Thanks for the summary, very helpful.

To my knowledge, the words man/woman are not originally a social construct - they’re the biological terms for human males and females (like a bitch is a female canine, and a rooster is a male chicken). However, as science has advanced, it’s become increasingly clear that biology is not as binary as male and female.

On the other hand, we have binary gender roles, which are a social construct. Since external genetalia generally form the basis for assigning gender roles, there is a very close but not exact overlap between gender roles and biological sex. The argument is that since gender roles don’t always match biology, the words man/woman are social constructs. Effectively, they’re trying to adapt the original definitions, but are not unexpectedly meeting with resistance.

Going back to this specific law, my immediate question would be: what determines whether you’re biologically male or female? Is it your current genetalia or the genetalia you were born with, i.e. what about trans people that have transitioned? If it is the genetalia you’re born with, then what about hermaphrodites? If it’s your genetics, then what about intersex people? Etc.

The law wasn’t written to account for all these complex biological possibilities. So it sounds to me as if the scottish courts were trying to simplify by effectively letting a dr. make that decision. I assume as a next step the UK will face court cases challenging the definition of “biological”.

Adding to the complexity, in my opinion, is that this particular case is about equality. This raises difficult questions about privilege, and nature vs nurture. The chess example comes to mind, where trans women have been excluded from the women’s only tournament. The main tournament is open to all genders, so they can still play, just not in the women’s only tournament. The argument is that due to gender roles, cis women are likely to have faced much higher barriers to learning chess as children than trans women. Those disadvantages from enforced gender roles is why the women’s league even exists, as an attempt to encourage more women to participate, and trans women wouldn’t have had to overcome the same barriers.

So, coming back to equality, what is more important, your current gender presentation, or the gender role in which you were raised? The answer to that question depends on so many factors in each situation, that I’m not convinced trying to force people into existing definitions make sense. It feels to me as if we need new legal definitions with more categories, but it is going to be extremely difficult to create definitions that adequately address the issues.

The description was clear enough to me 🤷🏻‍♀so I clicked the link. She has an awesome voice.

Sadly, not true. Most people in South Africa still drive manual cars because they’re cheaper. The drivers aren’t any better. Anyone can learn to drive a manual, it just takes a little longer.

Personally, I suspect that automatic cars are safer because there is less the driver can do wrong in an emergency.

A big issue with Switzerland is that the EU lacks direct democracy i.e. the ability for the people to force a vote.

It’s actually pretty awesome. I mean sometimes they end up forcing a vote on stupid things but generally it’s a safeguard that allows the people to block legal changes. So a situation like the Trump tariffs couldn’t happen in Switzerland if the majority of the population objected.

Personally, I think the EU would be a stronger democracy if they added it, and the odds of Switzerland joining would increase substantially.

I feel you, although I’m not sure this counts as minor

The 2nd half of the article also mentions an AI generated song released by China’s state run media.

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2025-04-03/-Liberation-Day-or-a-price-to-pay--1CgrB0bz7by/index.html

Wow. You have issues mate.

Um, you’re taking my comment way too seriously. I replied to a cartoon picture. I literally just made up a silly explanation that would fit the photos. Please take a deep breath and go touch some grass.

If they honestly thought both parties were equally bad, then they’re getting what they expected - an untrustworthy political party that doesn’t represent their values. I trust they’re feeling sufficiently vindicated.

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Sometimes life has no perfect choices. Not voting was an active choice, a choice not to take action to protect the US from facism. Anyone who didn’t think Trump was bad enough to vote against, doesn’t get to blame others that he won. Their choice comes with responsibility, just like everyone elses choices do.

Voting doesn’t always mean you 100% agree with the party you are voting for. Sometimes it means that you vote for the least bad option to prevent system collapse. I say this as a South African whose only voting goal for years was to prevent the ANC from getting a sufficiently high majority to be able to change the constitution. We came insanely close a few times but made it through.

Not voting in the US election was a choice, a choice not to stand against Trump. So anyone who didn’t think Trump was bad enough to vote against, doesn’t get to blame the GOP for what’s happening.

All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.

Please could you define what you understand by “high logic”?

Personally, I’m only familiar with “higher-order logic” as defined in maths. So for me, someone with “high logic” has the ability to interconnect and solve complex problems, which is one of the key skills measured by IQ tests.

Realising your beliefs and reality do not align doesn’t require complex logical reasoning, so for me the statement you quoted doesn’t mean high logic.

Personally I’m betting on Nessie having camouflage skills like an octopus, and instead of squirting ink they can create the equivalent of an underwater dust cloud. That would absolutely explain these photos.

Edit to add: /jk since apparently that wasn’t obvious 🙄

Your bias is showing. Intelligence isn’t necessary to be left wing. Change is hard for everyone and requires emotional intelligence, not IQ.

Would you mind sharing more details on your experience?

Like, was it a single person that got you thinking, or feedback from a group?

Is there a particular conversation that you remember as the start of change, or rather a gradual shift over time?

Did/was something happen(ing) in your personal life at the time that made you more open to hearing another opinion?

Makes sense, thanks for clarifying.

No argument from me, I understand why anti-DEI proponents oppose it. Their racism, classism and misogyny is clear.

The point to my comment was simply that the original commenter is incorrect in thinking that not having DEI explicit adverts excludes a business from having DEI targets.

Interesting, thanks for sharing.

I understand this to mean that job adverts shouldn’t explicitly target DEI hires. That is not, however, the same as not implementing DEI targets in a company.

The intelligent way to implement DEI has always been to interview and identity the top candidates for a role, and then if you have 2 capable and competent candidates and one is a women / minority, they get the job. This law wouldn’t prevent that.

That doesn’t apply to hiring women though, which is also DEI.

It’s basically subjecting the entire population to 1 hour jetlag twice a year. The problematic switch is to summer time (losing an hour), which causes many people to be tired for most of the week following the change.

Lots of tired people means more accidents on the road and at work. There is also a definite uptick in heart attacks.

Then there is the longer term impact of late evening light on people’s sleep. Whilst it is more social to have more light at night, it’s better for our sleep for darkness to come earlier and to have more light in the mornings. There are tons of studies on the health impacts of insufficient sleep and / or misaligned body circadian rhythms. Summer time is particularly problematic for night owls (which includes all teenagers), who already struggle to fall asleep at a reasonable time.

The economic costs arise from things like loss of productivity due to tiredness, accidents, and higher health costs.