Indeed it is so.

Nevertheless, assholes.

If the employers are using computers to read my resume, why shouldn’t I used a computer to write it?

Assholes to the lot of them.

Also, that whole thing is nonsense of the highest order.

Some of this makes a bit of sense, but it still leans heavily on perception by others, rather than respecting what people know about themselves. This does not seem to be what many transgender persons want.

I’ll think about it.

using ciswomen and transwomen makes you sound like a TERF.

What would be a correct way to distinguish between the two?

• “Woman” seems like it works refer to both, to be used in the majority of cases when the distinction is irrelevant.

• I don’t want to say “natural” women, or “real” women, as even someone as thick as me can see that’s insulting.

• It seems that using the prefix for both makes them equal.

What do you think world be more appropriate?

it’s impossible for Black people to not pass as Black because it’s been proven they experience racism based on an immutable characteristic.

But they would suggest that as soon as we discover a way to change that characteristic, transrace world be valid.

Further, while gender identity may not be based on appearance, the way one is treated is very much based on appearance. If I look male, I get treated as male. If I look female, I get treated as female. If I look like one, but insist I am the other, people tend to have disagreements between their deliberate and automatic behaviors. (Well, the same people do, anyway.)

I can’t think of a good way to prove it, but I am legitimately curious about this topic. I’m never happy with the answer “because this one is right, and that one is wrong.” There needs to be reasons why.

maybe stop comparing race and gender then.

Isn’t the entire premise of the post that someone is seeing parallels here, and would like to understand why the similarities are not meaningful? As I said, I agree that transracial people are being silly, but I haven’t seen an argument here that can’t be used against transgender people.

trans women only pass because we’re women.

But there are plenty of transwomen who don’t “pass” despite being women. But they should still be treated as women. Hell, there have been at least a few reports of ciswomen who couldn’t pass as women, at least to sufficiently assholish observers. On that basis, I don’t think we can use “passing” as a factor to determine people’s identity.

I’m advised that there is no scientific or genetic basis for race. I’m a little unclear on how “ethnicity” is different from “race.”

All of them seem to be social constructs.

So, as a white person, I cannot pass as black, so I can never expect people to treat me like I’m black?

Don’t get me wrong, I think the idea is silly, but all the arguments I’ve seen in this thread are a word-swap away from being a bad argument against transgender people.

What’s the essential difference?

Problem is that “race” isn’t just cultural. How you will be treated definitely depends on how other people perceive your “race” and subsequently it will shape your life reality

But surely how you will be treated definitely depends on how other people perceive your “gender” and subsequently it will shape your life reality?

Everything you described up there sounds exactly like “cultural.”

If you were to use their network to take advantage of the features for anything that the “predator” behind doesn’t care, you’re fine.

But what will the predator care about tomorrow? Or next year? And how confident are you that aggregate data is not what they want, for whatever reason?

removed by mod

Scientists were so caught up with weather they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.

Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.

And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren’t under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.

your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say

So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?

The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.

But I’m with you. No kings.

As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.

They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.

We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.

I wouldn’t choose such a system, I think, but I can’t say that there aren’t at least a few half decent arguments for it.

A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn’t automatically mean “powerless figurehead.”

Given the way the US has been recently, I’m willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.

Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word “training” to make it fit that sentence above.

I find it hard to believe that it’s legal to buy a company, but not it’s contractual obligations. Seems line a hell of a loophole for getting out of things you don’t want to do.

I seem to recall reading that a German scientist did the experiment that lead directly to the atom bomb before we did our in the US, but that he misinterpreted the results, and tossed the whole line of research.

You could always just say “whoops, I read the question wrong,” particularly since the rest of your answer was right.

If you’re a practicing attorney, can you explain to me what roll the judge and jury have in charging someone with a crime? I had always thought that was done long before they game into the picture.