Bill Clinton passed a law defining marriage between a man and a woman. And you are saying this is an example of progress made by a centrist candidate. Isn't this the law doing the opposite, here?
And you are saying that Gavin Newsom, who has spoken out against trans rights, can do something similar? Like assuming he does the same thing, like pass a "Defense of gender" bill to allow other states to not recognize gender transitions.
I think the argument is that voting for status quo candidates aren't actually getting us those things, either. And any small incremental gains are quickly reverted the next time republicans are in power.
Bitcoin operates the same as NFTs. Similar to an NFT, a bitcoin alone doesn't have any value on it's own. Someone made lots of money both on NFTs and bitcoin by selling it to someone else for more money than they paid for it.
The point of the paragraph is to question if special treatment really is a bad thing.
If we want to help the most number of people, services won't be equal between genders and special treatment may be the best solution for that. As a more extreme example, giving women access to pregnancy care services and birth control is something that women will get a special treatment for in comparison to men. In order to help the most number of people, services will be imbalanced.
What feels like imbalance or injustice may actually be the most beneficial to society.
I'm on your side, personally. It's not always possible for a person to be fully informed of the effects of habit-forming drugs before taking them. Society should do something to protect the population, even if it in to prevent self-harm.
I'm actually... None of these. Even the non-homemaker one since I make dinner each day.