A lot of the eggs I get are fertilized (US, California), but maybe that’s because I tend to get “free range”. Can see the tiny embryo (~1mm) in a lot of them.

If its and it’s are used “incorrectly” long enough, it’s possible the conjunction will lose the ’ through use. Descriptive vs prescriptive etc.

Also, in response to the person you are responding too, there are advantages for our writing system not being entirely phonetic, namely that different dialects of English that may not be easily interintelligible via spoken word are interintelligible via writing. Like a weaker form of the same benefit of the Chinese writing system.

Risks of medical intervention always should be weighed against risks of nonintervention. If there is a significant probability a child is trans, delaying puberty may be the least intrusive option. There is a chance of negative effects, like with all medical interventions, but if they are most likely trans forcing them to undergo puberty is much more likely to have long term negative effects (including suicidality). Why is this specific medical decision equivalent to kids having sex? Do you view other procedures, like deciding to have braces, the same way? What about much riskier treatments with a muddled short/long term prognosis, like some heart surgeries?

Americans view Europeans in general as weirdly comfortable around sexuality. Which is I think just a side effect of Americans in general being bizarrely prudish around sexuality.

It seems to me that all of the reasons they provides are all reasons to get married. Especially raising a child, given the privileges that are afforded to married parents in a lot of places (especially in the case of adoption, or IVF using a stranger’s genetic material). Something doesn’t have to require marriage for the benefits of it to outweigh the cons for a specific situation.

The question seems to me to be kind of confusing. What alternative are you comparing it to? Some sort of local structure like domestic partnership?

Have you tried screwing it into a socket?

Would switch. Prolly because I’m currently somehow straddling being transfemme and egg. Might depend on the time period though Not keen on being a woman in… most of history. Not really keen on being a man in general though.

That’s what my doctor keeps telling me

The system rewards ownership, and owners sometimes are forced to distribute some value back to the creators of value to get that reward. Sometimes owners are forced to or benefit from sharing some ownership (like in the case of IP on YouTube).

It’s not unique to software, though the potential to infinitely copy software makes the relationship starker. For example owning a parcel of land is similar to owning a peice of IP, in that the creation/purchase potentially happens once, and rent can be extracted over time from everyone who utilizes it. The number of renters you can fit on a peice of software is theoretically infinite, but in practice limited by the number of potential customers, the availability of their attention, and your distribution Infrastructure, while the number of renters you can fit on a parcel of land is limited by its size and the structures on it.

Note that most owners did not personally create and do not personally develop what they own. Most software is not owned by programmers (who often make good money, but nowhere near the rent that is extracted from that software), and most homes are not owned by builders (who sometimes can’t afford the homes they build). It’s ownership which is primarily rewarded, and which spawns most further ownership.

Gravity (phenomenon) is neither a theory nor law, in a similar way that a cat is different from a picture of a cat or a dictionary entry describing the word cat or our collective understand of what a cat is. At the same time, gravity is also BOTH a theory and a set of laws in the same sense that you could point to a picture of a cat and say “that’s a cat right there”, and no one would correct you. The distinction seems silly, but it is important. Theory, law, etc are structures/lenses through which we understand and predict things. A sort of formalized collective metacognition is the basis of science, and this is why we have these terms and distinctions. And theories and laws are fundementally different things in a way that’s may be best expanded by critically reading the resources provided by the other commenter.

rip:(

I think the meme is fairly clearly making fun of American conservative/fascist discourse. Like the whole watering down of any semblance of a working definition of CRT when referenced by right wing pundits and moral panic board meeting parents, where right wing people call every call to be somewhat decent human beings “CRT” or “wokism”, and then have no actual working meaning for those words except as something that seems left wing and makes them uncomfortable.

I started using y’all years ago due to its ungenderedness, in part from being in queer spaces. Walking into a room of trans women and enbies and saying “you guys” felt weird.

Heh no that’s the mushroom forager’s bible right there, going back many years, it’s assigned reading for mycology students and very reputable. It’s funny how much it looks ML generated, but it well predates ML image generation. For reference, he’s holding a flesh colored mushroom and a trumpet.

Optimal age to be is blastocyst. It’s just downhill from there.

Why not call someone what they want to be called? It ain’t new. Just like it’s polite to ask someone “can I call you x” or “do you prefer x or y” when you start to call someone a nickname or more personal name, someone can ask to be called x, and it’s polite to do so. Names are arbitrary things, but at the same time often deeply meaningful to people.