That’s right, there are more CIS WOMEN on a TRANS community than binary trans men or transmasculine people alone.
There are also more cis men than transfeminine people, so this isn't surprising. Bayes theorem explains this well.
I said this in the other thread, but perhaps Lemmy has an AFAB problem, rather. Maybe there's some particular trait attained in youth that boys are more likely to get which is a prerequisite for getting into lemmy later
What do you mean? were cis men more likely to answer the survey than cis women on this perform?
(I did not answer the survsy, but that's anecdotal)
Second thought is that those numbers for everyone on the masculine side of things are lower than expected. Like way lower.
Anything feminine outnumbers anything masculine, at least for this platform.
Since the cis men count is high, I think there's a cleaner decomposition: things on the AFAB side are lower than expected.
Goebbels is not the first person to say this. An earlier quote comes from Upton Sinclair in 1918:
Not merely was my own mail opened, but the mail of all my relatives and friends—people residing in places as far apart as California and Florida. I recall the bland smile of a government official to whom I complained about this matter: ‘If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.’
Let's be clear: the right to privacy is not a fascist dogma.
It surprises me as well that kidney donations cost the donor ~50k, but I guess that's why I'm not an expert.
The idea is for kidney donation to be financially neutral. So you wouldn't do this for financial gain. Currently, it's financially net negative.
Putting nitpicks with the specifics of their system aside, how is it wrong to take kidney donation from a financial negative to financially neutral?
People already self-mutilate (living kidney donors), and they are seen as heroic. Unfortunately, they take a financial hit as a result of their decision. What an injustice. Shouldn't we try to offset that? What makes this "wrong"?
I would make this assumption in this case.
You think people who would opt-in register for organ donation would be less likely to die in a way compatible with kidney harvesting than others?
I think it's somewhat unlikely that whether or not someone registers to be an organ donor would affect how they are likely to die, but if it did, I would wager that registered organ donors are more likely to die in a way that enables their kidneys to be harvested than others. In any case, I doubt the difference is more than, say, a factor of 2.
that would presumably also be <1%, wouldn't it?
How do you know this? Are you certain? Have you carefully considered both sides? What probability do you think this system would have of helping the lower class as described by their mission statement? What probability would you ascribe to the notion that there is any ethical way to monetarily incentivize kidney donation?
Okay, I do agree with what you're saying, at least as far as "we live in a broken society" and capitalism is bad. But why should the response to any idea short of tearing down the system be negative? If there's a way to help improve things... shouldn't we go for it? It sucks that society sucks but that's not an excuse to ignore potentially helpful ideas.
On an anonymous survey though?