Schadrach

This is not at all accurate. If a girl wants to play a sport for which there is a boys team but not girls team, she must be allowed to try out and participate on the same basis as the boys (a boys team is really an “everyone” team - this actually applies beyond schools and Title IX as no professional sports league in the US actually bars women from competing). Only girls/women’s teams get to set restrictions with respect to sex/gender. For Title IX, this is a wildly discriminatory interpretation of a low that bans discrimination, but it’s the one that has been in use for years.

And Title IX doesn’t require equal funding, but something much more nebulous about impact and opportunity that makes the whole thing kind of intentionally wishy washy so anyone they need to be can not be in compliance. To make it even more impossible to actually comply, questions of funding and opportunity are not limited to what the school itself supplies, so for example anything donated by parents or volunteers (such as the work of a booster club) also counts. So for example, if you cut funding to a boys team and parents more than make up the shortfall in donations and fundraising, it’s entirely possible based on that you might have to cut it further. Related, this kind of thing is why less popular boys sports are prone to being cut at the drop of a hat - football and sometimes boys basketball make money, most other sports teams lose money so the school is incentivized not to make cuts from King Football or Prince Basketball, but they have to target equal opportunity and impact between boys and girls athletic spending which means they spend what they’re willing to have as a cost on girls teams and cut whatever boys teams they need to cut to avoid cutting into the football budget, because the football budget has an ROI.

Per NFHS website (https://nfhs.org/stories/title-ix-compliance-part-iv-frequently-asked-questions):

FAQ: Does Title IX require that 50 percent of our athletic budget be spent on girls programs and 50 percent be spent on our boys programs? Answer: No. The key to allocating financial resources under Title IX is the overall impact of expenditures – does your school’s allocation of financial resources provide equivalence of athletics opportunities and benefits to boys and girls. Although this will result, in most cases, in an approximate 50-50 budgetary allocation, Title IX does not require a strictly proportional division of dollars.

FAQ: Our school offers soccer for boys, but not for girls. Does Title IX require that we allow girls to play on the boys team? Answer: Title IX requires that in sports where a girls team is not offered, girls must be allowed to try out for the boys team and participate on the same basis as boys. This does not mean that a girl automatically gets to be on the team. She has to try out and make the team on the same basis as any boy would have to try out and make the team. She can also be cut from the team, but only on the same basis as a boy could be cut from the team – for an objectively verifiable lack of ability or a lack of size, strength, skill and experience making participation unsafe.

FAQ: Our school offers volleyball for girls, but not for boys. Does Title IX require that we allow boys to play on the girls team? Answer: No. Although there have been a few, isolated lawsuits where boys have obtained injunctions to allow them to participate on a girls team for which their schools offered no same-sport equivalent for boys, the courts generally rule that the purpose of Title IX is to remedy past inequities of athletics opportunity for the historically under-represented gender – females – and that if boys are allowed to participate on girls teams, they will because of height, weight and strength advantages come to dominate the membership of those teams, and thereby decrease the competitive opportunities for women. Therefore, in the vast majority of cases, the courts have not permitted boys to play on girls teams, even if there is not a same-sport boys team.

The law in question only prohibits biological males from participating in female sports. It does not prohibit females from joining boys teams.

There’s a simple reason for that - the second sentence is required under current interpretations of Title IX, while the first is not. The argument for that is about girl’s sports being a sort of protected space for girls, so it’s OK to bar non-girls (however your jurisdiction chooses to define that) from girls sports, but “boys” sports are actually for everyone who can compete.

i think sport, exspecially in schools, should always be mixed.

Girls’ teams exist entirely to guarantee girls a number of slots, on the presumption that on average in most sports once you hit puberty generally the boys will start to dramatically outperform the girls due to things like size, upper body strength and other traits that are broadly connected to testosterone levels. Then you have things like chess, where you still have a women’s league, but that basically exists because “not enough” women play chess and the notion is that a smaller talent pool broadly means easier competition that will in turn be more approachable.

