While it's <10% across the entire population, LGBTQ identification rates are at 23% for GenZ. https://news.gallup.com/poll/656708/lgbtq-identification-rises.aspx

But the reason it's an issue for many is that people don't really say "normal" to refer to things like sexuality, gender, etc. in a "statistically most likely" way, they use it specifically to exclude the other group from being considered normal as something lesser. Or, to put it another way...

Let's be honest here. a high percentage of the time that someone categorizes something (implicitly or explicitly) as "abnormal" it is done with intent to label the subject as something undesirable. It's pretty safe to say that if a term is very often used in a negative way in a specific context, then we can reasonably assume that default definition when that's the context we're in. I don't understand why people are so often afraid to acknowledge that we don't live in a world of pure definitions, and rather must exist in a situation where the context of a statement is relevant.

Doing their part in getting us towards the reality where we can push the moon out of orbit.

On the bright side, this probably means you could refuse to turn over ANY footage to the police by Pleading the Fifth.

Let's not, the idiots running the show in the US will just rename it to the Gulf of Patriotism or some dumb bullshit.

It's not saying "gender dysphoria is not a diagnosis that exists anywhere" it's saying "believing yourself to be transgender is a substantial enough mental illness and flaw in character so as to preclude military service."

This claims that having gender dysphoria is some sort of deficiency, and not just a non-standard identifier. This invalidates the identity of trans people, and calls into question their legitimacy.

This instance (and I refer to the instance to intentionally be inclusive of both Ada and our community) takes issue with certain kinds of content, at least while we're on our local accounts.

Admins from another instance have taken the stance that this sort of content is not, by their own evaluation, harmful enough to be removed from their instance. That's a subjective choice about what they feel is right for their users, even if I disagree with the position.

Blahaj has decided that exposing the community to that sort of content, knowing it will not be removed by the remote instance, is not worth doing. However, in the interest of transparency and allowing users choice, has made sure its community is aware of the change.

Blahaj users who still wish to engage with the instance can easily still do so with accounts homed on other instances, should there be Communities or content that are of value to them.

What part of this do you have an issue with? This is how most people SHOULD be living their lives. If there's something that doesn't enrich your life, find ways of mitigating its impact. Don't like some vegetables? Find new recipes or supplement the nutrition otherwise. Uncle is kind of a douchebag? Stop going to holidays at his house. Friend holds political views you disagree with? Make sure your engagements with them are still something you enjoy.

Nobody is saying that there won't be aspects of life that are negative AND unavoidable. People have shitty jobs, terrible families, poor health. Why should that mean they should accept worse things in the parts of their life they do have discretion?

Of course not, that would provide legitimate status, and would allow them to leave their husbands. Best to connect their presence here to the man so that their leaving is under threat of deportation.

I mean, saying that it's a fight for "basic human rights" is a positional statement within the context of the time when the fight is needed. There are white supremacists (as individuals, not as a rule) out there who genuinely feel as though their rights are being "infringed" upon by anyone who's skin lacks a perfectly porcelain pallor. In America at present, it's being (disingenuously) claimed that squashing trans people is in the interest of the rights of women and children. Those pushing that agenda don't believe that, but many of the followers do. If trans people are eradicated, it would be framed as a win for basic rights in the future.

More than that though, you've applied context to the poster above your that isn't present in their original post, nor in the OP. Limiting the point to "basic human rights" has sort of set up the claim "all historical fights involving justified topics were justified."

The top 10 states by voter participation are: Minnesota Colorado Oregon Washington Wisconsin Maine New Hampshire Michigan Iowa New Jersey

Those above as well as Virginia, Montana, Massachusetts, Vermont, North Carolina, Florida, and Connecticut have participation rates above ~70%. While a few swing states are in there, it's certainly not overwhelming given that I've listed about 40% of the states.

He got more votes than Harris, but less than 50%.