Notice they say "stories". It's not like you can organize a press conference with a UN envoy. Please no, the UN is much more serious than to go with "stories". Do they deal in facts then? Not precisely, but close enough: "moral authority".
Meanwhile, Chatham House, the century old British think tank, has stated that "America’s friends and allies need to understand that the United States has become a Disunited States."
But they're also Russian apologists, so pay it no mind.
Watching television is not an activity.
Again with this?
The Daily Kos piece still hasn't updated.
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/202...&pm_medium=web
It is based on the incorrect understanding that Nex Benedict was beaten to death.
If the Daily Kos community has a norm of not updating posts that turn out to be incorrect, I am suspicious of it as a source of news and commentary. This isn't a partisan thing, since I'm sure plenty of conservative websites will fail that test, although I'm not going to post those links here.
The Week article suggests a significant increase in identification as trans or gender nonconforming among females. If females and males were as likely to identify as agender, nonbinary or the designations where it isn't obvious whether a respondent is chromosomally male or female, the figure at the time of the study would be 4.2 percent which is close enough to match the statement of an increase from 1 in 2,000 to 1 in 20.
I've gone over this many times. Here's one post from two years back.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6032471
Other data suggests chromosomal females are more likely to identify as agender, nonbinary, genderfluid, etc.
The numbers in The Week article have not been disproven. There are two possibilities. Either the writer was sloppy but got away with it, because his or her informed guesses matched reality. Or the writer did basic due diligence to check whether a disproportionate number of gender nonconforming college students were chromosomally male, but didn't mention it in a page long overview.
Sincerely,
Thomas Mets
Mets, making up arbitrary standards about who needs to update what before you'll bother is very silly. It's also very convenient as a dodge for you. We all see what you're doing.
It's not a journalism site. Diaries are written by users that are reflective of that point in time, and you have still chosen to ignore the reason it was linked: the links contained within that aggregate sources of news from journalists.
Future diaries and user comments reflect the ME's ruling and user feelings about it. Attempting to declare a source 'poor' because it reflects a moment in time is a very stupid way to approach things, especially when it was linked well before the ME made the ruling in the first place. This really just makes you look silly.
Last edited by Tendrin; 03-21-2024 at 04:22 AM.