domain:open.substack.com
No_one
10hr ago
By centrist I don't mean someone who is in the political centre as party politics are concerned, just someone with no firm ideology or agenda.
Apart from his opposition to transgender issues, what politics does he have?
Wanting an efficient government that obeys the law and preferences of citizens and that isn't getting in the way is pretty much a non ideological.
Nobody but certain very narrow segments of political class desire infinity migration.
Tanista
10hr ago
Diablo 4 players, how likely do you think it is that Elon Musk is bullshitting about his global ranking? What time investment would you need to get into the top 20?
Throwaway05
11hr ago
In order to have a conversation about increased patient autonomy you need to know the risks and benefits of increased autonomy. I'm not saying you are stupid, I'm saying you don't know anything about medicine or prescribing, which is the thing you are trying to alter. Demonstrating knowledge of the regulatory landscape is not the same as demonstrating the risks and benefits and you certainly have not intimated any knowledge of the many, many discussions about patient autonomy that have been going on for the last several hundred years.
You don't. And that's normal. If I was arguing for deregulation of nuclear energy and you told me you were an expert and that was insane and I blew you off by mumbling about something else, well...no bueno.
You are arguing that people have a right to walk along the train tracks without knowing about the existence of trains.
Since the 1938 date-
How much has the number of drugs increased since then? How much has polypharmacy increased since then? How much has comorbidity increase since then? How much has personal behavior in response to healthcare changed since?
Do you know to think about any of these things?
Sophistry is not a substitute for domain specific knowledge.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
11hr ago
I think honestly I’d consider the relationship over. She’s not looking for you because she misses you. If she did, she’d probably not have broken it off. She probably did move, and either hasn’t yet found someone nearby or she did and th3 relationship came apart. To my mind, that’s not her choosing you, but her choosing to contact you because she can’t find someone in her new environment. If she really thought you were someone she could see herself marrying or even long-term dating, she would have at least made that offer. For whatever reason she didn’t want to. There’s nothing long term here.
My go to of any relationship among people in any context is if they wanted to, they would. If they really want to have a long term relationship with you, they would be making moves to make that happen— either not moving or committing to a LTR or something like that. If they actually want to marry you, they’ll be making concrete moves n that direction. If someone wants to be your friend, they will be willing to make time for you and to actually invite you over on occasion. If your boss really sees you getting promoted, you’ll see concrete moves in that direction— more training, being invited to conferences, being asked for input on things, maybe asked to fill in n occasion. On it goes, but my point is pay closer attention to what people are doing over what they are saying. If there’s a mismatch between words and deeds, go with the deeds.
The other night I rewatched a movie I liked when I was younger, Heartbreakers. If you want a light comedy featuring a funny performance from Ray Liotta and a hysterical one from Bob Hoskins (and also a leading turn from Jennifer Love Hewitt in her prime, displaying acres of leg and cleavage), check it out.
The premise of the film (this is revealed in the first ten minutes of the movie so it's hardly a spoiler, but the movie would probably be more entertaining if you go into it blind) is this:
WhateverHappenedToNorman
11hr ago
I have a lot of sympathy for the heavily gender dysphoric: their existence seems to be very painful, and the apparent best treatment currently avaiable to them, gender transition hard and early, cannot be reasonable healthcare policy with today's screening methods: You're going to ruin the life of many a confused child (or the children of histrionic psychos).
The problem is that their plight gets used as a cover for a bunch of perverts, fetishists, political actors and other assortments of malcontents. As such, trans-acceptance discourse is not properly framed as what it might be: an act of kindness, for which boundaries need to be set, and in which some people who are suffering are not going to get everything they want.
Primaprimaprima
Bigfoot is an interdimensional being
11hr ago
I don’t understand why more people don’t recognize that Allman is clearly superior.
coffee_enjoyer
☕️
12hr ago
I don’t buy that meditation can reliably lead to “any emotion or experience”. I don’t think the evidence is weighty enough to support that idea. Certainly you can’t trust the old writings of an institution of monks who are interested in getting monks to meditate as much as possible.
to see on paper the maximum benefit we can derive from these practices
This is a more realistic aim. Non-effortful meditation is probably beneficial for the Domain Mode Network, resulting in greater rest and general awareness. But if anything, I’d bet the benefits of meditation are precisely insofar as they don’t cause a preferable emotional state. If meditation is boring, unpleasant, but restful, then your “real life” will be more interesting, pleasant, and energetic. It’s like a nap.
