Pretty sure bullets are copper jacketed weed nuggets. Grain is a measurement of how seedy the weed is, and hence how much damage it does. 115 grain means it’s a weed nugget with the weight of 115 seeds being fired.

In the beginning, I was trying to explain why some people don’t want to eliminate gender for the same reason racial minorities usually don’t want to eliminate the concept of race.
Now I’m just enjoying marveling at your unwillingness to acknowledge that you might have had room to improve your understanding of something and trying to cast “trans people didn’t choose their gender” as transphobia of all things. And in defense of “socialization is hard, I don’t want to be polite” of all things.

My point was never that gender shouldn’t exist

Just that I think it is a thing that should go away

Aight.

I will have a nice life. I hope you sit and have a good think deaf_fish who likes the C programming language. You might realize you had some misconceptions.

You’re confusing gender expression with gender identity, and not doing a great job at reading comprehension as well.

Transphobes think gender is synonymous with biological sex. People who almost get it think that gender is entirely independent of biology. The truth is that gender is complicated. The link I shared gives a decent overview.
Do you think trans people transition because one day they decided to on a whim? Do you think if you flipped a coin to pick a child’s gender that that’s what they’d be?

Set aside that you’ve decided to argue and actually think for a moment. Where do you think gender dysphoria comes from?

I don’t think your little argument is as compelling as you think. If you ask me to address you by a different name I would, and it is impolite to refuse to use someone’s preferred name.
Let me guess, your one joke is “and I identify as an attack helicopter hyuck hyuck hyuck”?

The crux of the matter seems to be that you think you shouldn’t need to be respectful to people except when it suits you, and you’re irritated people might judge you for that. You’ve also got that trumped up conservative "there’s so many rules nowadays! You can’t just make a joke anymore!” energy.

Yes, if English never had gendered pronouns I’d still think gender as a concept would have reason to exist.

First, I was saying that you weren’t intending on being dismissive of people’s identities that they cared about, but thanks for specifically clarifying that you’re being rude.

you are not putting forth any arguments.

And you’re evidently weak in reading comprehension.

Gender is more complex than a binary. It’s not an inate thing, but it’s also not entirely a social construct.
As you brought up: transgender people. If gender were a pure social construct then they wouldn’t feel wrong with the gender assigned to them by society. Other parts of gender are clearly socially defined.
Even biological sex is more complex than a man woman duality and is partly mediated by social forces. (What biological properties matter for sex, and what variations of those result in being a different sex? Is an individual with xxy chromosomes male?)

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/old-school-parenting-modern-day-families/201907/time-move-beyond-gender-is-socially-constructed/amp

I never said you needed to care, I said you needed to be polite if you make a mistake, and that people often take offense to being told that things about themselves they feel to be important don’t matter.

You’re entirely correct that we could all interact with each other only referring to each other by unique identifiers and the “I” and “you” pronouns.
That’s an assinine conclusion though. It kinda glosses over the whole “people like to talk to each other and socialize” thing. People often like to discuss pointless things like “how they’re doing”, “their interests”, “their families” and “hobbies”.
You’re not obligated to care or engage in these discussions, but people will take offense when you tell them that you don’t care about their children because they’re irrelevant.

where does this end? What constitutes which things need to be acknowledged during a social interactions and which things don’t.

I don’t know how to tell you how to have a normal social interaction. If you have difficulty keeping track of what to do in social situations like that you might consider talking to a professional. Most people are able to use context to determine what needs to be shared in an interaction and don’t have a hard rule or checklist.
Typically people start with basic biographical information, then some personal trivia to help bootstrap the stereotyping of what sort of person they are (I like to cook, I work in computer security, and I enjoy nature), and then information about how they fit into the social network (spouse, children, siblings, religious or social organization membership).

gender has value only to people who care about it

And shockingly, a lot of people find their gender to be important to them, and don’t like being told it doesn’t have value. Which is why, as I said before, people are giving you a lot of pushback.
There’s resistance to the notion that the only details about people that matter are the ones that are needed for others to address them. It turns out that people have a notion of “identity” that extends beyond their name, and that beyond having that identity they would like to express it.

