People didn't talk about wanting a sex change, but loads of us hated our bodies and wanted to wake up in different ones. Given the option and institutional support and reassurance that transitioning would help us, many of us probably would have been convinced to do so
This is actually one of my primary concerns regarding transgenderism in the modern day. I think it's a tool in the toolbelt for when it's necessary. I also think it's a tool we reach for much more often than is necessary.
The comparable example I like to give is adhd. It isn't binary. You don't just have it or don't have it. Some people have symptoms that need no intervention. Some people have symptoms but are misdiagnosed as adhd. Other people get by with therapy alone. Yet others find medication necessary to be functional.
Giving gender affirming care to all people with gender or body dysphoria is like giving high dose Adderall to all people who have trouble paying attention in history class. It's the nuclear option, and you're using it on someone who may not even have adhd, or may not require such a strong intervention.
I know everyone hates this word, but starting with more conservative treatments first is the norm throughout healthcare for exactly this reason. We've made an exception for transgender people for political reasons, not scientific ones.
All I see is someone who finally wants to shut down the war machine. I have waited since the Bush administration for someone to do that. Obama ran on bringing our troops home, and actually expanded foreign military involvement.
If Trump is the only one who has the balls to put an end to the American World Police, then so be it.
I don't know how or why democrats decided to be pro-war, but they'll have to fight the rest of us to keep it up. That money and those soldiers would be much better utilized locally, and with a much lower chance of dying for someone else's cause.
I saw a lot of progressives turning into free market libertarians as soon as social media started censoring right wing opinions. Suddenly all I could see was "They're a private company, they can do what they want!"
It reaffirmed my belief that a healthy portion of either side doesn't actually have any principles. They just care that their side is winning and the other is losing.
I'm a moderate that a lot of people confuse for a conservative, and I say nail big business to a wall. I think the Microsoft-Activision deal should be declined just on the nature of the size of each business, not because it meets some arbitrary standard of anti-competitive behavior. Businesses as big as Microsoft do not need even bigger market coverage through owning more production houses. The whole point of the anticompetitive corrections is to avoid these giant conglomerates that have their hands in everything.
Microsoft already owns video game production houses. They produce one of the most popular home consoles in the world. They own a lot of the ecosystem that most people use on a daily basis on their pcs, namely Windows OS, Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and more.
Why does one company need to have a bigger market share than this?
That's kind of the point. We live in a system that is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". Not because people who commit crimes should get away with them, but because the opposite system would be completely untenable. How exactly is he supposed to prove that he is innocent? I don't care how sure anyone is that he did it. Prove it, or by our legal standard, he must be considered innocent.
If you want to live in a society where accusation is tantamount to fact, you're going to regret it as soon as anyone says anything about you.