Pretty sure Seeross Willory is on something. Something exciting.
Pretty sure Seeross Willory is on something. Something exciting.
Yeah, but it can still be exploitation even if it’s not a scam. I don’t know near enough to say it is, just that it could be.
The important part is that the individual people spend more per capita for worse healthcare, too. You, private citizen reading this, are worse off and are paying more than you would be with socialized medicine in this country. Pretty much no matter what level you’re at, too.
Lol, menses.
Remember kids, iron man is Fe male.
Game theory, which is just maths, matters more than psychology, even
*without voting system reform
I didn’t know if you meant it that way, but my sleepy brain read it like a threat
It just works.
Yeah, super fucking close call there.
You know what they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
And this only looks like a beholder. No tentacles.
He saw… Beans lotsa beans lotsa beans lotsabeans
It was an estate sale, duh. For some reason no one wanted Grandpa’s novelty Fleshlight collection.
I’m so disappointed that it is a normal human dick and not a duck’s corkscrew dick.
And I’d just like to add: you’re right, this is the way the literature talks about it. You’d think the term being used clinically - with a clear, concise, and well-defined meaning - would mean it couldn’t be targeted and attacked the way it is by the religious right. You’d think, you’d hope, and you’d be wrong. And that sucks.
I don’t know about that. I think the reasons they give would sound external like that, but they can sound that way from a trans person too. And ask about something more significant, like
what if you didn’t have a penis anymore? Say you could still have sex and babies, but didn’t have a penis. How would you feel about that?
A cis man would be pretty affected by that, and he wouldn’t attribute that to societal pressure. I contend that at the very least there is some misattribution when most cis people put the entirety of their gender identity on external factors.
Either way, I fully agree that it’s something that research can answer in a way discussion never will. Whether and to what degree that research has happened, is happening, or ever will happen I can’t say.
If you’re referring to the “empty set” and asking the question “why is it empty” you should probably step away from set theory for now.
Change the question slightly and they think about it differently. Ask them how they’d feel if they lost some of those features. A cis man with hairy arms and chest probably doesn’t say he feels a great joy when he thinks about them, but would probably feel some real discomfort if he couldn’t grow body hair any more. They assign a neutral value to them because they consider it “default”. And of course not everyone feels the same way about these things, cis or trans, but I think most cis people really do value their genders and sexed bodies because those things match, even if they wouldn’t say so.
Either way, I think we’re both speaking anecdotally and I don’t plan to go look for the research on gender identity right now.
I don’t know who (Abigail Thorn? Contrapoints? …Vihart?) but someone was talking about how sometimes that’s the case, that they really don’t have a sense of their own gender. That they’re “really” something like agender, but that it’s just too much of a bother to worry about correcting people. But there are also plenty of cis people deeply invested in their own gender, who really do have toes to it and identify as that gender, but when you ask them how they know, they put it all on external things rather than internal.
I can’t help but read it like the name of a magic card, “The, (the) Lord of the Rings” which would make The his given name and Lord of the Rings his title.