Shoe-Sizing Trauma
Lifted from the comments, a tale of niche woe:
What in the hell?🙄Shoe sizes aren’t transphobic, they’re reality
Men’s feet are wider, women’s narrower. The shoe size is a number given to a shoe of a certain length AND width. Women and men’s shoe sizes are on different scaling systems.
It’s about the fit, not your feelings. pic.twitter.com/HpwO7gmnsv
— L G B (@L__G__B) March 22, 2025
She’s upset that her feet aren’t being affirmed as “non-binary.”
Among the baffling conceits, a failure to grasp that men’s feet tend to be wider than those of women, with slightly different proportions, and hence the custom of sexed shoe fitting. Even seemingly androgynous training shoes may take into account the differences in stride caused by women’s wider hips, thereby reducing discomfort and the risk of injury.
Oh, and also,
I’ll leave readers to ponder that one.
Clay, since you ask, is a “Dom FTM vers bottom, transmasc nonbinary.” Hence the alleged trauma of buying running shoes. She has an OnlyFans account, obviously, as one does, and an account on X, which is similarly pornographic and not for the faint of heart.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.
Unexpected.
A lot of the people I used to know and like turned out to be liars, ignoramuses, and fools. I learned to not trust them.
See, now you made me go back and find that. Foreman destroyed him with a knock down just before that. Watching the full thing again, in today’s context, rather surprised the ref let it go on. Cooney was clearly wobbly. RIP Champ.
I miss boxing. Especially that era. I haven’t known anyone who was into it since graduating high school. No one to enjoy it/discuss it with.
Pretty much everyone that I used to know has turned out to be untrustworthy. I wouldn’t call most of them liars in a bald faced sense but the degree to which they lied to themselves about how much they know relative to what is knowable. I find it very hard to make time to be with people who were once my closest friends because the people I had the closest, deepest conversations with years ago dismissed many of my concerns that have been shown to be serious problems today. Things get extremely awkward should the conversations get anywhere near social issues, raising children, politics, covid, lockdowns, the Narratives they tend to be unable to shake, etc.
From that link:
Curious the larger context on that. Seems to me questioning the specifics of IQ measurement and usage puts one in a group to be excluded. Much like questioning the psychology profession and professionals a few decades ago. (Edited for clarity and spelling)
People who can’t ever admit they are wrong or say “I don’t know” never learn anything.
Some were liars. Some were ignoramuses. Some were fools.
I was a huge fan until about 1990. I really miss the 70s and 80s welterweight, middleweight battles between Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas (Hitman) Hearns, and Marvelous Marvin Hagler. Some of the best boxing matches ever, in any weight class.
That’s Cluster B, a character problem, not a cognitive problem.
I don’t know why, but argumentation like we’re getting from Jeeves28143, here (scroll up for the convo) makes me livid.
How is it possible that fathers wouldn’t make a BIG difference? I asked Grok to find me some data on fatherlessness and child outcomes, and it returned some mealy-mouthed thing. I argued with it for some time about its methodology and training methods. (Maddeningly, when you click the link, it takes you to the end of the convo instead of the beginning. Scroll up if you care to.)
The last thing we need in our society is more fish and bicycle garbage about men and women.
Huh, so familiarity breeds… uhhhh…. something.
It’s interesting how many age-old sayings are hate crimes anymore.
Like “Sticks and stones….”
Your distinction between a father who dies and one who entirely abandons his child is, I think, apposite. Though such pronounced irresponsibility – the tendency to abandon one’s children – may, in part, like so much else, be heritable.
I’ll just leave this here.
Some of the subsequent thread may be relevant.
I suspect that some of that is a question of example rather than genes. If your father ditched you, then you’re more likely to abandon your offspring too, because that’s the example that was set for you.
Also, it doesn’t obviate the claim that children are better off with fathers.
My God, I’m tedious.
From that thread in 2016.
Just last week.
Heh. Hey, try sitting here, madam.
It’s a personality disorder and a Canadian political party!
Agreed and upvoted. Although I’d replace “privileged” with “fortunate”, to avoid the connotations that the left insidiously tries to cram into our minds.
See Hillary Clinton’s despicably fascistic “it takes a village to raise a child”.
In a sane society, she would be universally recognized as an evil woman.
Some things bear repeating
Bad seed is a possibility.
Truth bears repeating
A friend – fairly liberal at the time mind you – reworked that to ‘it takes a village to raise an idiot’.
In that thread, David commented:
Fashionable for many generations. See, perhaps, La Boheme, which has a fair number of wastrels.