Right, “equivalent to” in the sense that legs are “equivalent to” fins in that they provide locomotion.

Not quite - mating types aren’t sex (though the post confuses them). Their gametes are the same size (isogamy), so it’s called mating types. Humans have gametes of different sizes, so we have sexes.

deleted by creator

There’s no assumption. They literally listed two purity tests that they themselves use, directly after saying that they never see anyone use purity tests

I quoted an entire sentence exactly. They didn’t say “I like pancakes”, they said “You can’t compromise with waffle-eaters”

You cannot compromise with a bigot

To reiterate the comment you’re responding to, you’re reducing a complex world to a binary choice. Everyone that has ever existed is bigoted to some degree, therefore no compromise is possible ever?

Yeah, the comment above is kind of a hilarious example of cognitive dissonance. “I’ve never seen purity tests, other than these tests for ensuring purity”. Blanket statements like that are rarely used in good faith.

Why is AGP transphobic? Seems like at best it’s still unsettled science. From the link:

The concept that androphilia in trans women is related to homosexuality in cisgender men has been tested by MRI studies. Cantor interprets these studies as supporting Blanchard’s transsexualism typology.

There’s a loud minority of anti-AI people. Most people don’t reflexively hate it, though.

Good point. Neither prong of the dichotomy bothers me because I think AI is neat and copyright laws are dumb and so reject it entirely. It does create an uncomfortable tension if you dislike AI and like copyright though.

100%, I’m hoping that AI will result in capitalism eating itself up entirely

AI art isn’t theft, so the rest of your question falls apart.

In regards to sharing art, it’s trying to fight technological progress and it’s bound to lose. Copyright is dead and that’s a good thing. We shouldn’t simp for legal systems pushed by and that benefit large corporations over creators.

It can be true that something is both an important right and used unethically by people that don’t actually care about the topic. See Rainbow capitalism as a very related example. Nutomic is right that identity politics are used to create division among the working class, because anything that can create division will be used to do so.

The “people will never vote for a woman” crowd is sort of right. A woman will never be elected with the current DNC, but only because they view a woman candidate as an excuse to be shittier. They think their base will hold their nose and vote for a worse candidate just because of what’s in her pants.

AOC might get elected because she’s interesting on her own merits and has enough name recognition to not be buried by the DNC. They’ll do their best to prevent it though.