Except the people who are opposed to Imane Khalief are not engaged in a good faith argument about gender not being binary and what a woman even is. They’re trying to impose a binary by saying a woman has to conform to our standards.

Look at how they’ve targeted female rugby players and boxers who have ‘less feminine’ features in their conception by accusing them of secretly being trans women. It’s all about appearances because these women dared to be strong while having strong facial bone definition

Okay but then would you put Michael Phelps in his own category for having:

• The torso of a 6’8 man and the legs of a 6’0 man, giving him a disproportionately large chest and less leg drag in the water
• A wingspan that’s longer than his own height (his arms stretch to 6’7!), something so freakish and concerning that he thought he might have a disease at one point in his life
• Double-jointed elbows, chest and feet that are basically flippers because of how much he can bend them

Or do you just accept that some people are extraordinary and that a Usain Bolt, Michael Phelps or [insert female athlete with unusual physical characteristics] can come along once a generation and dominate a sport because they were born to do so?

Who said anything about women fighting men??

It’s totally fine to be interested in these things. Where it gets murky is when people say things like: women with too much testosterone are too good and should take drugs to block their natural testosterone levels. Just because someone is at that 1% advantage level doesn’t mean we should stop them from competing. If anything we should let them cook so we can see what the upper limits of human potential could be

We’re talking about a cis woman who was born in Algeria, where gender reassignment is not a recognised practice. She is not trans, regardless of what chromosomes she has.

This weird obsession with female athletes who have too much testosterone or a Y chromosome being in some way at an unfair advantage is also absurd. Male athletes who are genetic freaks are just recognised as extraordinary for their height, wingspan or lung capacity. The same should go for women

They have 2 robots so far. I believe they can make it to 5 by next year and the other 995 will just be people in spandex suits like the first time he announced these things

Very classy of them to have a cat guarding the board of elections like a Sphinx

They have the broccoli boy haircut with completely shaved sides. What you’re seeing is their neck because their head is turned

Isn’t that a character in This Is The End?

More likely someone who’s never even met someone that doesn’t eat gluten but fears and hates that they exist

You missed the part where you were supposed to make a joke. The top of this thread is someone asking how I would choose to dress in my 70s. My answer being ‘not like Mick Jagger’ led to you getting in a huff about how much sex he’s had justifying his choices. It wasn’t a joke, but if that was the intention it was poorly executed. Not sure what anyone has to gain by being so defensive about a man who’s been world famous for about 6 decades, though

I’m really not. If you read my original comment you’ll see I was speaking hypothetically about how I would dress in my 70s: i.e. for comfort and not to look appealing to the opposite sex. You made this a weird conversation about how much sex this guy is having and what other male celebrities they’re rumoured to have slept with

Wilt Chamberlain was putting numbers up too but he wasn’t wearing his 70s shorts and a headband to attract to women into the '90s.

Do you really think Mick Jagger can’t get laid unless he’s dressed like it’s Halloween and he’s going as himself? This is about reliving their youth and not being willing to accept the passage of time. I think you open yourself up to satire if you’re a public figure who has such glaring insecurities

Yeah but uncomfortably tight leather pants that one woman told me was sexy 40 years ago probably ain’t it

Yea, but this kind of work is needed to encourage blind marking as the default, and not just when standardised testing is involved

You would, actually. It’s called apposition and is commonly used in all varieties of English, as far as I’m aware

Depends on the job, and exactly which English-speaking country you live in. A lot of employers have style guides, and those can mandate using/not using the Oxford comma so you’ll have to pick one and be consistent about it

Okay but here’s the argument for why the Oxford comma can be misleading:

We invited the stripper, JFK, and Stalin.

I just changed stripper from plural to singular, and now you could read the sentence as: a stripper named JFK was invited, as well as Stalin

I think it was a mistake to go with yellow in the first place and I see the case for changing it to magenta/green/anything.

But I think when we’re representing people or human hands it’s necessary to allow for skin colour, and by not doing so we’re needlessly erasing people. I’m just not a fan of the ‘it’s racist to bring up race’ argument, which is not what you’re saying but the original comment was veering towards

I think it’s weird not to use a skin colour emoji. An everyday form of prejudice is the assumption that white is the default. Black or brown is an exotic/diverse category. That other people have odd customs and social norms, but our customs and religions are normal.

It’s even worse in design where the default human we design for is a man, hence women struggling with phone sizes that are too large for their hands. I think anything that helps break away from these default assumptions is good.

We already know from the Simpsons that yellow is a stand-in for white so it’s not neutral. There’s a white skin colour emoji, and by not using it when black/brown people use the other emojis, you’re refusing to acknowledge that you too have a non-neutral, non-default skin colour.