savorytiger

Seriously. I assumed he was a kicker at first.

Tuned in for a couple of possessions. Fist pumped on that missed FG. Turning the game off after that fake punt. Defense was stepping up. Offense starting to come around. And that's what you do? I don't mind a coach being aggressive in games where you're not favored to win, but maybe come up with something that has a chance of working.

Okay, we're definitely not talking about the same things. I'll clarify: you brought up data about a growing number of people who are LGBTQ, and I responded about whether it matters. Does that growing number have a negative effect on society? Aaand now you're moving on to a completely different topic: early transitions. I don't really think I know enough about early transitions to make up my mind. If mistakes happen what is reversable and what isn't? What are the chances that a mistake could occur? How much does quality of life improve after such a transition (hey maybe this is related to your question about why they would like the transition done early)? Does an early transition open up options like fairly participating in sports competitions where a late transition is now imo a fairly gray area? A lot of this is already mentioned in this thread, but I haven't seen enough actual sources to go either way on it. Oh and as a cis straight male, I'd certainly prefer to be called he/him and be very confused otherwise. If someone were to purposefully to try to push a different pronoun, I'd probably be offended? This is a pretty straightforward topic for me (note I do understand other people have differing points of view on the issue). If someone wishes to be called a pronoun different from what I perceive, I'll make an attempt to change what I say and they shouldn't be offended if I make a mistake. Requirements are silly, and intent matters.

I didn't find any sources I'd call highly trusted with a brief google, but the only result stating that it is *not* reversible is a site referencing the UK NHS page that now basically says the physical effects should be reversible though the psychological effects are unknown.

It's not though. Gender and sexuality are differing axis. LGBTQ covers all cases where gender or sexuality differ from cis gendered straight, but just because someone is LGBTQ, it doesn't mean that they don't identify as their cis gender. It's kind of like the all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares issue. Maybe you didn't mean to, but you made a claim about squares and then posted data about rectangles. If you want a frank conversation (not sure why I'm doing this in the Smack Talk forum) I'm pretty surprised that 20% of Gen Z adults identify as LGBTQ. That seems out of sync with what my intuition suggests would be natural. The question is...does it matter? The rates of these things doubled a few times, but its growth will obviously stop at some point. Social pressures/fads fade over time and trends will go back to normal, and people are being trained to panic about an issue that's isn't going to matter in the long run. Also, outside of a religous argument, is there a reason to view it as a negative in the first place?

Either Homer didn't catch it (no idea how he didn't) or he didn't bother to deal with it, but... 1) You made a claim for people who "identifies as something other gender than just male and female". You then post a link for people identifying as LGBTQ. That's not the same group. If 'we're looking at children who experience gender dysphoria (which is a larger group than "not male or female" as you typed but we'll assume that's what you meant), the only data I've found shows about 1.4% of children ages 13-17 identify as transgender. 2) It looks like you added up percentages of two populations of people to claim what would be the true of the combination of the two groups to get your 30%. That's not how that math works. If 50% of group A likes apples, and 50% of group B likes apples, how many of those in group A and B like apples? It's not 100%... 3) Just because you have two points of data doesn't mean you can easily extrapolate where it goes afterwards. You really think it's going to keep doubling every 9 years or every generation?

I haven't agreed with most of the posts from that twitter handle, but that one was so free. I thought the pass was catchable, but difficult. Taking the 50% (or worse) option when there was an 100% one is something we have to correct to hang with the better teams.

I've never seen a facemask call on the ball carrier. What's supposed to happen when the ball carrier pulls someone else down by the facemask?

He saw the UGA performance and actually came back. Hopefully that means there's something real there that he liked.