Stop using intersex people (who have extremely rare physiological diseases) as a political tool to justify transsexual ideology, when >99% of transsexuals do not have any such disease.
While you're right that there's no connection between being trans and being intersex (except that intersex people are probably more likely to be misgendered at birth), it's not the case that intersex people are 'extremely rare'. Depending on definition, we are talking about ~1% of people. For comparison, that is e.g. around the percentage of men who are 6'4 or taller (in the US).
This is not an endorsement of any particular take in the thread, but this seemed like an appropriate place to correct a mistake regarding the frequency of intersex births and link out to some articles for the curious.
That 1% number comes from the Fausto-Sterling survey which incorrectly lumps in Klinefelter syndrome, Turner syndrome, and late-onset adrenal hyperplasia. Eliminating those diseases yields a rate no higher than 0.018%, 2 orders of magnitude lower as the upper bound[1]. Only a small portion have cells for producing both types of gametes, only about 5% of all intersex people[2][3].
The controversy about what counts as 'intersex' is mostly pointless, as far as I can tell, as the term neither has (nor requires) a precise definition. I think in this context it makes sense to include any condition that blurs the edges of the gender binary as traditionally understood in society. If you look at the details of e.g. Klinefelter syndrome from this perspective, it's not difficult to see why it might be seen as part of the intersex spectrum:
>broad hips, poor muscle tone and slower than usual muscle growth, reduced facial and body hair that starts growing later than usual, a small penis and testicles, and enlarged breasts (gynaecomastia)
It's by no means a settled matter what does or doesn't count as 'intersex'. I suspect that few reputable researchers would waste time engaging in such a pointless debate over terminology. Some relevant points in this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5808814/
All that said, one can, if one wishes, cherry pick the smallest available estimate of the number of 'intersex' people and thereby dismiss the issues raised by these people on the grounds that they're small in number. I'm not sure how much scrutiny the logic of that rhetorical move would withstand.
I’m not trying to make any claims about the broader issue or cherry-pick here, but a lot of experts do not include Klinefelter syndrome so I think that’s worth at least noting. Moreover I think pointing out that 95% of the people in question clearly have cells to produce a single type of gamete and are often fertile is instructive.
My only point in responding is to add useful scientific/medical context. People can make what they want of that information.
Fundamentally I agree with what you seem to be getting at, taxonomy is hard.
> Moreover I think pointing out that 95% of the people in question clearly have cells to produce a single type of gamete AND ARE OFTEN FERTILE is instructive.
It’s only informative if it’s true. With regard to the second conjunct, people with Klinefelter syndrome and Turner syndrome are typically functionally infertile.
I’m not convinced that ‘a lot of experts’ are even working on defining what counts as ‘interesex’. It would make more sense to listen to intersex people, who as far as I can see, tend to think that a fairly broad definition is useful.
Your example contradicts the claim. They say "assigned male at birth" rather than "male", because they believe you can be a female even if you were assigned male at birth.
It's more that male/female is not a single binary, it's several bimodal spectra. Chromosomes of xx or xy don't perfectly line up with birth genitals, birth genitals don't perfectly line up with endogenous hormones, and endogenous hormones don't perfectly line up with internal sense of self, several of those things can be changed later, and none of them are clear binaries.
Not even 99.98% of people have unambiguous genitalia (it's about 99.5-99.97% [1]), before we even get to people with the "opposite" genitalia of what their chromosomes would suggest. An in any case, genitalia was only one of the 4 things I mentioned, and are also one of the ones that can be changed later.
Trans bottom surgery has one of the highest satisfaction rates of any surgery. You're entitled to your opinion, but I'll rely on the opinions of people actually living with the surgical results. This [1] lists a 94-100% satisfaction rate, which to me feels a fair bit higher than one might normally expect from victims of "mutilation".
> Your example contradicts the claim. They say "assigned male at birth" rather than "male", because they believe you can be a female even if you were assigned male at birth.
I'm not sure that's a contradiction so much as it's trying to weave through people's own synonymizing of the two terms where a distinction is being made. I hear your point though.
The EU can certainly claim any absurd jurisdiction they like, but how are they planning to enforce this? Ultimately it seems the primary thing they can do is censor Discord from EU internet.
Which Discord would very much not want, since for major internet businesses the EU is generally at least 20% of their income, if they know what they're doing.
The EU GDP is about 75% of the US one, it's a huge market.
The real world enforcement would be for the EU to Freeze all money transfer from the EU to said company. essentially making it a cost only proposition for that company to keep trying to sell to European customers.
Sure shady people will dream up all sorts of fancy money laundering schemes to make it looks like there is no transfers but those are already illegal as fraud on both side of the Atlantic with potential jail times.
The EU don't have to block any content to efficiently enforce GDPR against US companies trying to market profitably in the EU.