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
12hr ago
For your average person who isn't sleeping well I would strongly recommend moderate cardio, cutting out caffeine and no screens for an hour or two before bed (books, podcasts, kindles ok). Even better if you can switch in some basic mindfulness meditation.
Also, if you've never done one, go for a sleep study and get yourself tested for sleep apnea.
Southkraut
A tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.
12hr ago
K&R, accept no substitutes.
It's logically consistent, space-efficient, orderly and readable. The others don't even come close.
dovetailing
12hr ago
I am once again asking you to have a little empathy for people you find disgusting
Let's start with an easier case.
I find male homosexuality disgusting. The idea of two men having sex makes my stomach turn. Even something like two men kissing makes me a bit queasy. And, separately, because I'm a Christian and take Christian sexual ethics seriously, I think it is (along with many other things) morally wrong.
It would be very easy for me to decide that, therefore, all gay men are sick perverts. There's more than ample evidence for that if I were inclined to take that position: bathhouse hookups, near-nudity at Pride parades, piss orgies. Case closed, right?
But I think we're all aware that that's not the whole story. When two men want to get gay-married, they are not, apparently, doing so merely to indulge in (and force society to be complicit in) some perverted sex act. Apparently, gay men actually fall in love, and actually form romantic attachments to each other. I know this because they say so, and because homosexually attracted men who think it's immoral talk about how hard it is, and because who on earth thinks getting married and tying yourself to another person is the easiest way to indulge in some perverted sex act; come on.
So I can have empathy for gay men. I know what it's like to be infatuated with a woman, to fall in love, to want to get married (I'm married myself) -- and, yes, to be sexually attracted and want to have sex, too. And I can imagine how insanely hard that would be, to have something wrong with your brain so that instead of having sexual and romantic attraction to the opposite sex, you have it to the same sex. And how hard it would be to have all those feelings of eros, of being-in-love, that scream to you from the rooftops that this is right and good and beautiful and what I'm meant to do, except unnaturally directed towards another man.
So yeah, I think that being homosexual means there's something mentally wrong with you, and that men having sex with men is sinful, and that it's not a good thing that we've normalized these things in our society. But I can also have empathy and understanding for their situation, and not insist at every turn that they're all perverted sickos who want to inflict their perversion on the rest of us.
But this post isn't about gays.
I keep seeing in these threads people talking about transsexuals as though they are all sick perverts who want to inflict their fetish on the rest of us. They can marshal evidence, of course, because, yes, there are trans people who are in fact doing something a lot like that. It's not as much evidence as in the case of gay men, but sure, it's there.
And it's not wrong that there's some sexual elements to transition. If you've not heard of Blanchard's typology of male-to-female transsexuals, here's the short version: There are, broadly speaking, two types of males who want to become female so badly that they will try to do it as best they can.
The first type are very effeminate males; they are attracted solely to men, they act like girls from a very early age, and they feel, often very intensely, that they are in the wrong body, to the point that it causes them enormous distress; in fact, their actual bodies are often somewhat androgynous. They have a good case that they have some prenatal hormone or endocrine issues that caused this cross-sex psychology. This type is very rare, probably less than one in ten thousand in the general population.
The second type are different. They are almost always attracted to women. They rarely displayed overtly feminine behavior as young children, and their personalities run the entire gamut of the male distribution. They often don't develop the level of distress (or obsession) that drives them to transition until later in life (though with the threshold for how motivated one has to be to transition coming down, more and more of them are transitioning earlier). This type is much more common, forming the majority -- and an increasing one, as barriers come down -- of males seeking to transition.
But the unique and startling attribute of this second type is that they find the idea of being or becoming female sexually arousing. This attribute Blanchard named autogynephilia, and to it he attributed the ultimate cause of their desire to transition.
Most "trans women" are autogynephiles.
But just as it's wrong to attribute the desire of gay men to get gay-married to their getting horny in perverted ways, it's wrong to attribute autogynephiles' desire to transition to the same. Insisting on doing so betrays the same lack of empathy that results in street preachers who think yelling at the gays about how they're sick freaks is the way to fix anything.
I don't want autogynephiles to transition. I think the messaging they are getting about how "wanting to be a girl is the number one sign of being a girl" (yes, an actual statement I've seen) is destructive and leads to foolish delusions about what they really are. I think most of them would be much happier -- and make those around them much happier -- if they would not indulge, not try to transition, not let this stuff blow up their lives and relationships. And I think that making your best disgusted face and yelling "it's a fetish" is the second-worst thing you can do, second only to the active encouragement they're getting from the trans movement.
