Axolotling

Any keyboard that supports qmk should work for this. You can enable mousekeys and there are also functions to toggle layers

Are you trying to imply that the US doesn't already do this? They've overthrown democratically elected governments all over the latin americas (and other places, like hawaii) and imposed more fascist ones for access to their raw materials. Sure it's not exactly using loans to do that, but the real end-game is fascism anyways once markets are fully saturated and there are no more ways to generate capital.

Op, do you just hate fun? most of these are pretty cute or funny and just because they're not the most efficient design doesn't mean they're not allowed to exist?

Nowhere was I trying to say that Britain didn't mistreat its colonies. Not sure where that came from.

I mean they're right that the US was founded by a bunch of religious extremists and rich fuckers who didn't want to pay taxes. For which we do in fact see the ramifications still to this day.

But to draw the conclusion that somehow it's a good thing and we need more of it in public life is pretty twisted.

Maybe it's because I'm risk averse or maybe I'm just not as well read on it, but I do personally think it's generally riskier than other transition surgeries.

For vaginoplasty, even if the job is botched, you'll still be able to walk normally. FFS, you'll still be able to talk and eat and smell normally. Breast augmentation, you can still lift your arms normally. Plus since these three are the "main" options available, there's more people doing it and more people experienced in handling the complications.

For vocal surgery, if the job is botched, you can permanently damage your voice and not be able to shout. And even then it still takes a degree of voice training to get a good result (althought it does lower the bar). The relative rarity of the procedure also does not inspire me to take that kind of risk.

I'm open to being convinced that it's not as risky as I think it is, but I do think that it's a pretty risky option. Especially when you compare it to voice training on its own, which is way harder to fuck up. And voice training will get most people across the line.

I'm not trying to argue with your lived experiences here, but as a neurodivergent person myself, I don't think that judging intent is a meaningless endeavor. Yes, it can be messy and difficult, but I do find it worthwhile to examine writing from the perspective of what the author is trying to convince the audience of. I personally don't think that the answer is to just stop trying to interact or be understood by neurotypical people, because like it or not, we can't avoid neurotypical people in life. Yes, I do wish neurotypical people were more accomodating to neurodivergent people but I don't think being antagonistic is helpful. I think it's pretty unfair to say that because you don't like using intents, that everyone else needs to stop as well.

As for your point on the web of cause and effect, I think it's important to remember that there often isn't a clear cut path from A to Z. And people with different life experiences will come to different conclusions about whether A leads to C or B leads to C. If you want to communicate to others that A leads to Z, you need to thoroughly explain how you reached that conclusion rather than assuming that everyone knows that A leads to Z 100% of the time.

You say that our senses of empathy are flawed and limited but I also haven't gotten the impression that you're making any real effort to understand other people. I've tried to read your words several times over and each time it feels like you think you're absolutely right and everyone else is absolutely wrong. I don't understand half the things you've written and you never explain them or try to present other opinions. You bulldoze through everyone else and shut down when they ask you to slow down and explain where you came from.

To be clear here, I actually sympathize with a lot of the sentiments you've mentioned here. But just because I feel frustrated that someone does not see things exactly the same way I do, does not mean that I can automatically assume that they're wrong and evil and it's okay to be mean to them.

This study seems to me to be a retreading of old ground by cis people. Like I can appreciate getting more data that yes, trans people aren't freaks, but the study just seems like a massive "duh".

Why did they think hrt changed vocal chords in trans women in the first place? It's pretty well known that hrt cannot take away the things that first puberty already changed. I also don't like how the article presents voice feminization surgery as if it's a common and normal choice for most trans women. Even beyond the implication that trans people need surgery to be successful in their transition, voice feminization surgery is extremely risky and is only ever recommended in extreme cases. If they couldn't even do that amount of research, it doesn't make me feel confident that the study is all that worthwhile to think about.

Secondly, why only focus on trans women? It'd be more interesting if they included trans men in the picture since on their side of the fence, hrt actually does affect their voice. It would be interesting if the study compared their trans participants with cis benchmarks at all, actually. Maybe the study itself does that where the article does not, but for reason #1 I don't feel like it's worth my time to check.

Lastly, the actual results of the study are pretty "duh". Just by the physics of how the human voice works, it's pretty easy to see that yes, having a breathier and higher pitched voice will lead to having thinner vocal folds. Because having thinner vocal folds is what causes those effects on the voice in the first place. The study mixes up the cause and effect here, so it isn't exactly groundbreaking research. What would've been more appropriate to examine is the vocal chords at rest compared to either cis benchmarks or the speaking voice average. Since the conventional wisdom is that voice training can't really change your voice at rest, that would be more interesting to look at.

Overally I appreciate having more data about trans people, but didn't find the study or article to be particularly knowledgeable about trans people in the first place.

I think the original commenter's point is that calling grown women "girls" is a commonly used tactic to infantilize women and make the situation seem not as serious as it's supposed to be.

Take for example the headline that we're talking about here: "girl" vs "woman" is the difference in thinking that this is some 16 year old who made dumb decisions and someone who probably understands the consequences of what they're doing and takes proper precautions to prevent it.

This is not to say that I personally believe that one abortion is more justified than the other (because I don't), but just want to point out the semantic difference here.

Have you tried reader mode? In both firefox and chrome (i think, I haven't checked other browsers) there's a button usually in the address bar that you can click and it'll format the article into a readable page instead of a bunch of ad-riddled garbage. It works pretty well generally.

Yeah. You're absolutely correct in that the two parties aren't remotely equal. I guess my comment stems from the frustration I feel seeing democrats constantly trying to "take the upper road" while conservatives block anything the democrats do on principle. They'll take a thousand concessions to get bills passed and even when the democrats are in power, somehow still don't manage to enact very meaningful change.

So when I see the democrats slip up sometimes it feels like they undo whatever little progress they managed to make with all the conservative bad faith actors.

Democrats 🤝 Republicans

Fucking the poor. The only point they have in common.