stoneparchment

Oh, second comment: your framing is disengenuine.

These are scientists, I'm a scientist, we're held to standards of peer review and methodological scrutiny.

I don't need to establish how and whether we're doing science with authority-- that's the beauty of the invention of the scientific method. I also don't need to establish whether these are facts or opinions, because the body of research is so large and well-discussed, for decades now, that peer review has had plenty of time to do it's work.

To humor you-- the methods used have been all of the above: surveys, experiments, studies, etc.

To humble you-- it's extremely arrogant of you to ask a scientist, to their face, whether their research is real or just opinion. If you think all the research in this field is wrong, you can fix it the way we fix all our science: by conducting your own research and subjecting it to review by other experts in the field.

It's a little unclear if you are asking for resources about the diversity of sex, sexual orientation, and sexual selection strategies in nature, OR about the ways in which they are misconstrued by society-- either by ignoring the diversity of nature to favor a heternormative and gender essentialist narrative, or by too closely feeling that what is natural is what should be considered good and just (the naturalistic fallacy).

I, myself, am authoring studies on the latter topic, but the field is so small that by sharing specific examples, I seriously risk doxxing myself (and others with whom I work closely on a politically fraught topic).

One also needs to understand the former before meaningfully engaging with the latter anyway, so I highly recommend the book Evolution's Rainbow by Stanford ecologist Joan Roughgarden. The book is written in plain language (intended for a wider audience than just biology researchers) and details the (at the time-- 2009, with an updated edition from 2016) present summary of known ecological examples of organisms behaving in ways that counter the human social norms surrounding sexual orientation and gender identity. She goes on to discuss the molecular basis of sex and gender in humans, including what is know about difference in brain structures and gene regulation, and then she contextualizes these examples in sociological terms. I think the book is a little dated at this point, and there was some conflict amongst biologists about aspects of the book that aren't related to what we're discussing (related to her modification of Darwin's theory of sexual selection), so it isn't perfect, but it's basically the first thing any junior scholar is asked to read regarding this discussion topic. I think it will provide you with what you are looking for, seeing as it cites hundreds of studies in tens of fields of biological sciences relating to sex, gender, and sexual orientation in humans and other organisms.

Some key facts (mostly covered in the book) that you or others might find interesting:

• Homosexual behavior (same sex mating behavior) has been documented in fish, insects, birds, amphibians, reptiles, Invertibrates, and over 100 species of mammals
• Intersex bodies are common in nature, with many organisms either having characteristics of both sexes at one time or changing sex over the course of their lifetime. This is commonly found in "higher order" animals as well, and some populations of large mammals (like deer or bears) have been documented to have MOSTLY intersex individuals.
• Heterosexual mating is not required for reproduction, with documented examples of two sperm, two eggs, or just a single sperm or egg being enough to produce viable offspring in some circumstances. When homosexual mating is observed, it often increases the reproductive fitness of the participants
• The "sex roles" (unfortunate terminology, imo) of organisms are not a fixed norm, and we have many examples where the expectations you might have based on human societies for division of labor and activities are inverted or ignored entirely (such as birds where the males stay home and incubate eggs while the females compete with each other using displays of dominance and promiscuity)
• Although it doesn't make sense to describe animals as having gender identities (due to those terms being intended for self-description among human social groups), it is worth pointing out that we do have many examples among animals where individuals of the same sex may have distinct categorical social dynamics, morphologies, and social roles (and that human gender identity does appear to have some underlying biological basis, although I will emphasize that it is non-deterministic and non-essentialist). There's a discussion happening in the field about whether it is worth the potential downsides to describe these animals as having multiple genders within a single sex, so as to normalize and explain to non-biologists that human gender identities are mirrored by other organisms and are valid according to biological science

OP: says something revealing they don't understand biology

Response: dude, what? You don't understand biology!

You: "maybe they don't understand biology because of all these new-fangled GeNdErS and iDeNtItIeS!!!"

(please don't get me started on this, I am literally about to get my PhD in the ways people intentionally misconstrue and oversimplify sex, sexuality, and sexual selection in nature to obfuscate the validity of LGBTQ+ people in society and I don't want to be here all day)

Dude, there wasn't any other option in the primaries. No one else was running. Seriously running against an incumbent in your own party is basically political suicide.

Palmer was the closest and I didn't even know his name until after our primary. It was only a good move for him because he was already an outsider who just wanted some publicity.

Basically, you either voted for Biden because iTs ThE rIgHt ThInG tO dO, or because He'S tHe iNcUmBeNt...

...or you desperately, nihilistically voted uncommitted.

Are you an artist? I don't know many artists with your perspective, but I don't want to say artists never have this perspective.

