Normal people talk things over? I would seriously believe that to be the farfetched scenario.
elfpie
I don't know. Sports conventions are not science. When I see the history of things being banned or allowed, it doesn't always make sense. Then we have stuff like weight categories. Anyway, that's beside the scope of this particular discussion.
Beyond XX and XY: The Extraordinary Complexity of Sex Determination
Try this. Biological sex is more complex than what is usually taught in high school. And that's only humans. There's this system for instance: Temperature-dependent sex determination
I thought the same. Now plataforms have a target audience to focus. The accounts move, the artists have to follow, the rest has a reason to move as well.
I understand that companies have to submit to these rulings, but do they have to do it quietly? It's mostly a rhetorical question. They could keep a tally of every instance the government made they do something they disapproved of and make it public. Not profitable at all unfortunately.
Ethnic and exotic food suddenly sound like very strange terms. This question made me realize that people from outside would call the food of my country simply Brazilian food, but we ourselves divide and subdivided them in more categories. I'm sure the same is true everywhere.
I know this is not a question for discussion, but I thought this could add more variety to the answers.
I agree there's abuse, but there are laws:
Article explaining the laws used as support / Article with historical precedent.
Both in Portuguese.
It makes sense with the target audience you mention. Would it be possible to provide a transcription? I used to put a link to a free service with the YouTube videos I shared, but it was terribly formatted.
I opened the video on my computer to see if it was a small screen issue. I listened to half then muted the other half. Some personal thoughts, but looking for accessibility guides would be best.
- Any reason for embedded subtitles? I think being able to customize them to your own comfort would help.
- The extra information / notes should be bigger. I think that’s what I usually see. I might have had issue with complete sentences instead of key ideas.
- Present the note before the explanation, that way I have some sense of where you are going.
- Speak a little slower or add some pauses between sentences or ideas. This is the first video of yours that I thought the subtitles were too fast, but it will help with your board format.
Tried one last time full screen on my computer, but still the same problems. Information overload.
Just a note on the video format. I usually watch without sound and I'm glad for the subtitles, but it's hard to follow what you're saying and looking at the notes you put on the board.
Did you watch the video I put in my comment? It explains the different processes involved in sex differentiation.
Your argument has the same issues as many of the others of the same kind, it doesn't reflect reality. You say there are biological differences, which we can accept, but, when a baby is born or when you see someone, those biological differences are assumed instead of being tested.
What I see is colloquial language and scientific language being equated.
-
Society divided sex into A and B, doctors forced and keep forcing everyone into those categories.
-
Science divides into A, B, C, D, E..., which are not easily perceived.
-
Society, instead of adapting or accepting its limitations, decides to choose a characteristic to be scientific, but they don't test anything. They are just being prescriptive with their language.
In other words, you can't tell the gender or sex of someone by just looking at them. One piece of anatomy is not enough, one specific chromosome is not enough, one specific gene is not enough.
I know little about the subject, so forgive me if I express myself in the wrong way. I support being inclusive to otherkin, but it seems to me that the changes would require more nuance. My question would be if we can attribute human characteristics so broadly to non human beings. Different demographics experience different realities, changing the language might help, but it might just be something aesthetic that doesn't translate the specifics.
Is this case just a matter of the broadest category being inadequate? Similar to masculine forms being also neutral and general?