Mixed teams in school sports as a general practice won’t happen unless specific minimums are mandated, because it would impact competitiveness.

At the same time, under Title IX, if there is no girl’s team and a girl wants to play a sport she must be allowed to try out and must be allowed to play if she can pass try outs. The reverse is not required under current interpretations, leading to a weirdly discriminatory interpretation of a law banning discrimination.

I say #2, specifically because it can be done mathematically, as opposed to trying to agree on some definition of “fairness” that isn’t completely different for every office and doesn’t have to be wholly redistricted every election as a consequence.

Say, something like least split line. Basically, if you have an even number of seats for a region, draw the shortest length line that splits the region into two regions of equal population. If you have an odd number of seats > 1, then draw the shortest line that splits the region based on number per seat given one side gets the “extra” seat (for example, for 5 seats you’d split so that one side is 2/3 of the other side and give 3 seats to one side and 2 to the other). Repeat the process for each region created by these lines until each region represents one seat. If there are multiple shortest lines, you the one closest to a NS axis. The extra seat always goes to the west side of the line.

I don’t know, I wouldn’t mind also being able to tell it to start to preheat while I’m on my way home. Would save a chunk of time if I could literally walk in the door and throw the food in the oven without the extra wait for it to preheat which is usually long enough to be annoying but not long enough to do anything else.

Headline was inaccurate - they didn’t bomb a place for a gender reveal. Instead they bombed a place that produced blue smoke for some other reason and joked about how it resembling a gender reveal. That’s…not better but it’s an important distinction - one is blowing shit up to announce it’s a boy and the other is blowing shit up to blow shit up and then joking about the color of the smoke.

You’d have to be an asshole not oppose country based on settler-colonialism and ethnic cleansing

…and yet, being anti-Israel was considered a far-right neo-Nazi position not that long ago. It became acceptable again from the start of the current flare up (the current fighting isn’t something new, it’s been going on and off for decades). Before that, anti-Israel meant anti-Jew meant obviously Nazi. It’s wild how when things change so many people will just quietly drop the old narrative and pretend it never existed. We’ve always been at war with Eurasia and all that.

The reality is that the US supports Israel, has for a long time and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. It’s not because of being pro-Jew or wanting to ethnically cleanse Arabs, it’s because they’re our only real ally in the Middle East and thus we’ll remain safely on their good side unless and until we get a strategically more useful ally in the Middle East. Then keeping them happy becomes less important.

Compared to the US, they don’t. 1A protections are extremely broad, to be outside protected speech it practically has to be either CSAM or inciting immediate lawless action.

As in “SLUR should be hanged from trees” is protected under 1A, “Guys, grab that SLUR over there and string him up” is not. CSAM is primarily illegal because production, distribution and even possession further harms the victim of the CSA performed to create it.

Honestly, we need to reform our economic system and not continually rely on fertility to solve all of our problems.

Fertility and demographic collapse aren’t about supporting an economic system. Even if we were a post-scarcity communist utopia women would need to average 2.1 children/woman to maintain the existing population (2.1 isn’t growth, it’s maintenance - if you wonder why it’s slightly higher than the number of people involved with making new people it’s because you also have to cover for infertility and mortality among those children) or the same population-level result would occur. The nasty thing about demographic collapse is that it’s subtle until it isn’t and by that point it’s really hard to fix. There is no economic system where people don’t need to make more people to have a stable population, at least not unless/until we achieve some kind of immortality.

Ultimately you have three options when it comes to the topic, and they all have downsides:

1. Get your people to make more people. Downsides: Those new people aren’t really contributing to society for a couple of decades, which means it’s a long term fix for a problem that might be a big problem in a shorter term than that depending on where we’re talking about. Also, there aren’t a lot of ethical ways to do this, and the ones that are ethical aren’t extremely effective.