So let me help you have some empathy. As it turns out, I have autogynephilia. (And no, before you ask -- I have never cross-dressed, not even in private. Not everyone is the same.) Let me tell you why -- in spite of the fact that I think it's wrong, and in spite of the fact that I know damn well that it doesn't actually work to change sex, I've been tempted by the siren song of transition. Here's a hint: it's not because it would help me to have orgasms.
I'm going to come back to the analogy of being in love. Not because it's exactly the same -- it isn't, not really -- but because it's the closest thing that most people have experienced to the emotions I'm trying to get at, and has many of the same complicating sexual factors. I'm going to assume you are a straight guy, because I am, and so are most of the people here. If you're not, feel free to fill in the sexes appropriately.
Let's say you develop an infatuation with a girl. You enjoy thinking about her. You want to spend time with her. Being near her is pleasant, and comforting, and a little exciting. You want her, just her, not instrumentally, not to do anything in particular, just her, for no reason and every reason. Holding her hand is electric. You just want be with her forever, to sweep her into your embrace, and damn it, why the f&!k are you getting a boner right now, you were having this pure and chaste and beautiful reverie and now you're thinking about sex.
So yeah, it's kinda like that. Sometimes there's a pure lust thing, too, just like a guy will imagine some girl and masturbate while thinking about her. But the primary thing, the reason transition has any appeal at all, is not that, any more than simple horniness is the reason a man in love wants to marry his beloved.
Sometimes -- during some periods in the past, at any time the thought would occur to me, which was quite often -- I want to be female. (And to be clear: although the intense desire to be female is not uniform, and it's less common now because I don't indulge it as deeply -- I've almost never wanted to be what I actually am, male, except instrumentally.) It's almost a primitive, axiomatic thing; a simple fact, not to be questioned despite its strangeness. My "ideal self" would have long hair and breasts and a round, sweet face, would wear dresses (but not makeup and heels, those suck), would not have a penis and testicles but a vagina and a womb and ovaries. Why? I don't know why, that's just what is. Sucks to be me that I'm actually male, unlike half the human population.
(Downthread someone mentioned the social attitude of "man bad, woman good"; unironically this is my own deeply felt and instinctive emotional response.)
For about a decade and a half of my lifetime, roughly between adolescence (maybe before; I don't remember) and when I got engaged, if you'd given me a magic button that would have instantly and permanently made me fully female, with all the right parts and functions and everything -- I would have pressed that button so damned hard you have no idea. I wouldn't do it now -- because I'm married, and I love my wife even more, and also because I have some concept for why my feelings on the matter are wrong -- but I'd still be sorely tempted.
Interestingly, I never really hated my actual body, as such. I don't like it; I don't like seeing myself in the mirror, I don't like my "equipment". But I don't have the kind of revulsion that some people report. Maybe I'm lucky after all; I mostly disliked my male body only because it wasn't a female one. But if I'd spent another decade single and investing in the fantasy of becoming a woman, instead of focusing on loving my wife and resisting those thoughts? Yeah, I'd probably be so miserable with my actual body, and so fixated on the fantasy, that I'd be willing to accept transition (hormones and surgeries and all) as the best I could do.
So anyway, next time you see some dude in a dress, with long hair and breasts but a face and voice obviously male despite his best efforts, think about what kind of emotions must have driven him to that place, and have a little empathy.
orthoxerox
If you can read this, you're using a custom theme
12hr ago
I prefer K&R with mandatory braces around single-statement blocks.
Folamh3
12hr ago
They, at least figuratively and sometimes very literally, cut off the part of their body that makes them capable of being a sexual threat- they're no different than a 3 year old boy who needs to use the women's room for pragmatic reasons.
While it's true that males who have undergone penectomies or vaginoplasties can no longer rape women (according to the UK definition of the word, defined as forcible penetration with a penis) or forcibly impregnate them, this does not mean that said males pose no sexual threat to women. They can still grope them, spy on them, take photos of them without their consent, digitally penetrate them etc. And if they choose to physically overpower a woman, they will almost always have a very easy time doing it, unlike a 3-year-old boy.
ToZanarkand
Some day the dream will end
12hr ago
Surely only an antisemite doesn't appreciate whatever the Israeli equivalent of a taco truck is!
