internet discourse is so attention-seeking, contentious and unempathetic that I feel like it's fostered a culture where people expressing hurt are routinely interrogated and doubted just in case they're seeking undeserved attention. (because some people do!)

so, people are caught between a rock and a hard place. They can be honest about what burdens them in a way that leaves room for critique, and take the emotional damage that comes from the interrogation of their experiences. or they find extreme, bulletproof-sounding, "nobody could be ok under these circumstances" ways of putting their problems that aren't in line with reality.

The former is honest but puts you at emotional risk when you're already vulnerable. The latter is inauthentic but does grant the solidarity and support they're seeking in the first place. I can't really blame the people who pick door #2, especially when this decision is conditioned over long periods of social media use. It's also in line with catastrophization, a common distortion many of us experience already.

notably, this has always been a common problem with how PTSD is understood, specifically complex trauma. many people discount their own trauma because it's not the typical "got my limb blown off" image of trauma and they'll occasionally be attacked for claiming they are traumatized. So they find more extreme ways to put their trauma that do get them the support they're seeking. (and need!)

I don't know what the solution to any of this is but I do feel it comes from a real place and I put the blame more on social media than the individuals, despite how annoyed I can get with people when I see it.

Sure, but broadly reducing red meat consumption is a pretty good idea for a lot of reasons. I think you're acknowledging this re: factory beef farms, but I think it's important to call out and also to note that a like 80% plant-based diet can be nutritionally complete, not ridiculously expensive, and more sustainable.

yeah I heard this album, it's ok but personally I just think CD Laser Lens Cleaner has elevated the genre further

https://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/cd-laser-lens-cleaner/cd-laser-lens-cleaner/

Generally, using their current preferred name/pronouns (or neutral pronouns) is best. She's still the same person, so it's true to say Caitlyn Jenner won the 1976 Olympic Decathlon. If any other facts about the event itself were directly relevant to the conversation, that'd be ok - e.g. it would be accurate and inoffensive imo to say she won the men's division.

But name/pronouns change all the time otherwise so it's more normal to use the current ones. If Ms. Jones gets married and is now Mrs. Smith, it wouldn't be inaccurate to talk about Mrs. Smith's car breaking down last summer.

that's definitely part of it, but sex hormones interact with* neurotransmitters and the mental/emotional stuff tends to hit first, before any physical effects take place.

I fight people and have opinions!

Really depends on the sport. In non-professional fencing and HEMA, practice tends to be coed. Men and women tend to perform equivalently - really height is the biggest "biological advantage". More reach means more ability to hit an opponent before they hit you, and this goes the same for men and women. Sure, men can accelerate a bit faster and tend to be taller, women can plant their feet a little wider and tend to be more balanced and flexible - but these are just averages. Individual people vary wildly because biology doesn't give a shit about the categories we create to describe it. And strategy can make up for a lot of those things in ways that you really just can't with height discrepancies. We had to give our club's tallest member a shorter axe just to make up for the reach advantage when she fought people she stood a head above.

Dividing strictly based on AGAB is not an even playing field and I feel trans athletes only draw attention to what's already a significant problem in competitive sports. And once you get to a professional level, I understand there's more nuance, but a vast, vast majority of athletes are not professional and the issue is blown far out of proportion for them. Anyone pushing to enforce divisions in kids' sports via genital inspections has lost their goddamn minds.

SPD has "limited value" to the small biased sample of locals I know. They're very unpopular in some communities, especially queer/minority communities around where these inspections took place. But as always, many others aren't directly impacted and so they tend to be quietly neutral or supportive of the police.

Outer Wilds, to my estranged family. I think they could use a new religion and that game's probably a better place to start.

me n the trans catgirl polycule reading lambda calculus whitepapers like :3

She'll probably be a regular 42 year old woman?

On top of what the others have said: at 11 years old, a trans kid is very unlikely to be medically transitioning, and so their transition is entirely social. With that in mind, what is the actual harm to a kid socially exploring trans identity and then later changing their mind? Why would that percentage need to be 100%?

Sure, why not?