Is it? I haven't studied philosophy (but I have studied math) - it seems to me that the Wikipedia article on Truism demands the statement to be true for it to be a truism. But it's not true though?
The way I see it, the statement can be construed as:
I'm not allowed to criticize X -> X rules over me
But, perhaps because "allowed" and "criticize" are subject to interpretation, there are plenty of groups you will be socially penalized for criticizing (see jokes about kids with cancer below the comment with the quote - I can’t figure out how to link to them). Many countries also protect minorities by making hate speech illegal, and yet those minorities are not ruling the country (though that's probably exactly what the quote was originally meant to imply). If anything, the truism would be the 'opposite' implication:
X rules over me -> I'm not allowed to criticize X
Yet even this isn't categorically true, like in democracies (which I guess brings in the interpretation of "rule", as well).
Tbh, I feel like calling this "sad" doesn't do a good enough job of refuting the underlying misogynist belief (that a woman's worth is her looks) that the parents have.
That is what I'm using. I don't really read enough pdf:s to notice it normally, but I guess it's another reason to get off my ass about switching browsers ¯(ツ)/¯
Not only that; I've read that ink-jet printers need regular use to keep blockages from forming. Anecdotally, our printer seems to need printer head cleaning whenever I actually use it.
For anyone who cares to inform themselves, the Wikipedia article about race is a good place to learn why races don't map to biological reality:
Human genetic variation is predominantly within races, continuous, and complex in structure, which is inconsistent with the concept of genetic human races.
Also, dog breeds exist because humans have actively bred dogs to have certain traits - and I assume you meant "anamorphous"?
Writing so poor it offends the eyes.