Depending on the venue, I end up viewing emotions as a passive indicator of “Internet tenure”. O⁠_⁠o Conveys that someone has been on the Internet longer than 🤨 usage. (In some cases)

You create the impression that you’re opposed to the concept when you say things along the lines of not seeing why it should be a concept.
I know it isn’t your intention to convey dismissiveness. That doesn’t mean that you’re not, which is why there’s a fair amount of pushback.

No one expects you to know, and you can get away with always using gender neutral without any issues.
You are expected to show people basic respect even if you don’t get it and listen if they correct you. If I get your favorite programming language wrong and you tell me, it would be rude for me to keep referencing your passion for intercal or what have you.

I’m not confusing anything. It kinda seems like you’re reading something different into what they were saying.
They seem to be saying the ultimately misguided but best possible interpretation of “your gender doesn’t matter to me, so why is it something that comes up?”.

Finding your own manner of gender expression and not having it pushed on you from outside doesn’t preclude having language to describe where you end up.

I know they weren’t saying “shut up about your gender, it doesn’t matter”. To someone who is working on finding themselves, or had to work hard to do so, the sentiment can come across that way. For all aspects of identity, people don’t want a “don’t ask, don’t tell” style tolerance in a void. They’d rather have the ability to express their identity, find community and so on.

As such, we need words to communicate these topics.

I very much like the gender identity that I have; there’s nothing wrong with that.

I’m happy for you! I am as well! I’m a little confused as to what that has to do with the bit you quoted though.

It’s not irrelevant to everyone. We have a phrase that allows you to omit them, but that doesn’t mean that everyone wants to do that.

Additionally, having the concept is needed for people to talk about their experiences and figure stuff out.
Their need to describe themselves in conversations that don’t involve you is perfectly sufficient reason to have the words.

“Confuses you” is not a good enough reason to invalidate a core part of people’s identity, particularly when it may have been hard for them to get things figured out.

It’s important to remember that gender is irrelevant, but only if it’s someone else’s. It can be aggravating to be told that something you worked hard to figure out doesn’t matter when it very much matters to you.

I hear you saying you you would like a universal gender neutral pronoun. You rarely need to know someone’s gender when talking to them, just what pronouns to use.
Fortunately they/them works for this purpose, and is universally understood in English. It’s perfectly acceptable to refer to someone as they/them or their name when having a conversation not specifically about gender and preferred pronouns.

Not knowing someone’s gender has existed far longer than our modern understanding of the nuance of the concept.

Literally was literally used as a figurative intensifier from basically the first moment it stopped meaning “of or pertaining to letters”.

English is full of contronyms. We even have a special word for them.

No one complains about “dust” having two contradicting meanings (apply or remove a powder), or “original” meaning “traditional” or “novel”.

What should the dictionary do when the people who use the language start using it in a way the dictionary says is wrong? Does the dictionary just ignore the language and insist that dusting only means to apply powder, and original only means new?

Communication is better facilitated by describing how language is used and trusting the listener and speaker to use context to convey meaning unambiguously.
I don’t need the dictionary to tell me I’m not being asked to put powdered sugar on the mantle, or that someone isn’t sharing their grandmother’s newly created, bespoke recipe they invented for their family.

Fair. Not intending to convey sympathy for companies and the people in them that supported Nazism, to be clear.
They’re not people that can have opinions to flip-flop. They’re legal fictions made of people who are now dead.

It’s precisely a good bell-weather! It means that the cold money monsters think gay people and their supporters have more money, and hate doesn’t have the power to punish them. It also means that good people who work for the company feel safe saying “donating resources to LGBT teen suicide prevention would be great… Advertising?” And the money monsters don’t disagree, and the bad people don’t have enough sway to squash it.

Rainbow capitalism is a parasite that feeds on social tolerance. It’s gross that it showed up, but it couldn’t unless society was in an at least moderately healthy place.

Just don’t fall into the trap of personifying the companies that do many people do.

