MystikIncarnate

Same situation, but I'd have to discuss with my SO before I smash it, and I'd likely only press it once.

Bluntly, if you invest it correctly, even at a 1% return, you can make $100k in yearly interest on $10M. That's more than my salary.

However, having that stable and passive income is less important to me than my partner. If she didn't want to take the risk of me becoming a woman, or if she would leave if it happened, I likely wouldn't risk it. To put it simply, her, and her happiness, is more important to me than money. Money I can make, I can't exactly find anyone that will even come close to living up to what she means to me. People like her are not exactly super common.

Male and female are terms that differentiate between organisms that create material that fertilizes or organisms that create material that gets fertilized.

IMO, your own bias is incorrectly coloring those terms. So for an example, let's take humans, primates, and even animals out of the mix.

Plants create pollen, instead of sperm, and seeds instead of ovum/eggs, but functionally they serve the same functions. In plants there are male, pollen making plants, and female, seed making plants.

Male, and female, as terms, are not matters of opinion, or social constructs in this context. They are definitions of whether an organism has the genetic instructions to create material that fertilizes, or material that gets fertilized.

Applying human social constructs for the terms should not be done in a scientific context, like when we're discussing genetics.

There's definitely logic behind wanting to boycott their art so that you are not indirectly supporting their decisions by giving them the money to continue to do the things that they're doing.

Of course, that is also a separate decision from whether you like the art or whether you like the artist.

Anyone trying to tie these things together is generally not someone I would want to associate with.

That's fair. You can like something but refuse to support it.

I'm mainly taking issue with anyone who says that if you don't like the artist, you can't appreciate the art. I've heard it a few times (or some variation of it), and IMO, that's far too common already.

I don't know why this is news.

Most of the people I know that are analytical enough to sleuth out this kind of thing are also socially aware enough to support universal healthcare.

The individual in question profited off the literal suffering of others by endorsing, creating, or otherwise allowing his company to deny claims for any, and every reason they could. It doesn't matter if he personally denied coverage to anyone; he was responsible for everything the company he was the executive officer of, did.

To that end, he's profited from the suffering of those who were denied help.

He's a piece of shit and the world has been made better because he is no longer a part of it.

I think I understand what you're driving at, and to me, genetically we are either male or female. This is a scientific truth, and not a matter of opinion or social construct.

In all walks of nature, with the exception of hermaphroditic organisms, or those that reproduce by mitosis (or similar biological process), all complex/multi-cellular life has genetic instructions for the sex of the organism.

From a scientific perspective, genetic males would form the appropriate structures for fertilization, in most or all primates, sperm. Conversely females would develop structures to produce ovum. There are genetic abnormalities that can happen, and they are largely outliers at most.

Since genetic manipulation isn't legal to perform on humans, this cannot be altered with the current laws (and/or technology). Therefore those born with the XY gene (males) will always have that genetic coding, and those born with the XX gene (females) would equally always have that coding.

At present it is, in my opinion, the only thing we cannot change about an individual when performing a procedure such as SRS.

with all that being said : none of this negates or otherwise changes the fact that every individual person can, and should, have full rights to be who they are most comfortable being. Whether you have XX or XY genes, is not an important factor when discussing gender, and other gender based social constructs. It is irrelevant to the discussion. What a man is, or what a woman is, is entirely a discussion surrounding social constructs. Anyone who attempts to isolate people into whatever their genes indicate their gender was when they were incubated, is trying to tie an entirely social construct to a scientific qualification. Those two things are so different that they can not, and should not be tied together in any way, shape, or form.

Your genetics do not dictate who you are socially.

I have a rucksack, and the design elements I can see from the hostel seem to match up pretty good.

Unless this individual has two fairly costly backpacks that they're just swapping between, I think the media is calling out an innocent person.

Maybe they didn't.

Maybe they just restored the cities after the war.

Who knows? It's the future, man.

I'm not a swiftie, and I'm male, so take my words as you will in that context.

Simply: IMO, it is possible to appreciate someones artistry while disliking their personal value system and actions.

Just because someone is a good artist, does not and should not imply that they are good.

Both liking someone's music and disliking their decisions as a person, can both be true. I hate the plethora of false dichotomy arguments that you can't appreciate music made by a person if that person is considered a bad person. One does not mean the other cannot be true.

Accounting for that, the hostel guy seems to have a rucksack or similar. They're quite distinct and notable bags. If it's not actually a rucksack, it's something with similar design elements, maybe a knockoff, since rucksacks tend to be rather expensive.

Rucksacks are popular with people who hike/move around a lot, the kind of people who would stop at a hostel for a night before moving on to another area/location/city/country, usually by non-typical means (hiking, walking, hitch hiking, etc).

That's just the personality type for one such person who would use such a combination of products, and by no means should describe, or imply a description, of the individual illustrated in the image. My entire point to saying any of this is that it's a very district design.

The shooter has a very simple backpack that lacks most of the notable features that I can see from the backpack/rucksack that the hostel person is using.

They're both backpacks, but one is notably different than the other.

While it's feasible they just switched backpacks, IMO it's far more likely that they're simply different people.

To me, this kind of naming and shaming attitude of a person of interest in an ongoing investigation by the press is disgusting.

If the images here depict two different people as I suspect they do, then the individual in the hostel images is likely to suffer consequences as a result of the brash and hasty release of their images by the press. It will likely affect them for years to come.

It makes for enticing headlines, that's for sure, but it's abysmal journalism. They don't seem to have any standards left regarding the truth, only whatever will attract the most views/clicks/reads/whatever.

To me this is par for the course. Corpos steal from you before you get it (wage theft), and "charity" manipulates you into the same, but you're a "willing" participant in the process of having your money taken.

Pretty much everyone who is classifiably "rich" has gotten there by taking a small amount from a large number of people, usually on an ongoing timeline. The formula hasn't changed. If you don't have a hundred people giving you a small amount consistently, you're probably not going to become rich.

When someone says "biological woman" I usually just assume that they mean that the individual was genetically female at birth.

Biology is a mess of stuff, so it can be interpreted a bunch of ways, meanwhile genetics are generally unchanged regardless of what may have changed to your body/biological container.

I just forgive people for using inaccurate terms and understand what they mean instead of the literal interpretation of what they're saying.