HRT brings. There are a lot of trans women out there you'd probably never guess are trans (Google HaRiSoo) because their facial features, voice, and body shape match what you've come to expect a woman should look and sound like, and at the same time, there are a lot of cis women out there you've probably suspected of being trans because their facial features, (uncommonly) voice, or body shape don't match what you've come to expect a woman should look like. (Then there are trans women who utterly don't and can't "pass" and don't care.)
What on earth are you trying to say?
Fine. Google the term berdache.
Joining Yet Again is partially correct but also being obtuse in his/her own way.
The brain has gender just like reproductive organs have gender. However, you need expensive equipment to measure it, and frankly that equipment is better served diagnosing people who are actually sick and just taking a transgendered person's word for it instead of wasting millions upon millions of dollars trying to "prove" that any particular individual has a legitimate claim to womanhood to every last bigoted stick in the mud out there.
The argument comes to down to what to do with an individual for whom those two genders don't match. Currently, there's no known way to change the brain's gender. Unfortunately, we're so attached to the idea that what's in one's pants is the end-all be-all to gender that it's almost impossible to frame a debate in terms of how to bring the two different gendered parts of an individual into agreement.
Yet when they ask to have their genitals mutilated and hormones thrown so far out of whack to the point of permanently handicapping them to a degree, it is viewed as a human right
So delicious.
Because she (Manning) was presumably born in the USA, her genitals were likely already mutilated at birth. Secondly, the organ between your ears also has gender just the same as the organ between your legs. The process of HRT brings one's hormone levels in line with normal female levels, so I don't understand why you think anything is going "out of whack."
I used to experience very painful headaches on a weekly basis before I started estrogen HRT. Apparently, that's not an uncommon experience. There's definitely something going on, although research is admittedly lacking (there was a study I can't seem to find again that was able to use MRI to determine brain sex in 75% of individuals in the study).
Worse is that today there is very little in the way of counseling done, and some half of them end up regretting it after the fact.
Sorry, a link to Experience Project isn't evidence, and there have been many flawed, biased studies on the subject to boot, sort of like the studies that back up the practice of routine infant male genital mutilation in the USA.
I'm not taking issue with transsexualism BTW, I'm taking issue with the idea that surgery is the answer.
Yes, you are, because not all trans women undergo bottom surgery. Bottom surgery is a personal choice and not a requirement to live as a woman or get an ID as a woman, although it may be a requirement in certain states in order to amend or change one's birth certificate.
If you're really as rational as you're trying to present yourself as being, I'd recommend the book Whipping Girl by Julia Serano.
Because transexualism is still considered indecent and indicative of severe psychological problems by our society. Manning is being demonized as a a nut, a freak; certainly not someone to look up to as a patriot standing up for the ideals of his country. The release of this information is an attempt at distracting the public from the much more important problems his actions brought to light, and as a warning to other whistleblowers.
Mod parent up. That's about all that's going on here. It's easier to justify locking up Buffalo Bill than a hero.
I know you're trolling, but attraction to women is fairly common in trans women. However, the desire to "be a lesbian" doesn't factor into the decision to undergo gender transition for the vast majority of trans women. All of the trans women I know have a horrible time of dating women and pretty much have to give up hope of finding a girlfriend after beginning transition. Additionally, they typically lose their current relationship if any in a spectacular explosion of drama.
That's not to say that all trans women find women attractive. Some like me prefer men, which actually means additional soul searching before beginning transition and weighing alternatives such as adopting a homosexual identity.
Assuming 1 in 10,000 is accurate, 99.99% would be accurate as well. Nobody really knows for sure, though. I've heard other numbers that it might be even fewer, e.g. 1 in 50,000 or 1 in 30,000. IIRC, that doesn't count crossdressers or other genderqueer categories, only diagnoses that result in the patient pursuing gender transition. OTOH, adding in trans men (people born with their reproductive system on the inside who take testosterone HRT and live as men), you might bump to around 99.92% or so to make a wild guess.
Hell, I've not dated a woman in awhile that knew how to cook even, I've had to show several girlfriends how to prep and do food.
Careful there! Don't you remember? Feminism liberated women from the kitchen, you chauvinist pig!
