Isn't that like... most guns people actually use other than some shotguns and some handguns? And even then, why you would use a pump action over a semi-automatic shotgun is beyond me...
Because software devs have the weeks/months to learn vulkan every time they want to use a GUI for their job, or to learn compiler design whenever they wanna use java for their job
Next step for Republicans: Ban sterilization. I mean plenty of doctors already refuse to agree for a patient to have a vasectomy/get their tubes tied, especially young (and white) patients, because of shitty personal beliefs. Why not go a step further? These working class heathens need to be forced to stay in line.
A majority of the countries that voted with China on that attempt were/are extremely tied to China and heavily economically reliant on China, and upsetting China enough means a potential economic crisis.
(UNCTAD & World Bank)
(note that Venezuela actually imported more from China than the US in 2020 according to some sources)
It only makes sense for them to not vote against China, no matter their actual crimes, it would be biting the hand that feeds them. It's a similar reason as to why almost no country officially recognizes Taiwan as its own country separate from PRC, despite continuing relations with Taiwan and even importing a lot from them.
Of course, EU/NATO/NATO-ish countries don't exactly care as much because their thoughts on China have long been established, China economically relies on them to a large extent, and they don't have as much to lose if China hypothetically did get a bit angry at them. The richer ones also have very low risk of actual "consequences" when criticizing the US so they tend to do it quite a lot, but here they seem to be in agreement.
What if they decide, only those who were born with a vagina at birth, are women and we want only those to be part of our organization?
I mean it'd be like barring someone for having only one kidney, or barring people who have an extra toe, or barring people who are a certain skin color. It's a seemingly random thought pattern and generally makes you a dick. Discrimination based on organs/body parts is wrong. What if they decide that having a big nose makes you not a woman? What if they decide having big ears or short legs or being too tall makes you not a woman? Better yet, what if a trans woman gets a uterus transplant and now has a uterus? Is that when they change the rules to still somehow exclude trans women? Because that's what usually happens.
Trans women still face the discrimination that women face, many of the same problems that many women face, and identify as women, so they shouldn't be excluded from a safe space for their group on the basis of one of their organs not being typical. When you get to the point of going out of your way to remove trans women who have already been accepted into the community, established themselves in the community, and fit in with the community, where other members of the community interacted with them like they would any other woman and viewed and accepted them as women, you're not concerned about "women", you're concerned about your own personal insecurities and taking it out on others. That's the point where you're just trying to pick the specific criteria that excludes the group that you don't like.
Plus many cis women have no uterus, some weren't even born with a uterus, so you're excluding a large portion of the people you're claiming to provide a safe space for.
And that's where you and literally anyone with any medical knowledge whatsoever disagree. There are plenty of people who are assigned as girls at birth who have no uterus – sex characteristics are far too complex for just a binary "boy/girl" label, and it's not as simple as "no uterus = boy, uterus = girl". sometimes, a baby can be labelled as any gender and it's up to the parent to decide which. What a "woman" is is pretty arbitrary and the only accurate classification is entirely dependent on what the person identifies as.
And that's just not even considering the fact that hysterectomies exist, meaning a lot of generically cis women also don't have uteruses.
"If I found out a woman I dated was trans i'd probably kill her"
What the fuck is wrong with you? People like you need to be put in a mental asylum. You are not fit to be in society and your mental instability is a threat to the public. Your kind are the type that shoot up a mall when your crush rejects you.
You both have a point and have a not point at the same time. LGBT is benefitted by more visibility, because it being denormalized harms people who are gay/trans/etc. In the 90s, gay marriage was illegal, participating in gay culture outside of specific establishments means risking confrontation with cops, and someone's kid being gay was every parent's worst nightmare (it still is for some people nowadays unfortunately). More visibility and pushing for more rights and the same integration into society that the "in-group" has naturally means that people who are higher in the hierarchy will throw a tantrum and start committing hate crimes and attacking the group and using them as a scapegoat. But making others angry is necessary if you want a disprivileged group to have the same accessibility and rights as the ruling group.
... what? You seem to be unaware of what a diphthong is. "ou" is a digraph, which in words like "flavour" tend to "represent" a monophthong (or a syllabic rhotic in GenAm). You clearly do not know enough about the linguistics you're trying to argue about.
Not a diphthong. A digraph. Either way American English didn't "change" this, the now-prevailing British and American standards just standardized different spellings.
"s" into "z" or vice-versa, "c" into "s", the swap of "-re" for "-er", etc.
I assume you're referencing words like realize/realise, defense/defence, maneuver/maneouvre. In which case same thing as for o/ou, Americans didn't "change" this. These were spellings that were already common throughout Middle English; American and British varietes of English just happened to diverge around the time of the printing press (because the printing press was introduced to the English right at the beginning of colonization of the Americas) and they adopted different standards based on the many, MANY spellings already in use.
Saying the Americans were [more] "prescriptivist" because common standard spellings in the US and common standard spellings in the UK are different is... a take, for sure.
""Linguist"" as if French prescriptivists can seriously be called linguists