Lol
But seriously, beyond the usual "these rules don't apply to non-whites" position that many leftists implicitly or explicitly hold, one way I've seen people try to resolve this cognitive dissonance is that they claim that Arabs voluntarily took in and sheltered large numbers of Jews escaping from the Holocaust, and only later decided they wanted to kill all of them because the Jews started oppressing them, or something.
ToZanarkand
Some day the dream will end
12hr ago
Do the Maronites have the right to build an ethnostate and maintain it at whatever the cost?
Wasn't that the basis of the foundation of Lebanon?
ToZanarkand
Some day the dream will end
12hr ago
This is basically my position - I think it would be great if Australia gave the Jews a chunk of their desert or whatever. But as you say, not going to happen.
I listen to music more nowadays since I am on concerta so some recommendations. A lot of it is farily mainstream electronic music wise but many may not have heard these
-
For about 4 years (2012-2015) Inspected Records got some artists to collab and make music, the proceeds of which would go to movember charities, the tracks being Beyond the shadows, Cascade, Mosaic and the very last If you hadn't. These are mostly Koan Sound and friends from in or around biristol
-
Polychrome is a great mix of what many just call bass music, unlike deadmau5 their stuff is not 4 to the floor so the variation in drums is a nice contrast. Koan Sound's first album, their music just sounds polished audio wise, far more than a lot of other music I have heard. Their remix of Halo 4s green and blue is pretty nice too.
-
Random Album Title by deadmau5 (pronounced deadmouse) turned 16 this year and it is my favorite album of his, electro and progresive house was fairly good during the late 2000s and it caputres a good bit of that vibe. Tracks I recommend are Alone with you which is my favorite track from the album, Faxing Berlin was one of his breakout hits at the time, I remember was another breakout hit where he collaborated with kaskade and Jaded.
-
New Energy by Four Tet is pretty nice. It is not as strict genre wise as either of the two entries before, the standout track here is two thousand and seventeen which samples classical Indian music in the best way possible.
-
Immersion, is Pendulums most popular album due to having thier most iconic tracks like watercolor,witchcraft,crush and The island. They make rock-heavy drum and bass, with the island being their non dnb mega-hit.
I should catch up on new music though so any suggestions are welcome.
Fights
Petr Yan fights Figeuridoin at UFC Macau. Finally, a UFC card that I can watch in the evening; otherwise, it's a pretty thin card. Some time ago I pointed how MMA did not feel as fun as it once was, 309 was just terrible. two 40 year olds fought where the older, less active one lost because he was older, less active and did not care. Bo Nickal threw the kind of strikes you dont expect from anyone not a heavyweight and Michael Chandler looked terrible too.
have a fun weekend folks.
Folamh3
12hr ago
Laverne Cox gets my vote. Of all ethnic groups, black women tend to be the most androgynous looking anyway, which probably helps.
It could give birth to a sort of "trans-o-sphere" equivalent of the "man-o-sphere" where trans people optimize on the traits that allow them to "pass" most effectively and efficiently, following a sort of "passMaxxing" strategy, if you will.
Why are you talking about this like it's a hypothetical? This space arrived years if not decades ago. Like some sort of weird bizarro-world version of rule 34, if you can think of some trait or activity which is even remotely gendered, you will find an online community of trans people tearing their hair out because they aren't "doing" it properly and/or a guide on how to do it more effectively:
- Feminine handwriting? Check.
- Vocal training? An entire subreddit.
- Gait? Check. (Bonus points because the post commences with "This is probably gonna sound like I'm way over-thinking / over-analysing this, but bear with me...")
This is a nice moment to take stock of the situation. Up to this point, you have lost and abandoned every single object-level argument you have made, over and over again. In this comment, you have implicitly acknowledged that you have again abandoned another argument that you've lost.
You know nothing about
This is also a nice moment to reflect on the fact that while, "You're stupid," is a great and effective argument on the third grade playground, it's not very becoming in a place like The Motte... especially when you've just lost and abandoned every single argument you've made so far.
Now, to get to Chesterton's Fence, which is in a sense moving up to the meta level, mostly abandoning any actual argument that would benefit from real in-depth domain expertise at the level of the practice of medicine, but instead moving up to the question of the history/intent of the government action.
