JustAnotherKay

White supremacist

If you're asking why the side of her face melted? Drugs.

Isn't there an episode where Maggie is grown up? Or am I thinking of Lisa?

I choose to believe it's the adult version

The chopping technique is about eliminating risk, mostly. Sure for a single meal and being aware you'll be fine. But getting into the habit of a good technique means you'll be fine even when you're tired or distracted

As someone with experience in this field, I can tell you with utmost certainty that the missiles the West fired at ICBMs are certainly not more expensive or technically harder than either of the aforementioned missiles. ICBMs in particular are almost a non threat to the world

Yes there is, you just blow it up while it's in space

The other issue with periodic password changes, particularly in the workplace but also relevant in normal life, is that it causes people to write down their password. The issues with that should be glaring enough

I did have to explain DKP

"So basically imagine if capitalists distributed loot"

For like 3 months out of the 2 year gap, yeah

You even threw the word "wait" in there independently because of your preconceptions of customer support calls

Out of curiosity

As long as it is legal, it can be defined as a car/truck/bike. Illegal vehicles get more complex, because as you mentioned the frame can be modified.

Such a definition could not theoretically exist

With infinite time, perhaps it could. I'll give you that one for free, I did exaggerate by saying it was entirely impossible. But for the vast majority of people it is impossible within their lifetime to create such a definition.

Should it really define whether they can or can't use a word?

Anyone can use any word, just not necessarily correctly. For example, "fish" are not real. There is no defining feature-set for a fish. However, when I say "fish" you think of a little, wet, scaley fella with silly eyes. And that's fine because communication happens and meaning is understood, but there is no way to define a fish in a way that includes all of the little scaley fellas, jellyfish, sunfish, etc.. The same logic is true for the argument about "women", there is no defining feature-set which includes all AFAB people and zero AMAB people because the lines are too blurry in genetics. An androgen-insensitive XY person with a vagina would still be AFAB, for example.

No hate, but I love a good debate if you're up for it.

Scenario 1:

Great points, honestly. However, even in this scenario where someone manages to cover all of the bases and managed to create an exact list of what it means to be a woman, it would be impossible to disqualify trans women.

Scenario 2:

I'll get deeper into this one since it's more realistic.

I bet you can't define a car

Vehicles are defined by their frames, and the regulations that revolve around those. I can tell you with absolute certainty whether a vehicle is a car or a truck based off the frame. But this isn't the point.

Does that mean we all just get to [define words ourselves]

Actually yes. Words gain their definition by how they are most commonly used. You learn a word based off its definition, but the word gains its definition from use. This is how Shakespeare managed to invent so many words in English. He just started using them, and when people asked what they meant he told them and they started using them. This is also why "literally" is defined as "not literally" by Webster dictionary, or at least it was around 2016 (may have changed).

As a matter of fact, entire languages have been built around this concept of redefining words. Most of German is just portmanteaus that were understandable enough to be considered a word.

In this particular case, the words "man" and "woman" is slowly being redefined by society to be more inclusive of trans people. Fighting against the progress of language, in this scenario, is nearly identical to fighting against the progress of trans people.