As someone with higher education in studio arts, I can't speak for all artists. But I can say, in my experience, the cognitive skills that allow an artist to break a subject down into base, renderable components aren't particularly burdened by familiarity. Like, I don't think it's harder to realistically paint my face, or my spouse's face, etc. than it is to paint anyone else's face. Part of that is just that it's generally hard to render faces realistically without adding stylistic choices or bridging over the tricky parts, whether the face is familiar or not. Again, just my experience.

I also don't think realism or "visually accuracy" is necessary for a good self portrait. Sometimes the self portrait is an introspective exercise. Sometimes a self portrait is not representative of our physical self at all, or is fully abstract.

This self portrait is lovely, especially since I feel like (read: don't know for sure) based on the title that he tried to capture his expressive emotions during a vulnerable moment. It's raw.

As an education professional: what the hell, dude? It's not unfortunate that we aren't just dropping struggling students without first carefully examining why they're not succeeding.

You might be right that you can't let some students detract from the class for other students, but the solution there is advocating for better funding and more staff to be able to give every student what they need, whether they're above or below the expectation for their age.

Saying it's "unfortunate" that students don't fail (read: ruin their whole god damn lives) as often anymore is blaming our most vulnerable YOUTH for the systemic problems of our society. It's not their job to be what the school environment wants them to be, they don't even have a choice about whether or not they are there. It's our (as educators, and as tax paying and voting community members) responsibility to make sure they get the education they need to be functional members of our society.

We even have huge bodies of research to reinforce this. It's not a secret that the school environment excels at making nice workers, not critical-thinking and well-adjusted adult humans.

Take it up with the school board! Take it up with the local, state, and federal government! Take it up with the voters!

The whole point is that we still don't know what Lucy actually looked like, and therefore whenever we depict her we are "filling in the blanks" with our own interpretations. In the past, we didn't know whether she was likely to be covered in hair or not, but almost every depiction showed her covered.

The author of the article, who has a PhD and is the chair of a college's interdisciplinary humanities department, makes the point that when we exclusively depicted her covered in hair when we didn't know whether or not she was covered in hair, we were projecting our standards of modesty onto her. We also idealized her as a mother, as exemplifed by her depiction with protective and warm body language toward fictional children and male partners. These are aspects that various artists, researchers, and journalists projected onto a skeleton, not truths about Lucy as an individual.

When it was revealed that Lucy, in fact, was likely not covered in hair, and instead likely walked around naked and uncovered, we did not immediately revise these depictions. They disrupt the previously held projections and interfere with the narrative of Lucy as a "perfect mother" by modern standards-- not because she can't be both naked and a good mother in an absolute sense, but because these are disparate and conflicting signifiers in our modern society. In essence, it's harder to solidifiy her illustration as "the mother of all humans" to an audience of modern Westerners if she can't be depicted with "chastity and modesty", because we strongly associate those characteristics with good motherhood.

It is, therefore, a media analysis of the depictions of Lucy, it's not about Lucy herself. It's about how we project onto Lucy, and what that says about the people doing the projecting.

Of course, humans societies that are alive today are also valuable examples in the process of self reflection. But ignoring the observations made by the author and other researchers is like saying we don't need to analyze media (books, movies, TV shows) that depict society, because real society is right there!

I guess this isn't NO context but:

Innkeeper married to a nixie: “The Fey never do anything without a price...”

“... How much did you pay for your wife?”

The literature on PTFEs illustrates that it is, at best, uncertain whether there are health harms relating to contact and ingestion. Most of the studies struggle with confounds, controls, and sample sizes because almost literally everyone has been exposed to PTFEs. Toxicity researchers would not definitively agree that it is "completely harmless".

The other commenter is right, also, that PFOA and GenX (the chemical, not the generation) are more evidently harmful and both involved in, and released from, the creation of PTFE.

Just throwing this out here in case someone is like "wait, IS Teflon fine???"

Why would we even want that, though? Harris is a cop, and her presidency would likely be just as impotent and mediocre as Biden's. Like Biden, she's going to bend to corporate interests, please no one in the interest of pleasing everyone, not make or advocate for any major protective reforms to the democratic process (ranked choice voting, etc.), and try to take the high road against directly calling out fascism. When will the DNC get it through their heads that their departmental politics and seniority process shouldn't decide the president-- the people should?

Also, I find it immoral of them to play a horrible game of "switcheroo" with Harris and Biden. It feels like what you're saying is, they know she's unpopular and would lose an election, but if we switch her in for Biden through this presidency then everyone will see how great she is! We don't need an election, we just need the great and powerful DNC to plan our presidents for us!!!

To clarify in case it isn't obvious, I am a trans, disabled leftist. But this is EXACTLY why Trump is so popular and why everyone hates the DNC.

Is this household or individual income? Either way, whack

That's a good (and reassuring) observation!

Still, even if it's a bot/troll/etc. post, if we don't call it out when we see it, the culture of the community slowly shifts towards "bigotry is acceptable here"...

I'm gonna keep pointing this stuff out when I see it whether the user is acting in good faith or not :)