Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | thrance's commentslogin

> Michal Phelps didn't chose to have long arms

Oh, and Khelif chose to have a female phenotype so she could compete in the female category in the Olympics? Get real. There are many other women in the same situation.

> You will never find a woman that has the same testosterone levels that a man identifying as a woman

Uh, yes you will... The entire purpose of taking estrogen is to bring down testosterone to female-level.


Khelif has an uterus, breasts and any other characteristics associated with women. Conservatives calling her a man is pure insanity and just shows how limited their perspectives are and how confused they are about the subject.

Used to be that they'd ask in bad faith "what is a woman?" to trans advocates, but maybe it was a genuine question? Because they don't look like they could recognize one if they ever saw one.


and obviously the inability to properly "identify a woman" will lead to further discrimination against cis women who "don't pass"

i always find it very very interesting that trans men are always left out of these conversations...


That's dumb as fuck. Olympics have always been for genetic freaks, whatever line we draw between "male" and "female" categories is completely arbitrary. Using reproductive organs was bad enough, are we now supposed to look at microscopic chains of amino acids to sort people? IMO, this decision just serves to further illustrate the insanity that is gender segregation.

Just because you are confused about the distinction between gender and sex doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Birth certificates record sex, not gender, no?

Theoretically, yes. But, sometimes, they do get it wrong.

"I can't believe you won't embrace our simplistic bigoted narrative with zero proof".

The world records and overall sport results by male/female are the proof.

Because apparently it's OK to hate on trans people, scapegoat any current issue on this particular demographics, and do everything possible to make their lives as miserable as possible.

What makes you think it's ok to hate on them? I don't think that's ok at all.

You were asking "Why do we need a carve out for one particular group because of their genetic bad luck?". I'm telling you the reason is purely ideological: the right needs scapegoats and trans people are one of the current ones. Doesn't go further than than.

Where are you getting this impression?


“Hate”? I think you might be over blowing the word, I’m sorry you feel that way. I think you might have a bit of a negative view and tend to think people are against you when they’re not. To me I see this as all related, it’s all playing into each other. Just chill mate it’s not a good headspace. Maybe reassess what you are defining as hate. Is it you who’s spreading it?

So-called "detransitions" represent way less than 1% of the trans population. In particular, the proportion of people regretting their transitions is much smaller than that of mothers regretting having their kids. They receive massively inflated media attention because their stories are picked up and turned into propaganda in service of bigoted narratives.

Literally anything. They are incredibly passive, we never hear anything from anyone of them. Trump is running the country to the ground live, each day going on unhinged nonsensical rants and doing obviously insane shit. Democrats should be banking on it, counter-messaging 24/7 but instead they're more unpopular than ever. Their leaders are still clinging on to these "moderate" and "bipartisan" lines when the voter base has made clear that they want the GOP obliterated and all of its members tried for treason. The democratic establishment only seems to concern itself with fighting the growing progressive wing of its own party, while holding unto their hard pro-Israel line which already cost them the previous election.

So it's just a matter of not following the right democrats on the right social media platform? They just need to tweet storm more where you can see it?

> while holding unto their hard pro-Israel line which already cost them the previous election.

Kamala Harris lost because of the economy, inflation, and a mismatch in perceived values among Asian and Hispanic voters. She did not lose because the election was any sort of referendum on Israel or Gaza – progressives want that narrative to be true because it was a core issue for them, but the data doesn't back it up:

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/americans-hate-inflation-more-...

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/what-drove-asian-and-hispanic-...


I find the links you provided uninteresting. Americans only care about what they're made to care about. Trump ran on inflation and oil price, accusing Biden every step of the way, negatively polarizing enough voters against his opponents. This was very successful and got him elected. Now that inflation and oil prices are worse than they ever were under Biden, why are so few complaining about it? Because the Democrats are fucking silent about it. Where are the Trump "I did this" stickers on gas pumps? Why aren't Democratic leaders going on TV daily to blame Trump for the crisis he 100% manufactured?

> Kamala Harris lost because of the economy, inflation, and a mismatch in perceived values among Asian and Hispanic voters. She did not lose because the election was any sort of referendum on Israel or Gaza – progressives want that narrative to be true because it was a core issue for them, but the data doesn't back it up:

The DNC decided to hide their own post-mortem of the 2024 election because it pointed to their unwavering support of Israel as one of the biggest reasons they lost. How do you fit this in your narrative?

https://www.axios.com/2026/02/22/dnc-2024-autopsy-harris-gaz...

Also, interesting read if you have some time:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/17/opinion/focus...


When you realize that trillions have been spent on anti-renewables propaganda over the last half-century, it gets easier to understand. Many people have been indoctrinated into fighting tooth and nail for the right of oil companies to destroy the environment.

Interesting idea, but sometimes the associations feel a bit arbitrary. Also, I'm unsure about the "mahjong" presentation: since the game shuffles automatically when you're out of options and never leaves you in a dead end, the player is incentivized to minimize the amount of options they have at any given time, since that makes the game easier.

Both your points are solid. I think I'm pretty liberal about opposites, I can see opposites to major political and cultural figures too. You are right that the mahjong presentation loses rigor if there's not enough downside from choosing the wrong sequence. The mobile mahjong games often have a small fill-tray so the player needs to really focus on the sequence.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: