In not snake, why snake shaped?

Phthalates.

Not to prevent the read, but I think it’s good practice to mention it before the second paragraph.

This is the best I could find: https://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/62074/how-to-tag-emergency-exit-staircase

“I’m married to a man, George. I do not hate men,” she wrote.

Same energy as I have black friends and all women are bitches except my mother and my wife.

There are plenty of timber houses in FNQ already, and plenty of termites; I don’t see why the new material would be more appealing to them.

There’s some strong sugar cane industry in FNQ. Also bear in mind that this instance is Australian so some context is assumed to be common-ish knowledge for the local reader.

Thought this could be interesting for FNQ.

It’s across 16 countries so I’d think many (or most?) of the participants are covered by their respective public health systems. And it’s not that they say they are looking for advice somewhere else but disregarding the medical advice.

I feel the opposite, that’s the thing about feelings. The case in point, which is the post, is not about “all men”.

You’ll see lots of different people saying lots of different things. But as far a the post is concerned, nobody made that point.

Women saying that they don’t feel safe in certain situations because they have no way to know if a guy will end up deciding to rape them is absolutely not the same as saying all men are rapists. They are clearly not, but saying “not all men” (which is an obvious thing) every time a woman expresses her frustration about having to be almost constantly alert just feels like a need to be more offended than worried about the rapey world we are living in.

It’s the same kind of distraction as “all lives matter”. We all know that all lives matter, but it’s not about that.

I wish I wasn’t on mobile because the whole thing needs much more nuance.

Maybe it’s safe to assume he’s a conservative but you’ll be surprised at how many brocialists we have on the left.

why say it?

Who did?

Y’all

Who are you lumping me with?

you guys

I had a snarky answer but deleted it and am telling you sincerely to stop seeing “the others” as an undifferentiated blob because that brings you nowhere in a discussion and eventually it will harm the way you see the world.

“Men are rapists” was nobody’s point, “men are rapists” is the strawman on which “not all men” relies.

I’d say Udmurtia.

Ziistig *Gomfi

I don’t know a lot about the genre but I love Cranes, who apparently happen to be shoegaze.

ETA: damit, I always forget the reply to comment button is sonewhere else. This is for @[email protected]

IIRC you can open an account in the Post with CHF 1. You don’t need to be a resident but at least in the process of becoming one.

I heard he built a house.

They should force the SC pronounce itself as to what tf means that for them. I’d bet they are unable to give a definition of “biological woman” that doesn’t leave out a lot of what they think “true women” are. Carriers of two X chromosomes? Outliers. Carriers of no Y chromosomes? Outliers. Possessors of a uterus? Outliers. Producers of the big gamete (Rowling’s favourite) unless-unable-to-due-to-a-condition-that-is-morally-acceptable? Outliers everywhere. Then those outliers should sue.

Also curious why they aren’t worried about defining men. They should be forced to unless they want to tacitly be defining men as non-women. Which would be funny, but probably undesirable for them.

I don’t get where do they see the accomplishment in defining “woman” as “biological woman”. Aren’t the terms “biological man” and “biological woman” sort of blurry depending on what criteria (chromosomal, hormonal, physiological…) one uses? Or is “biological woman” exactly defined somewhere in the UK? Are they going to define “man” as"biological man" and risk leaving a gap where some people belong to none of those categories, or are they going to define it as “not a woman”?