Occamsrazer

You probably commented on one of the verboten subreddits. That's how I got most of my bans.

I hate smoking stock photos. Clearly she has never smoked in her life.

Hah! I remember reddit

Yes, everyone is unique to some degree. For instance my wife's uterus is slightly tilted. It rarely matters, but every once in a while it causes discomfort. Knowing this, doctors don't need to over react to additional and unexpected discomfort during pregnancy. But this isn't relevant most of the time, so hospitals focus on factors that help quickly and efficiently diagnose the issue. Age and sex are probably the biggest of these factors, along with medical history. Gender identity is usually not important, though in some cases it could help identify someone who is intersex. But these cases are rare enough not to warrant their own check box, much like a tilted uterus.

Centrists exist because they listen to alternative views and can empathize with those views even if they don't quite agree with them or if they can't decide between the pros and cons. But to an extremist on either side, it looks like they are stupid, weak, or possibly just bad people, because if they were smart, Good people, then the centrists would OBVIOUSLY agree with THEM, and then they wouldn't be centrists. This lacking of empathy or inability to understand opposing viewpoints, and therefore assuming malice or evil as the motive of anyone not WITH them, is the hallmark of all extremists.

Oh yeah, also people hate centrists because they come across as smug. Sorry about that.

Maybe I'm not understanding your comment, but in certain contexts, gender identity is not relevant but biological sex IS, such as in treatment or early diagnosis of cancers that are specific to one sex or the other. Hospitals need to be able to communicate verbally and in email or written correspondence about these things, but if language is obfuscated to the point where it is not clear what that individual's risks are (based on their sex), then it is only that individual who will be worse off for it. This point doesn't need to be extrapolated to larger contexts for political power, but it should also not be ignored because of possible implications to larger gender identity questions.

Do you actually believe this? I know a lot of conservatives, some more extreme than others, but none of them envision this kind of world, not even the ones that wanted to be at the Capitol on Jan 6. It's contrary to virtually all Christian, conservative values. The whole premise of this story wouldn't even hold up unless there were an extreme event causing a massive shortage of fertile women. In that case, there is no telling what kind of dystopia would emerge. Frank Herbert wrote "The White plague" in 1982 (a couple years before the handmaid's tale), where women were nearly wiped out altogether, and it plays out similar in some respects, wildly different in others. In any event, it's not a "goal" of any sane person, and certainly not the goal of half of the country.

Stoicism teaches that you should strive for virtue, but cannot expect any particular outcome. You can't have your happiness and contentment depend on factors outside your control, or you will inevitably be unhappy. Try to be virtuous, try to do the right thing for the right reasons, and if the outcomes are not what you hoped for, then at least you tried. Stoic virtues are wisdom, courage, justice, and temperance.

Other than political gain for one team or the other, what is the argument for expanding the supreme Court?

I vowed to be done with it when it became subscription based, and now here I am. Kind of glad actually, been looking for an excuse for years as the site became more and more stale, unoriginal, and politics began to overwhelm everything. Maybe this is just how it has to be every decade or so.