NiHaDuncan

Male is literally the same kind of word just for the opposite sex/gender; the term specifically points out the ability to produce sperm (in many dimorphic species) for the purposes of reproducing with the opposite sex. It’s literally just saying “your distinguishing characteristic is your ability to inseminate another of your species” and is just as dehumanizing.

The reason you would use it in that context is because it’s “[gender specific noun] of all ages.” Where if you were to say “boys of all ages” or “men of all ages” it would imply either all ages under 18 or all ages at or over 18.

This is the same context in which you would use female as a noun, as girl/woman implies a restricted age range, just as boy/man, when you specifically don’t want one.

You’re trying so hard.

I’m a young queer man(-ish) and after voting for Kamala have never felt more at fault for literally every problem the US has than whenever I open Lemmy. The blue party that I’ve been registered to and campaigned for since day one seems exceedingly good at making sure I know that, despite everything, somehow I’m the problem.

Like fuck, I finally get why people suddenly get the urge to be ‘the fucking problem’ after being told they are the problem for so long.

Tomatoes have plenty of sugar in them… most fruits do.

The people that have the mountain lion are it’s caregivers… the text is a joke.

That’s moving the goal posts and completely irrelevant; of course it’s case-by-case when it comes to what constitutes a ‘uniform’, or else no clothes would be considered non-deductible as anything could be a part of a uniform.

As someone who has studied it, have fun with that. While that poem is an outlier, there’s still a ton of things that not even inflection or context can solve.

Also, the assumption that SA victim = female. The article only ever says minor and any gender can be a victim.

Zyklon B is just German for “fork and knife.”

Not everything has an answer and not everything needs to be answered. Given that you think subjective opinion is either objectively right or wrong, it’s incredibly obvious that the idea that someone would give opinion for consideration rather than argument is lost on you.

Your idea that mental disorders, and one’s opinion of it, constitutes a personality might have something to do with it.

Luckily nothing was asked, no answer was sought.

So the bar for you is generally knowing a non-zero amount of things about mental disorders but for others in this thread it’s having to know the person from the article?

Setting yourself up for an easy win by default there, smart. What’s not smart is apparently assuming you’re the only one in this thread that is even faintly familiar with mental disorders and therefore others must bow to your subjective opinion.

You don’t have to know any particular person to know that having a mental disorder doesn’t magically un-asshole them or shield them from all criticism; origin from disorder is an explanation, not an excuse. I know I’d never expect, or frankly want, anyone to suffer my presence if one of my many oddities caused them some kind of significant distress.