ada

To be explicit, will the instance be open to hosting something like fauxbait, where the explicit goal of the group is to look underage?

How about an article like

"Clickbait Headlines You Should Not Use Anymore"

No no no. That won't work with btrfs snapshots if you've had a kernel upgrade. Choose grub from those two

I will say, if you're a newbie, then btrfs has one big benefit, especially when combined with Grub or Limine as your boot loader, and that is the ability to just roll back to a previous snapshot when something breaks.

Playing with things and breaking things as you learn is a lot less of a hassle when you can simply roll back your system to where it was yesterday, instead of having to re-install it from scratch

These days there isn't really any reason to avoid btrfs. It's stable, and has a lot of nice features.

And the EU wants a a rare earth supplier other than China

What should I NOT do in front of rich people?

Diminish yourself or your self worth

Women face inequality across society.

Men only groups foster and grow that inequality.

Women only groups give women a chance to get away from the bullshit at least sometimes.

If and when we solve inequality, then we can come back and talk about whether gendered groups still have a place.

You know trans people exist right?

Dawkins has been openly racist and islamophobic (not simply "outspoken atheist", but explicitly islamophobic) for a very long time now. Being transphobic is part of that package :\

tbh, I didn't get that far. It could be legit. It just didn't sound legit, and I didn't see a person in the first little bit I watched, so I turned it off before giving it much of a go. When combined with the clickbait headline, I just felt like I wasn't going to get much out of it

I clicked, it sounded like an AI generated voice. I turned it off

That's what dual booting is for!

Here's what the science actually says https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

What these people say? It's not science. It's bias, wearing a veneer of science, so that people who don't like the idea of trans kids existing can point at something other than their own internal discomfort.

So, there are quite a few flaws with your position.

Firstly, for some reason, you're putting the lens on trans people, and not cis people. Cis society does far more to encourage and sustain gender norms than trans people ever will, simply because there are so many more cis people. If you are genuinely concerned about the harms of gendered roles and how they sustain gender inequality, you should be more worried about the source of those behaviours, and not trans people.

Secondly, if your concerns are about the harms of gender norms, then you should probably acknowledge that trans people are more harshly judged and punished by those norms than cis people are. Trans people have their gender denied to them if they don't perform their gender sufficiently for society. They get misgendered, they get their rights taken away, they get denied access to bathrooms. And to top it off, trans people are also punished for performing their gender roles, and that punishment, again, often takes the form of denying trans people their identity. "If you were really a woman, you wouldn't need to act so feminine to show it"

Thirdly, the premise that "transitioned people are doing their best to fulfill the roles and stereotypes assigned to their desired gender" is incorrect. Or rather, it's as correct and incorrect as it is about cis people. Some trans people adhere to gender norms. Some don't. But again, the difference is, trans people get punished more often and more strongly by those norms, whichever side of the fence they fall on. Your post here is an example of that imbalance, because you are blaming some of the biggest targets of societal inequality for that inequality, despite their complete lack of power and influence

There is no "two sides" here. Enforced gender norms hurt everyone, but they impact trans people more. The idea that there is "two sides" is an example of that. Blaming the victims for their own mistreatment

Like it or not, the distinction is meaningless to people outside of the US

What they're getting at is they don't ask for people who are trans, they ask for people "navigating gender dysphoria".

It's like someone using "females" instead of women.

When you choose that framing, it's often a sign of something deeper at play...

So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).

Incorrect. They are both unethical.

Littman for example, when doing her study on rapid onset gender dysphoria, targeted only online spaces which were full of parents that were upset and angry at having a transgender child. Her sample was deliberately and knowingly biased towards supporting the hypothesis she invented. Her audience also didn't involve any trans people, only the parents of trans people, and parents who were, as a group, explicitly more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with the idea of having a trans child.

This wasn't a mistake, or an oversight. It was a deliberate choice she made to bias her results. That's not "controversial", that's outright unethical.

Similarly, Bailey regularly lies to his participant audience, and loads his studies with questions predisposed to get the results he wants to show.

The study linked to in this post is a classic example of that. None of the results of this will be designed to help people navigate dysphoria. The study is trying to draw trans people in to think that they're helping, when in fact, the results will be used to actively undermine their ability to seek transition care and support.

Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.

Even that's not true.

When you look at the definitions Bailey uses for autogynephilia for example, if you apply those same measures to cis women, it turns out, they too more often than not, meet the requirements for autogynephilia. It only becomes a paraphilia when the woman is trans though, and it only becomes an explanation for the woman's identity, when the woman is trans.

It's taking a real correlation, ignoring the fact that the correlation isn't unique to trans folk, and then using that correlation as an explanation for trans identity.

He never said it's true for all female trans people.

He said it's the only way to be a trans woman that is asexual, bisexual or gay.

The only trans women who don't fit his criteria of transitioning due to a paraphilia, are straight trans women. Who, by the way, he calls "Homosexual transexuals". He can't even recognise their gender... And speaking of that, even though he thinks that trans women who aren't straight should be able to transition, he doesn't think that they're women, and will repeatedly misgender them or talk only about their birth sex when talking about them.

Take a look at this, from his personal blog...

In this screenshot, you can see that whilst defending a woman who had nazis at her rally, he refers to trans women as "male" without ever referring to them as women, whilst also showing a diagram that says all trans activists are paraphillic (and thus, not really trans)

Bailey genuinely believes he is doing good science. But he's not. He's got a lens through which he perceives transgender identity, and he is absolutely not open to challenging that. That's not good science...

I struggle to understand how you can call anything the man does "ethical"

I mean, Kaity and I run a Jellyfin server for our family to access, as well as a couple of friends. But that's about as public as it gets...

These have been our settings pretty much since we set up pbz