Ran

Nope, he's bald from the first time we meet him.

Thanks. I think I know the issue and can try and fix it, but having some other examples will help. It's basically a collaton issue, where the columns it's trying to join are being collated with different character encoding.

Here comes Windows95Man. He's no Hackerman. But this should go through. ETA: Hah, did not expect the Austin Powers-esque choreography going so far. He looks like Günther's Finnish cousin: ETA: The Aussie song is just so ... new age-y.

Bambie Thug has a really theatrical presentation. Don't care for the song but the presentation is top notch. Even using something like Academy Ratio was an interesting choice that I'm not sure I've seen before. They are half-Swedish, too. ETA: Olly with possibly the most homoerotic performance ever put on a Eurovision stage. And again, clever presentation with the camera playing up into the song title. It was kind of a shame when they broke out of the shower set. Ukraine will go through, but too one-note for me. Poland... huh, Luna's not at all as strong as in the video, which may suggest that she needed some help to get that good, clean vocal and that if they put her more forward in the live music mix her flaws would be clearer. Alternatively, they've just messed up the mix. I like the chorus and the presentation, though (not so much the red ... whatever it was she had on to begin with). And now, Croatia.... not a fan of this one, but the bookies have not often been wrong of late. (But I hope they are. A Swiss or Italian win would be fine by me.)

Yeesh, that snuck up on us fast. Had forgotten about it! Now watching, though want to watch the opening medley before jumping into the performances. Odds have moved very much, Croatia is touted at 34% to win, Switzerland at 16%, and Italy at 10%. Can't rule out a shocker here, but ... things aren't going in the right direction.

Thanks. Weird that this issue is happening with that page. Any other examples? I've put debugging on.

IGN's 9 out of 10 review makes it seem like it's 90% done:

Gwendoline Christie is co-hosting the coverage.

No human has ever been born without a sex, so far as I know, but if you've found information to the contrary I'd be very interested in reading it.

Change the URL to twitter.com. The embedding code the forum has isn't updated to handle x.com links as of yet.

ETA: They've also released some of themusical tracks for the game on their Youtube channel.

Managed to give myself a nice deep gash under the thumb that required stitches (my birthday present to myself, it seems), so I will try to be brief, and then will sadly have to bow out for the rest of the day because I really shouldn't be typing. As baxus says, none of this changes the person's biological sex, but it's all true... and it's basically what I've already said if you had read my posts, that we can make greater or lesser changes to secondary sexual characteristics such that a transman may have a deep voice, facial hair, and a phallus, or a transwoman may well be very feminized, have a vagina, etc. (FWIW, the matter of stopping someone's puberty before it even begins with the intention of giving them a puberty associated with their chosen gender seems, from evidence from Europe and some gender clinicians in the UK and US, to be ill-advised as a clinical approach to dealing with gender dysphoria -- it leaves these young transchildren with very little in the way of genitalia to work with to fashion a neo-vagina or a new phallus, and may leave them with very little sexual function as well. Maybe once we are capable of cloning organs to use to donate tissue, this won't matter too much.) But we need to remember that according to statistics, only a small portion of trans people actually have gone so far as to have gender-affirming top/bottom surgery, and something like 50% don't even take any hormones. So why are we making policy with the least male transwomen and least female transmen in mind as if they are the typical trans person? How do we make policy that encompasses people who are for all intents and purposes 100% female or 100% male but are gendered as men and women respectively? I'm not opposed to self-ID, you see. I don't think it's my business what gender any adult says they are. But when their gender identity ends up leading to a conflict with others tied to their natal sex and their readily apparent sex, then we need to start figuring it out rather than pretending that sex differences don't exist and may be relevant on a case-by-case basis. Just briefly, to your link: Gorelick and Henshaw are speaking of simple eukaryotes and, well, non-mammalian species. Scientists do in fact agree that humans have only two biological sexes. You are a male or female person, and then you have your various variations and maybe DSDs. The thing about gametes is the organs that produce them are also the organs that produce the majority of hormones that make our bodies masculine or feminine, triggering the development of the sexual organs like the penis and the uterus, the sexual dimorphism we have later in life, etc. They are the basic foundation of all things sexual. So trying to dismiss them and to argue that sex isn't binary seems a fool's errand. At the same time, biology should only matter so much and only in certain circumstances. Which basically means we're in agreement, and I think we can leave it at that. If a woman who had testes and a consequent penis still has those things, I can see why another woman might not want to share an overnight hospital bedroom with a person they don't know who is a different sex from them. If a person who once had testes and a penis no longer has them, I don't know, I think the argument for putting them in a room with another woman seems stronger, but then I think fewer women would object to that situation. I think the anatomical issue tends to be the biggest for people in regards to things like changing rooms and bathrooms. Western society, even the rather liberated Nordic society, largely separates the sexes when you undress or are undressed, and people grow up with a certain sense of what is modest and comfortable and what is not modest and no comfortable, and in particular at what ages it's appropriate to see the other sex nude or not and thereby learning about the different anatomy. I don't really know how to make policy around the fact that we should support all trans people, including those who do not medicalize in any way, while also being sure that all stakeholders are reasonably comfortable. It's invasive to ask how modified ones body is. Like, if a gym changed its locker rooms from "Women" and "Men" to "Penis-free zone" and "Vagina-free zone", would that be better? It still leaves some trans people having to go into a room they aren't comfortable with, but at least we're moving away from "women" and "men" and trying to get into the .... nevermind, I was going to use an unfortunate phrase. That's how I read it too. I will say that just giving males urinals would speed things up. They take up less space and reduce demand for the stalls/rooms. I'm all for them, personally. It seems the straightforward course to me (not everyone agrees, just on grounds of the argument that one gender tends to be cleaner than the other when it comes to the state of toilets, remembering to put the ring up, cleaning up any spills, etc... but I've seen mixed evidence in this regard).

