Basically, SCOTUS will decide whether California’s law banning pig crates violates the dormant commerce clause, since it would in effect be forcing farmers in other states not otherwise subject to California law to comply.
From SCOTUS:
“The questions presented are:
Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in this Court's decisions is now a dead letter.
Whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state housing of farm animals, state a Pike claim.”
Devil’s advocate take: children work because without the income they would be worse off (e.g. starving), and are generally in undeveloped economies which otherwise would be incapable of supporting them. Similar to having children help on the farm in an agrarian economy. Avoiding cheap chocolate and driving those producers out of business will just push said children further into poverty. Obviously it would be better if they didn’t have to work and could go to school instead, but if the country’s economy cannot support such a situation, there’s little to no way around it.
If the children are being forced to work, that’s an entirely different matter.
They absolutely inundated YouTube with ads for Stadia for a couple of months, to the point that it felt like half the ads I saw were Stadia ads. So that’s something, at least?
The flaws in the RBMKs which were known before Chernobyl were fixed afterwards (with changes that had been proposed before Chernobyl) in the other reactors that were kept running, though. Not claiming that the RBMKs were flawless after the fact, but the specific flaw that led to the disaster was fixed.
States aren’t required to enforce federal law, and the federal government can’t force states to help enforce federal law, as it’s unconstitutional.[1] If the feds want to enforce the marijuana ban and the state doesn’t volunteer to help, the feds would have to use e.g. the FBI or DEA to enforce the law. The feds don’t have the capacity to do that nationally, though, so it mostly goes unenforced, except maybe for large busts where it’s worth it for the feds to put the effort in.
Does the wikimedia foundation actually run/fund WT.Social? It doesn’t look like (with my quick googling) that they are affiliated aside from sharing founders.
That’s a problem I’ve noticed too. There doesn’t seem to be any good definition of what constitutes either gender without referring back to the sex that it is most commonly tied to (e.g. “feminine gender is composed of those behaviors that women stereotypically do”), which seems to make it somewhat of a useless concept standing alone.
Also: I was merely using “other side” to refer to my friends who hold a differing opinion. It’s an interesting debate, not a war.
The sex of an organism
is defined by the type of gamete an organism produces (or will produce, or used to produce, or would produce if it was healthy, etc.) If an organism produces relatively large gametes that don’t move much, if at all (i.e eggs), it is female. If it produces small motile gametes (i.e. sperm) it is male. This holds true for all animals and plants that reproduce sexually, as it is the basic biological distinction between the sexes.
Chromosomes themselves aren’t sex, and only some animals’ sexes are “programmed” by their chromosomes. For example, alligator embryos’ (future) sex is determined by their incubation temperature.
People with Klinefelter syndrome are male because they have testicles, underdeveloped as they may be.
It seems to me like the argument is premised on an equivocation that neither side seems to really address: one side is referring to sex and the other is referring to gender.
My general definition is “adult female human” which makes sense taking into account how “woman” has been used by almost everyone (until very recently). For example, the “women” in “women’s sports” is referring to the sex of the participants, since sports are sex segregated due to biological differences, not gender differences.
I’d also argue that “man” and “woman” are parallel to the words we use to describe other animals, e.g. buck and doe for deer, cow and bull for cattle, etc. They’re species-specific sex identifying terms.
Those I‘ve talked to on the other side treat “woman” as signifying gender rather than sex, so a person who is trying to be treated as a woman socially should be referred to as such.
I don’t see a problem with generally referring to trans women as “women” in social situations out of politeness; the issue of whether a trans woman is a “real woman” only really comes up when the person’s biology actually matters (e.g. “womens health” and the like).
From SCOTUS:
“The questions presented are:
Whether allegations that a state law has dramatic economic effects largely outside of the state and requires pervasive changes to an integrated nationwide industry state a violation of the dormant Commerce Clause, or whether the extraterritoriality principle described in this Court's decisions is now a dead letter.
Whether such allegations, concerning a law that is based solely on preferences regarding out-of-state housing of farm animals, state a Pike claim.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/21-0...