One thing that is always a bit tricky about Chesterton's Fence is its conceptualization of "intent". One doesn't have to go full Scalia to know that, when it comes to law, 'legislative intent' can be a tricky beast. Things are sometimes done for a variety of motives affecting multiple agents. Sometimes, it is just a banal compromise (something that no one really intends, but merely accepts). Sometimes, it's a confluence of surprisingly different intents; see also the famous Bootleggers and Baptists theory. So, with that in mind, let's go through a little of the history, and see what all we can say about it.
One could have a more expansive history, but I only have so much time in a day, so I think an acceptable place to start is 1937. Prior to this point, USP was a private organization that published their own compilations of drug information. (As Mitch Hedberg would say, they still do, but they used to, too.) Alongside this, the government did have a legitimate reason to ensure that consumers at least had some understanding of what products they were buying, so the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act adopted the USP and said that a drug was "adulterated" if it failed to meet the USP's standards. Then, a company brought an "elixir" to market that used diethylene glycol, causing lots of harm and about a hundred deaths. There was a clear gap in the law and standard, because if the product had been called a "solution" instead of an "elixir", there would have been no legal violation. (Note that liability damages are a separate question and plausible pathway to accomplishing some fence-like goals and may be a useful tool in the toolbox.)
Enter the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act of 1938. This was "intended", in the Chestertonian Fence sense, to be a more robust labeling law, in an extremely pre-information-age era. This fence was not intended to restrict a person's ability to self-medicate. With the above caveats about divining intent for fences from legislative history, FDA chief Walter G. Campbell said:
There is no issue, as I have told you previously, from the standpoint of the enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act about self-medication. This bill does not contemplate its prevention at all. . . . But what is desired . . . is to make self-medication safe. [The bill provides] information that will permit the intelligent and safe use of drugs for self-medication. . . . All of the provisions dealing with drugs, aside from those recognized in the official compendia, are directed towards safeguarding the consumer who is attempting to administer to himself. If this measure passes, self-medication will become infinitely more safe than it has ever been in the past.
Sen. Royal S. Copeland (D-NY) said:
There is no more common or mistaken criticism of this bill than that it denies the right to self-medication. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The proposed law simply contributes to the safety of self-medication by preventing medicines from being sold as “cures” unless they really are cures. It requires that drugs which have only palliative effect say as much on the label.
The House committee reported:
The bill is not intended to restrict in any way the availability of drugs for self-medication. On the contrary, it is intended to make self-medication safer and more effective.
It wouldn't have made sense for the elixir tragedy to be the impetus for a law requiring prescriptions, because almost all of the deaths that came from the elixir were under the direction of a government-licensed physician. (Prior to any mandates, I'll note, some manufacturers voluntarily made their products "prescription-only", and one would have to have a separate exploration as to whether the intent there was commercial or something else. That said, I don't believe that they had required this drug to be prescription-only, but I'm not sure.) Having a prescription requirement would have saved almost none of the precious lives in question. Since then, we have not had any splashy self-medication string of deaths that would justify a prescription requirement, either. One other additional note at this point is that, even in the absence of such government requirements, the vast majority of people who took this drug did so under the direction of a doctor; many many people leveraged the expertise of medical professionals, because they found it valuable. It was not banned to leverage a doctor's expertise. (It just happened to get them killed when they followed the doctor's advice in this case.)
So what happened? Who intended it? Who built the fence and why? Turns out, the problem was mostly that the FDA was part incompetent, part just unfortunately operating in a pre-information-age era. They set out extremely vague, but strongly-worded labeling requirements. Manufacturers were scared off by how vague the requirements were, not even being sure how much stuff they really needed to put on the label to remain compliant, and in a world where all that information pretty much had to be printed directly on the little bottle, at great expense, many manufacturers were unhappy. Of course, in every regulatory scheme where half the job is keeping consumers happy and half of the job is keeping producers happy (and rich), and especially when the latter group is likely the buddy-buddy industry counterpart to the regulators with a revolving door, sometimes, you gotta do something to make the industry happy. So the FDA, on their own, without Congressional intent or authorization, just exempted medications that the manufacturer designated as prescription-only from their labeling requirements. How much of this is due to the fact that they were just not competent to come up with a more acceptable and precise labeling requirement and how much of it is just due to pre-information-era constraints? Not sure.
In any event, since manufacturers found the FDA's hamfisted labeling requirements so vague/onerous, they generally preferred to just take the exception, presumably with the Chestertonian intent to make more money and reduce their regulatory risk. I'm not even sure that the physicians were part of the bootleggers or baptists; they might not have even lobbied for this exception, only realizing later how lucrative the arrangement would be for them as well as the manufacturers. The result was that many drugs which were actually totally safe to self-administer suddenly became prescription-only, primarily because the FDA went out on its own in making new rules, did a kind of bad job at it, and manufacturers would now make more money this way.
