WalrusDragonOnABike

I've seen others say comparing one person's score over time can be useful. So like if you were a 3, but now you are a 5 something has gotten worse.

Also, it can be one aspect of determining if someone needs pain killers apparently.

But it was only after more visual inspection in the ambulance they immediately gave me morphine.

Can relate. When I broke my left wrist, I probably would have described the pain as a 1 at the ER if they had even bothered to ask; instead they just brought painkillers to me (just something like codeine) after seeing it (the x-ray tech was a bit surprised they didn't go with an injection). When I broke my collar bone, I said 2-3 because I was afraid I wouldn't be taken seriously if I said 1-2 at the ER (if I had seen a mirror with my shirt off beforehand, I might have been a less worried about that).

Because liberals are defending genocide too...

I wasn't disagreeing with that part of the argument or suggesting that were limiting the discussion to trans women for nefarious reasons. I was only disagreeing with the quoted part. Biological sex is also a social construct, so the whole topic of physically being a man or woman biologically is still in the same realm of thought as race science, so I think the topic is sort of questionable to bring up at all. But even if we want to follow that logical, some trans women have far more in common with their body with a cis women who have had a hysterectomy that they do with cis men.

I'm also not suggesting that trans women need medical interventions to be women. Just that if you tried to assume some logic to actions of transphobes (your biggest mistake), then even if you excluded neurological biological reasons, then biological sex should still allow those that meet the transmeds/truscums BS ideas at least, yet transphobes still take issue. Biological here is just a dog whistle.

Also not suggesting that said person would necessary disagree - my goal was just to add to the topic.

I don't think so. Seems like KTI was talking specifically about trans women being neurologically female (and neurology is part of biology). I'm talking about the rest of the body also being female.

Just not physically.

If we are gonna insist people have to be categorized into either biological male or female, a lot of trans women would most reasonably be placed into the female category and a lot of trans men into the male category.

Trans people change frequently are changing their biology to match their gender.

Seems like this is from people who (claim to have) demonstrated how it could be done on the hardware used in the election as part of their professional careers, are showing the data suggesting something like that was done, and are reaching out to officials to get a recount, which would be able to prove something was done to alter the results. Seems like demanding recounts is what should be done, just like in 2020.

2016 anomilies were differences between exit polls and results specifically in some swing states. Different anomoly. Not saying 2016 was definitely fraudulent, but seems worth double checking if you want to pretend to be a republic/democracy.

Nothing was done based on the shady 2016 election outcomes, so I doubt anything will happen this time either.

You could do vote totals for president vs vote totals for the next highest state-wide race (or break it down to more locally) without looking at the party those votes went to. It wouldn't prove that the huge number of bullet votes were specifically in favor of Trump, but at least would suggest some wrong-doing, even if the result of a recount lowers Harris votes.

Still, there's surely lots of other races where one candidate is clearly awful, yet bullet ballot rates are still <1%.

Maybe betacam?

Doctors told her she would be unlikely to carry the child to term, and doing so increased her chances of infection or other severe outcome.

When the law is a witch hunt not based on science, doctors cannot operate based on their best judgement based on science. Real issues of "unlikely" and "increased her chances" aren't the same things as immediate medical emergency: they prevent an immediate medical emergency. Any law restricting abortions to when they are "medically necessary" will always lead to cases where its denied until its immediately medically necessary, at which point it may be too late. This is a clear-cut example of what such laws will always do and doctors being forced to tiptoe around the feelings of fanatics instead of being able to practice medicine.

Do you blame the grocery store?

Yes.