Complaining that I'm being "obstinate" about a very fundamental and uncontestable fact because some other party ("the far right") is abusing science for political reasons makes it sound like I should be shutting up even if I'm correct. Why should I care what you were referring to, precisely? What does the biological fact that there are only two sexes noted on this forum have anything to do with what is going on at the White House, the Department of Education, various state governments, and the workings of the two parties? You're telling me to shut up about this because of something someone else is doing is a call for self-censorship. Stop trying to worm your way out of very plain words. I've already dealt with the bullshit about being an "enemy" because I'm not agreeing to nonsense that I don't believe is accurate. I have no monopoly on science. But there is no third gamete. There's male and there's female, and it's incumbent on you, if making a contrary claim, to prove that claim. Your own sources agreed with me, which is the weirdest thing. What then is the third sex? Sex is binary. There is one or the other. Variations of sexual traits, on the other hand, are bimodal, sure. As I already said, we can determine sex with 99.8% accuracy with an ultrasound. And 99.95% accuracy out of the womb. How can we do this? Well, we see the physical development of the organs of gamete and sexual hormone production in the ultrasounds, and we literally see the external organs associated with those organs out of the womb, and combined we approach 100% accurate sexual identification. People are making this overly complicated, and it seems counter-productive to me because it looks a lot like trying to erase biological sex from consideration when figuring out appropriate policies, and I think most people are going to object to that when you start to apply that logic to policy problems. I think the easiest way to look at this from a policy perspective is acknowledge that gender is a spectrum, and that the biological sex aspect is a part of that spectrum and needs to be considered when relevant to understanding issues. There are some transwomen who are hormonally and phenotypically completely identical to males, and there are some transwomen who are hormonally and phenotypically substantially less male, and maybe you need to have different rules for different groups depending on the areas of concern (sports, locker rooms, etc.) But that smells too much like compromise for activists on both sides, I suspect.

What cowardly censoriousness to hold that position that simply correcting a very basic issue of biology is "obstinacy" and "insistent attitude". How about encouraging people on the side we support to know their science and to argue from truth rather than falsehood? Last year's Title IX draft proposal on athletics looked fine to me, acknowledging that sex-based discrimination may be necessary for competitive fairness or safety in sports, as determined by the appropriate federations and associations. I know less about this year's update to the role of Title IX in activities, but a cursory look at them makes them seem rather broader and I'd have to read comments for and against to see if it's all really just the right being assholes as they usually are, or if there are points where the regulations can be better improved. I'm no scientist at all, which is why I'm even more mystified by your posting at 3AM on a Monday arguing for self-censorship on science. If people start to turn to the right on some culture war issue because people on the left keep misstating facts or outright lying about them, whose fault is that? "The right made us do it!" isn't going to fly. We on the left should be willing to be truthful when discussing the interface between policy and science, even about facts that may be in some fashion inconvenient when we know our opponent will seize on it as a wedge. We should be talking about civil rights for all people and be opposed to gender-based discrimination outside of narrow contexts, and then go about fighting over those contexts, rather than attempting to falsify biology for the sake of putting forward a counter-maximalist position just because the opponent has a maximal one.

Then go out, o great political scientist, and find the fabled third gamete that proves that there is something other than two sexes. I bear no responsibility for what other people do with science, whether they fuck it up to shore up "sex is a spectrum" or they fuck it up to say "there are only two genders".