Black Dog

Why is one a fair exchange and the other not?

That was a bit cheesy (Uber, but for dragons). Anyone else notice Ser Friendzone Greyscale touched Dany with his bare hand? The Shireen stuff was yet another data point on this shows essential and predictable nihilism. Jon's inevitable death (or near death) in the next episode will be the next.

Yes it's true: women are overrepresented in the low wage workforce. I bet it depends in part on the restaurant and the clientele. Or maybe you were just a crap waiter. But yes, this one single sector has tipping which can help mitigate the low wages. What about the many that don't? What are the "unusual benefits" for secretaries, baristas, housekeepers etc? Not sure what your point is here. You want more female miners or more male nurses? What does this even mean? Yes women, like men, are free people capable of making their own decisions. Shocking stuff. Whenever I read stuff like this, I'm puzzled until I realize it makes perfect sense if you were to specify that the women you're probably talking about are tall, blonde and model-hot. Given women still make less than men, that's probably for the best. I don't think you have a very good grasp on how gender dynamics work in group settings and how that can impact how much people talk and what they say. As for the idea that "male only" groups are somehow frowned upon, that's pretty laughable given that such groups are, by and large, the default mode.

What is "in satsified"? One would have to be pretty dumb to think that one's political orientation has any impact on sexual performance.

Why? It's a defect, unnatural, an "error" etc etc.

Doubling down on the strawmen eh? Good luck with that. When have you done that? The next time you do would be the first. Even if this is the case (which again, is unproven): so what? The media isn't the medical profession.

Wait, I thought they wanted to be ravaged by manly men who are men? Make up your mind already.

Yes, yes it is. If not, well, maybe you should provide the link per forum rules.

This strawman again? No one has suggested it is a "cure." Which I have every time this subject has come up. As the study concludes: It's also worth keeping in mind that this study would cover people who would have had SRS as far back as 1989, a time when the social conditions and treatment options available would have been far less advanced.

All the data says is that the suicide rate is higher. That's it. It's completely silent on the rest, as the study's authors point out, an other fact you ignore to push your transphobia. I mean it says so right here: Do you understand what that means?

The data does nothing of the sort.

This response shows you're simply not to be taken seriously on this. Do you understand the correlation isn't causation and that there's a great many other factors that could contribute to the higher rate of suicide? Do you understand that a better control group would have been to compare outcomes to a group that didn't undergo SRS? Of course you don't: you're blinded by your inexplicable distaste for these people and will disregard any evidence that doesn't support your baseless bigotry.

And the difference is?

We've been through this before: there's no evidence that transgendered feelings are a psychological issue as opposed to a biological one. Not sure what this is supposed to prove. The study itself says this: Also worth nothing that Paul McHugh is a conservative Catholic and well known as a virulent homophobe who continues to push the idea that homosexuality is a choice. He's also backed pedo priests in the Cathiolic Church, which kinda puts his "won't someone please think of the childeren!" stance in a bit of a different light.

Why would releasing these documents to the public have any bearing on the court proceedings?

Ok I googled a few key words to find out the source of the wall of text above. It's here. It's also not the study the original link was talking about. Here's the bit from the article: FTR that study is here.

Where's the link for this?

This is just outstanding.

Cite? And what's the cut off in percentage terms for "normal?"

Can you specifically indicate where in the study it says there is no empirical evidence to show that equal housework correlates to better sex or even relationships and where study indicates that it was baseless? THX

If it's within the range of variation then it is, by that very definition, "normal." Not hard.

That anthropomorphizing natural phenomenon is stupid. To wit:

Good to see law enforcement cracking down on the stuff that matters. Warrants issued for people who cheered at high school graduation

So its a "brain error" and not a "mental illness". Curious as to how you square that circle. Sounds like you're indulging in some of that old time political correctness you and your ilk are so often railing against.

The same nature that created said variation. OK.