We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. Doing that will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't.
>On November 5, 2017, ICIJ added data from some politicians featured in the Paradise Papers investigation. ICIJ will be releasing the full structured data connected to this investigation in the coming weeks.
Gender is defined as: the state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones).
For most people, your gender and your sex are congruent. For others, it isn't.
The definition of gender is not universally agreed upon. And it's pretty obvious that that definition is not the one the person you are replying to uses.
Definitions are also not fact, by definition.
There are plenty of valid arguments for calling trans people the gender they want to be. This isn't one since it isn't going to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you.
Edit: The why do you care part is a valid argument, was addressing the rest of your comment
There are 7126 subscribers to the subreddit you linked. A notable feminist subreddit that is actively not transphobic (that I am not going to link to because I love it and I do not want it to be brigaded) has 214400 subscribers. So your sample is about 3% of the internet population if we believe that reddit is a representative sample.
I sincerely believe that the vast majority of women are tired of being used as an excuse for bigotry.
Absolutely not. The OP linked to reddit to demonstrate their viewpoint was shared by women, and I was countering their argument by demonstrating that it is relatively unpopular among women on the site that they linked.
I definitely understand the downvotes now that the comment has been flagged and is not able to be seen.
Nobody here has argued anything about biological sex. We're talking about personal identity, which is psychological and cultural instead of microbiological.
You don't. You buy a $200 beater laptop and use that for travel. Load only what is necessary to remote back into your network. Don't carry any other data on it.
If it gets stolen or searched, no loss. Just buy the cheapest thing you find at an electronics store at the destination.
My old org kept a bunch of used thinkpads for this purpose. International travelers were prohibited from taking their work devices, just a loaner and a Remote Desktop client.
Hey I have this sick idea: How about we instead let passengers carry laptops on planes?
Wouldn't that be a hell of a lot simpler?
Wait, no, you're right, it's inherently dangerous. In fact, it's so dangerous, that in the past decade during which we've let people do just that, hundreds millions of people have died (Maybe some of that was old age, but we can't be sure it's not laptop-on-plane related).
According to the article the main problem isn't people that can't be without a laptop, but rather the additional risk of losing or compromising a laptop with sensitive and/or important data.
I rarely see any travel use his laptop during flights. (I travel economy, though). I think most travelers are worried about their laptop being damaged or stolen.
Well, the 'chaos' they're talking about is the operational and logistical concerns airports and airlines face about how to implement such a ban and the challenges it brings.
Not at the moment, but when Venezuala finally turns away from socialism/communism and rebuilds itself; it will be interesting to see how well they can do in the tech sector.
Iirc Venezuela already has a fairly good (all things considered) internet access.
Semi-relatedly Cuba has some pretty ingenious innovation to get around the tightly controlller internet access including makeshift internet that closely resembles a meshnet. Would be interesting to see how Cuba would react to state sanctioned capitalism considering the population very much has been educated under the Castros.