In the next decade or so, there was clearly some confusion. The rules didn't make sense. There was no consistency or logic in whether a drug was prescription-only or not. It was entirely up to the manufacturer, who would presumably decide based on money and risk (mostly regulatory risk rather than safety risk). So, two professional pharmacists in Congress (unsurprisingly named Durham and Humphrey) created the Durham-Humphrey Amendment of 1951, which codified the prescription-only/OTC divide and put the decision under the purview of the FDA. Of course, don't forget, those drugs would be dispensed by professional pharmacists, folks near and dear to those two congressmen.
So, that's the story. What is the "intent" of the fence? Well, sure, consumer protection is in there somewhere. But it's pretty confused with tales of differing motives, incompetence, and plain difficulty of living in the past. Is it a messy story of how we got to where we are today? Absolutely. Does that mean that there aren't possible good features of the system we have today? Of course not. Does anything in there imply that this is the only plausible way of doing things and we'll have megadeaths if we do anything differently? I doubt it. But since we've now gone through the exercise of going through how the fence got there and why, perhaps we can turn back to the real questions: today, right now, what are the real, serious, justifications for such mandates/bannings?
Francesca Albanese's report to the UN. I know you said that she is "cartoonishly anti-Israeli" but if you can spot any lies in here that I missed feel free to point them out.
This is just an appeal to authority. If there are particularly compelling arguments, you can reproduce them directly here.
There's actually no point relying on the number of civilians killed to identify genocide or ethnic cleansing, because by the time those figures tell you that a genocide is occurring it is already too late to do anything about it, and the point of identifying genocide/ethnic cleansing is to make sure it doesn't happen again.
So there's no point gathering evidence to support your claim? That's a bold position to take.
For what it's worth, I don't find the argument about whether or not Israel is actually a committing a genocide to be that interesting - the answer is just so clearly and blatantly yes.
That's not really an argument. I could just as easily say the answer is so clearly and blatantly no.
I like these conversations a lot more when the Israeli side is willing to admit that they're a blood-drenched, bronze-age state intent on ethnic purity and conquest via force of arms to reclaim the territory their god said was theirs - when you're willing to admit that there are actual conversations that can be had.
I think your mask might be slipping here. But I'm not surprised you like these conversations more when your opponent just admits you're right and they're wrong. You do have to do the work of convincing them first, though.
Incidentally I'm curious as to where you get the idea that Israel is intent on ethnic purity. You do know that 20% of the population is Arab, right?
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
13hr ago
Nobody seems to be having that conversation. The consensus on the left seems to be that only a bigot would even ask the question. I mean the dominant position seems to be forcing businesses to open their bathrooms to trans women. Then complaining and calling women bigots for objecting— even for extremely vulnerable places like homeless shelters (this is how JK Rowling became such a pariah).
DradisPing
13hr ago
There's a saying "code should be written to be understood by humans first an only incidentally executed by a machine".
None of them are actually harder or easier to read, it's just a matter of familiarity. You need to train your brain to quickly parse code and tweak that for new indentation styles.
You're going to have a better time if you just learn to read the most common styles quickly. You're inevitably going to be reading a lot of other people's code.
I like otbs. It's K&R without skipping braces on one liners, which can lead to bugs on a messy merge.
This seems fair enough, and I'd characterize it as that a trans person's experience of passing is indistinguishable from not passing within certain environments and contexts, particularly ones where everyone around them decides to treat them as if they pass. It's the difference between passing a test because you legitimately got 70% of the questions correct and because the professor decided that you deserved a free 50 points on top of the 20% you got correct. You can argue that, technically, the latter fits the definition of "passing," but I don't think that's a very useful definition for the way people normally use the term. For one, it implies that one viable strategy for passing tests is to manipulate every professor you have into giving you a free 50 points, which would subvert the entire purpose of what "passing" a test is meant to signify. I don't think when people say things like "if the transwoman passes, I'm okay calling her a 'she' and having her go into the women's bathroom," they mean that they'd be okay with it as long as they've been bullied, coerced, or otherwise manipulated into treating the transwoman as if they're female regardless of their own subjective perception of the transwoman. Rather, I think they mean something about how an ignorant stranger would perceive the transwoman.
More options
Context Copy link