Nevertheless Chinese government can start seizing your assets in China and transfers from or to you where other participant is in China.
And arrest you in case of visiting place within Chinese jurisdiction.
Unfun fact: there were multiple cases of people getting arrested after plane performed unexpected emergency landing in a country where landing was not planned. Both where arrest was justified and where it was not.
If you set up a company that accepts money from Chinese citizens and let them do stuff online I am pretty sure your company will be subject to Chinese law, yes.
As a business? For sure. Not for every aspect of Chinese law, but for relevant ones and with enforcement in China or through mutual agreements with other governments.
This kind of comment is disappointing.
It shows a major lack of understanding of how law and businesses work, coated in a huge layer of outrage, all wrapped up in a Twitter-length type comment.
Why would European countries extradite american criminals to the US? Because we established a trust in each other and want to keep it that way for both sides benefits.
this is a poor comparison. Extradition treaties exist and contain specific legal obligations. It is not based on trust and there are several pairs of countries that do not have specific extradition treaties.
How are these treaties enforced? All international treaties are ultimately based on trust. There is no higher authority, only elective councils of and voluntary commitment to procedures (a.k.a. promises) by sovereign states.
Specifically not even these formal promises have been given by e.g. the United States of America which to this day has signed but never ratified either the VCLT[1] or the VCLTIO[2], so is figuratively giving a lukewarm "let's see about the convenience of that when it comes up".
My question as well. Can a non-EU company simply refuse to pay, and also refuse to block users from the EU? I wonder if the EU would decide to block access to the foreign service as a result. It would at least force them to be honest about the fact that they're effectively turning the internet into a legal-regional network rather than a global one.
> It would at least force them to be honest about the fact that they're effectively turning the internet into a legal-regional network rather than a global one.
This happened a long time ago. And it was started by the US, I'm quite sure.
More than that, the American way to manage the "global network" is basically to impose US laws everywhere in the world.
You can receive DMCA notices outside the US, for example.
> The case raised some concerns of civil rights and legal process in the United States, and ended in the charges against Sklyarov dropped and Elcomsoft ruled not guilty under the applicable jurisdiction.
So it's an example of "law enforcement can and sometimes do illegally attest / cause other issues unfairly", but not really a good example of a law being imposed outside the country which made that law.
That's just an egregious example, but there were also literal international trade treaties where the US basically imposed adoption of the DMCA as a condition.
Also the fact that many major tech companies are American means that US laws are basically enforced on all of their users, which is super crazy.
> The CLOUD Act primarily amends the Stored Communications Act (SCA) of 1986 to allow federal law enforcement to compel U.S.-based technology companies via warrant or subpoena to provide requested data stored on servers regardless of whether the data are stored in the U.S. or on foreign soil.
This includes foreign based subsidiaries!
So if the US Gov decides that Facebook needs to give something over, everything and everyone owned by Facebook, everywhere around the world, needs to comply. So Facebook Zambia needs to hand over the data to Facebook US. On paper there are some protections, but I'd really, really want to see how well they're enforced (I doubt it).
Where they basically say: "yeah, it's true, we'll fight in a court of law on your behalf, because otherwise a huge chunk of you in other countries would never use us".
My moral belief is that being blasted with blinding amounts of light amounts to trespass and/or assault, and fully justifies a forceful response against the source of aggression (namely, the billboard). Obviously this is not going to be accepted as a legal argument, but if I'm not worried about the legal repercussions, I feel more than justified in taking matters into my own hands - for example, by cutting power to fixed billboards or by damaging vehicle-mounted billboards when sufficiently low-legal-risk.
There may or may not be groups of people doing this already and posting about it in certain venues...
Would be pretty dank and cyberpunk if someone built an onion-service ADsassination market, where you could put bounties on ugly public-space ads and a decentralized network of spraypaint-drone operators could deface those ads to earn crypto.
* That does sound cyberpunk techno-corporatist-lawless dystopian, but what I think would be infinitely more awesome is getting government regulations and human sentiment all aligned with not having ads in public spaces.
To be honest, that's what spray tags look like to me already, random, meaningless, unique. I've photographed hundreds of tags and have never seen two alike.
Now, hacking the ad screen with a virus that displays a unique artwork... that'd be cool.
The dynamic here is fairly straightforward. When you have new growth industries like tech, there are a lot of badly-protected resources available. There is a class of people (often called the "professional managerial class", or "PMCs") who specialize in moving in and consuming these badly-protected resources. The most successful tactics for this kind of strategy come from leftist thinkers in the mid-to-late 20th century, so most of these people come from leftist backgrounds. That's why mozilla, wikimedia, etc. always have their resources parasitized towards hard left-leaning causes - because those people have the best institutional capture tactics.
If you start screwing over the 99.9%ile case to slightly improve the remaining 0.1%, you are not approximating an optimal encoding.