Oh, I’m not defending BMW or any company in specific regarding Nazism. I’m saying the actions and beliefs of dead people who used to run the company are the wrong reasons for cynicism, particularly in the context of a violent and coercive regime.
A company doesn’t have opinions so it can’t support anything, good or evil. It makes as much sense to be cynical of “posters” because there have also been evil posters.

While it’s not wrong to be cynical about it, this isn’t exactly the right reason. The Nazis would just take over companies and install new leadership if they were inadequately supportive.
It’s not even “if I don’t do it, someone else will, so I may as well do it”. A lot of people did refuse to do it and were arrested or fired.
Beyond that, everyone involved in the decision is dead now. They could have all been Nazis and that would have little bearing on if the people who work there now were.

The reason to be cynical is because companies can’t care about things, so if they say they do it’s a lie.
People inside the company might care, and might find a way to get the company to do something good, but that’s a person finding a way to use the company for good, not the company caring or being good.

Unlike the Nazis, no one is forcing them to embrace pride. They do it because they think it’s a profitable demographic.

Ants use oleic acid to identify other ants as dead, which is also commonly found is plants, although usually not in any notable concentration until we press the plant for oil. Trix use canola oil which contains a lot of oleic acid (compared to other oils, it’s not objectively a lot). I wonder if something in the cooking process or combination with one of the other colors or flavors makes it enough to mess them up.
Skimming a research article it looks like oleic acid isn’t what they use to mark the burial pile, just what goes in the pile.

That’s simple. Growing facial hair isn’t cool, it’s facial hair itself that’s cool.
Someone with a big walrusy Wilford Brimly moustache is cooler than someone who’s working on growing a moustache.

I have not read the book, but from reading some summaries and commentaries, I got the impression that other people took the message as being different from “marriage makes your life measurably less happy” as the chart implied.

The figure takes on a different meaning, however, when we remember that “How satisfied are you with your life?” is not a simple question. When answering it, people think of significant events in the recent past or near future. People who are recently married or expecting to marry are likely to retrieve that fact, which affects their answer. But those who are not do not think of marriage when answering. The graph could be read as the likelihood that people will think of their marriage when asked about their lives. This demonstrates once again how we are “blind to our blindness”—how we are unaware of the heuristic mistakes that we make. In evaluating this graph, people do not understand that respondents have substituted their answer to how satisfied they are with their life with how easily they can think of happy events in their lives.

Building your city so that you can’t survive without a car is what a city having a car addiction means.

California, Texas, Florida , New York , Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio , Georgia, North Carolina, and Michigan are the ten states that aren’t less populated than LA county, to save anyone else who’s curious from needing to look it up.

I don’t think that reading of the who page tracks, and I kinda struggle to see how you got what you did from it.

Gender [categories] refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed.

Gender interacts with but is different from sex

Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity.

Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth.

(As an aside, I feel like picking on an overview that explicitly acknowledges intersex individuals for not addressing the social construction of sex, while simultaneously being critical of it for addressing the social construction of gender is a bit nit-picky)

I really feel like there’s this persistent conflation of gender categories and gender identity in your interpretation of what others are expressing, and an insistence that talking about social constructs is an endorsement of social constructionism as a whole.

It seems like we agree that the roles and attitudes we ascribe to gender categories are not objective, but socially constructed.
“Gender” is regularly used to refer to both the category and the individuals identity as being to some degree a member of that category, and it’s expected that people know which is being referred to by context.

In your example involving race, I don’t think that’s a good comparison. In your example the person is saying words that generally minimize the importance of race while attempting to convey that they’re not prejudiced. Critically, everyone agrees to what the words are referring to.
In the “gender is a social construct” case, I don’t think there’s agreement about what the word “gender” is referring to. The speaker means gender category, and the listener keeps understanding it as gender identity.

It’s like if someone says “gender isn’t a social construct” and I keep hearing them imply “women are naturally more differential and domestic, and men more forceful and outdoorsy”, even once they explain they meant an individuals identity is more than social convention.