Just to add a bit more snark, I still remember how irritated my home ec teacher in middle school was when she wound up with a boy in her class that actually liked the class and was better in the kitchen than most of the girls. Funny to reminisce on how much she hated my guts for making her feminazi beliefs implode on themselves on a daily basis. To think I actually bought into the idea that feminism was about gender equality.
And yes, I can confirm that the various women my housemate's dated have an absolutely atrocious idea of what constitutes "cooking." (Not to say I'm very good with that sort of thing either since in the house I grew up in cooking wasn't something boys should know, home ec class was years and years ago, and I haven't had much interest otherwise, but it's funny that when my housemate has a girl living with him, even though it's often what these girls offer to do---I don't ask them to!---it seems either he or I have to do the cooking and cleaning if we want it done properly.) Oddly, though, they haven't seemed to have gained any other skills that feminism was supposed to open up to them either.
Ah well, what were we talking about again?
Nicely played, sir.
I attempt to cross Nunavut in a Range Rover. Captain Slow takes a rather novel approach. And Hammond uses a state of the art stealth /snow mobile/. Tonight on Top Gear. *cue theme*
Sadly, psychology still isn't even wrong in our time.
Well, I don't know. I think it's fairly obvious that high soda consumption being correllated with destructive behavior points the finger at bad parenting. Yet, I can't help but to wonder if there's something else going on.
Ah, if only I could have children. Why do children need beverages that contain aspartame or else sugars? What's wrong with raising a child whose world of beverages is water, vegetable juice (not that V8 shit, V8 is nasty), milk, and perhaps once and a while naturally sugary drinks like orange juice or apple/pear juice?
For that matter, what the hell is wrong with us collectively for having a culture where soda pop seems to be the primary means of hydration among children?
I mean, ok, I remember being a kid. I still can't get me to eat my vegetables without either slathering on unhealthy amounts of butter, drenching them in salad dressing, or consuming them in juice form. Yet when I was thirsty, I went to the tap for water. I didn't even really start drinking sodas on a daily basis until I was a teenager, and that didn't last long. I guess maybe I'm just weird and don't find soda and the sugar/caffeine rush or else the idea of putting aspartame into my body (yes, I know the evidence that it might be bad is tenuous) to be attractive. I'd rather have a nice glass of milk or vegetable juice or just plain water. Then again, soda just wasn't something readily available around the house when I was little, especially in can form.
Maybe we need to start being aware that soda is not a "natural" substance (yes, I know, natural is a very dubious word) and maybe we need to be more suspicious of getting our children hooked on it at an early age. (For the record, I find apple/pear juice to be even more nasty than soda despite its being "natural." Always have since I was little.) Why do we need to present our children with a world where drinks needs to be carbonated, chilled, and full of sugar or sugar-tasting chemicals to be acceptable?
It's as though we're so utterly attached to the idea that if something is popular, it must be right that we've lost all self-awareness. 200 lbs is the new anorexic. Mutilating infant boys' genitals is medically necessary because of all the sex with women infant boys have, I guess, that it's the only way to keep infant boys from giving women cervical cancer. I'm too poor to afford to eat because eating brown rice and simple pasta dishes with fresh vegetables is just *below* me and I can't survive without my food stamp Papa Murphy's pizza. Then wash it all down with 750 calories of soda pop in 3 cans because drinking water is just *below* me but I don't want to be pretentious by buying bottled water. And then I'll head to the fridge if I even feel the slight bit less than stuffed because feeling even a little hungry is the wrost thing in the world! And then when I look at my overweight, obese, diseased self in the mirror in the morning, I'll declare that this is the new healthy, because I've done everything that everyone else does, and everyone else can't be wrong, can they?
Yes, assuming you're saying the current administration is the United States, but who are the United States?
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
This is about more than playing lawyer. The federal government has been long in contradiction of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and has certainly been skirting what constitutes a "war" in Article 1 sect 8, and now the Executive Branch finds itself at odds with at least the Fourth Amendment, too.
There are processes to follow if one wants to change how that document works. Those processes have not been followed. The entire governmental system set forth in the Constitution is questionable if it does not honor its founding document.
including with ppl dying
Who died?