2. Import people from elsewhere. Downside: If you do this too quickly and/or without pushing for assimilation you will irrevocably change if not destroy your culture. This is why places like Japan and South Korea aren’t allowing unlimited mass immigration from anywhere people are willing to come from despite being on the cusp of the “until it isn’t” part of “subtle until it isn’t.”

3. Do nothing, and hope it just fixes itself. Downside: This is essentially a death spiral for your people.

Any random 9-digit number can be a valid SSN.

Not true - there are whole ranges that specifically aren’t in use (mostly specific values for the first three digits that are intentionally not used). Outside those ranges though, yeah, basically any 9 digit number. Add one to the last digit of your SSN and if you were born before 2014 you likely get someone born in the same hospital on the same day.

Like the ridiculous subscription mouse a few months back, I’d be willing to bite with the right incentives, but those aren’t incentives the manufacturer is going to be OK with. I’d take a car with ads, so long as it was sufficiently discounted compared to a normal car. And then I’d look up how to disable the ads.

Blocklist is literally empty.

They federate with everyone, including the insufferable right wingers, the insufferable tankies, and the people who draw loli (I think there’s only one lemmy instance still active that allows loli and it’s the radqueer one, and it’s tiny enough you don’t notice it unless you go looking for it). Most of the insufferable right wingers have also closed their respective instances.

If their mastodon instance is any comparison, it still federate with everyone including the instances that post loli. I suspect if an instance were posting stuff illegal in the US that would be grounds for SDF to defederate for legal reasons, but 1A protections are broader than speech protections in most of the rest of the world.

You can always block the community or even the entire instance of anyone you don’t want to see.

Or one with the broadest possible federation like lemmy.sdf.org, though they are US based if that’s a problem for you.

SDF does not defederate. The blocklist is empty. And it’s small enough and chill enough that it’s unlikely to get blocked by other instances much.

They’re a non-profit that’s older than the web and offers a variety of network and retrocomputing services including most famously a public access Unix server. They started as a dialup anime BBS.

I’ve never had that problem. Not on my instance’s web page or using Sync on my phone.

…it would be if in your analogy GMail blocks Yahoo because they don’t like the politics of their CEO, Outlook blocks both GMail and Yahoo to create a safe space, and you left Protonmail out of the list entirely because almost everyone else is blocking them for not banning users who email the wrong kind of porn to each other.

It’s not a big deal until you realize the notion that they all talk to each other is mostly a lie and all the big ones block dozens of instances each. Hell, the threads on the larger instances about whether or not Threads and Truth Social should be defederated if they ever enable federation were some of the highest activity topics on Lemmy for a bit. So was people cheering about Burggit shutting down their lemmy server.

My parents told me that I’d understand how the world works when I get older, but I just hate it more and more.

That’s how you know you’re understanding it.

let’s just make more trans people. Problem solved!

This is literally what right wingers accuse trans people trying to engage with kids in public of doing. Like trans story time, or trans teachers. That they’re going to trans their children, like it’s some kind of vampire curse.

Worst case you bail for a different instance, ideally one that doesn’t defederate if your goal is not to have content blocked from you.

No, your canaries are already long dead. It’s long been a process when Reddit admins don’t want a sub to exist but it isn’t actually breaking any rules to laser focus on the moderators, ban them the moment they have an excuse, immediately ban the sub for being unmoderated, refuse to give it to a new mod via reddit request and ban any replacement subs for recreating a banned sub. Hell, r/GamingCircleJerk has been laughing about some right wing gaming memes sub having that done to it just a few weeks ago.

They only care about it not looking like they are just nuking subs they don’t like is because they don’t want to scare off other users who might get antsy about having a community under those sorts of capricious admins.

This sounds a lot like an automation of that process that misfired. That they were all specifically banned for being “unmoderated” is what jumps out to me as telling.

So like nearly every commemorative coin then. I have half a dozen tied to various years I went to PAX because I thought they were a cool piece of memorabilia.