jsomae
@jsomae@lemmy.ml
- Comment on Are you not entertained? 1 day ago:
then they’ll bring along their security escort.
- Comment on Are you not entertained? 1 day ago:
If we ban private jets, billionaires will just buy every seat on the commercial jet. This will be even more inefficient fuel wise, and worse for the environment overall.
Don’t ban private jets. Ban billionaires.
- Comment on nooo my genderinos 1 week ago:
Granted, it’s not proof, but I find it very hard to believe that all cases of identical twins with apparently differing gender identities is explained by one of the twins simply electing not to transition while the other does. This is particularly hard to believe given that the twins grow up in similar environments, so if one is in a transition-hostile environment the other likely is as well. I think we should believe people when they insist they are not transgender, especially if they are part of a study where their identical twin is comfortable being open about it. If this were a rare occurrence, I would be more inclined to agree with you, but it is not rare at all.
“transgender”
One instance where I have seen “transgender” used this way is from the same article where I learned about the link between transgender, skin elasticity, and hyperflexibility:
it’s at least possible that EDS and transgender are linked
It’s no typo; other articles by this same author use the same grammar. I have also for sure seen this used on other sites, including by trans authors, but in 5 minutes of searching I can’t find those instances. “Being transgender” does seem grammatically fitting to me, but it doesn’t always make sense to use “being transgender” as a substitute for “transgenderism”*/“transgender.” Anyway we more or less agree here.
- Comment on nooo my genderinos 1 week ago:
gender dysphoria is not what I’m talking about, since not all transgender people have dysphoria.
To be clear – “transgender” the noun is not referring to a person (“that person is a transgender”* – proscribed) but rather as a substitute for “transgenderism”* (proscribed). Personally, using “transgender” seems linguistically strange to me and it just reminds me of Trump saying “transgender for everybody” but if it’s what people prefer then who am I to judge.
Anyway – yes, I agree that it seems very probable that there are strong genetic components to transgender, but it’s also clearly not purely genetic.
- Comment on nooo my genderinos 1 week ago:
Funny.
If we assume that the distribution is measuring some trait (e.g. “testosterone content,” “femininity,” measured however you will), and it’s bimodal (distribution is dominated by two binary sexes), then there will be people on either side of both peaks.
- Comment on nooo my genderinos 1 week ago:
my bad, updated to “transgender,” I read online that’s the preferred noun form (though it looks more adjectival to me)
- Comment on nooo my genderinos 1 week ago:
I don’t entirely agree, because gender identity is known to be at least partially biological, e.g. there are correlations between transgenderism, skin elasticity, and hyper-flexibility.
- Comment on nooo my genderinos 1 week ago:
it’s a normalized distribution. The y-axis is unitless.
- Comment on nooo my genderinos 1 week ago:
yes.
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 week ago:
Yes, but the top level comment is countering it using an incorrect application of the theory of evolution.
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 week ago:
I’m not claiming that this change in how eyes work would be an improvement. I’m claiming that the following does not hold generally: “Doesn’t have adaptation X ⇒ adaptation X would not improve fitness.”
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 week ago:
The problem is that the landscape of where the global maxima are changes faster than evolution can keep up. If the environment were entirely static, then yes, mathematically speaking any random optimizer would eventually reach a global maximum. However, it could take, say, 10^50^ years or more to jump from a local maximum to a distant, higher maximum.
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 week ago:
Okay true, but I still feel the comment was misleading. If it were phrased as “If vertebrae don’t have it, it means it wouldn’t improve their fitness” it would be wrong.
- Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 week ago:
The
.is not visible to me at any distance. - Comment on YOU HAVE NO POWER HERE 1 week ago:
that’s not how evolution works.
- Comment on Anon thinks there is a bicurious double standard 1 week ago:
I assumed anon is a woman, based on the picture.
- Comment on Anon thinks there is a bicurious double standard 1 week ago:
Women will leave him? I’m surprised to hear this.
- Comment on They will remember 2 weeks ago:
So glad lemmy is finally graduating from “cracker” to “clanker.” This is what class consciousness looks like 😎
- Comment on Anyone else from Europe feels the same while browsing the "All" feed? 2 weeks ago:
That you say “your country” immediately reveals your own bias to assume that everything you see is American.
You probably think everyone posting is male as well.
Even I think this despite being a canadian woman.
- Comment on Anyone else from Europe feels the same while browsing the "All" feed? 2 weeks ago:
be the change you want to see in the .world
- Comment on Begun the kernel wars have 2 weeks ago:
It’s not an exception. Pronouns never have apostrophes for possessive.
His. Hers. Theirs. Its.
- Comment on Bill and Melinda French Gates and Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge after 15 years: Only 9 of the 256 billionaires actually followed through on giving away half their wealth 3 weeks ago:
oh I misunderstood. I thought “five figure income should be 0” meant “people shouldn’t be able to make even five figures.”
- Comment on Iron 3 weeks ago:
So I think we agree?
- Comment on Bill and Melinda French Gates and Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge after 15 years: Only 9 of the 256 billionaires actually followed through on giving away half their wealth 3 weeks ago:
Five figure income should be zero? $10,000/year is not a livable income.
- Comment on Iron 3 weeks ago:
Okay, well, to be clear, my position is: let’s do medical advancement and let’s replace current IP law. Whether or not billionaires get a profit doesn’t enter my calculus. I care only about improving the life of the lower class; redistributing the wealth of billionaires would definitely be good for that goal, but if there is something that benefits both the lower class and billionaires I will not reject it on the principle of not helping billionaires.
- Comment on Every support thread on Reddit is literally this now 3 weeks ago:
I didn’t mean to ask how one can view the comments. I meant to ask how it’s possible at all in the first place.
- Comment on Iron 3 weeks ago:
I didn’t say that at all. I never said those were mutually exclusive. You are the one who came along and asserted that medical advancements could only be made under current IP law.
- Comment on Every support thread on Reddit is literally this now 3 weeks ago:
How is it possible to view deleted comments?
- Comment on Iron 3 weeks ago:
We should already change our laws on ownership. I’m not sure how it’s possible that I’m saying “we should improve healthcare and also change IP laws” and you’re hearing me say “IP laws are good the way they are.” The U.S. is past the threshold already.
- Comment on Iron 3 weeks ago:
Well, the current situation in the U.S. is pretty bad. But I’m happier that at least some people are able to get, say, insulin for their diabetes, than that nobody can. I would of course greatly prefer free or at least cheap access to insulin for all, but I would not press a magic button to remove insulin entirely in order to screw over big pharma. I know someone with diabetes – how could I say their life is not worth the cost to society that comes capitalists exploiting a monopoly on insulin?
Similarly, in the future, I hope to be able to say that in expectation somebody I know would have had down syndrome had it not been prevented by (the non-evil kind of) eugenics programs such as polygenics.