I mean, yes fact checking is good, but beyond translating existing Japanese sources on a Supreme Court ruling, which is already written down... there's not much to clarify here. It's not like it's war coverage where it's dangerous to even cover stories at all.
Yup, peeps don’t like to admit how totalitarian / dystopian all the sea countries really are, or how enourmously proud the average man or woman are of all the regressive ideals and cultural norms. Thinking real change is possible in a system if we “get off our hands” is so unbelievable naive. Has anyone in this thread actually spent any time working or living in Japan or any other Asian island nations? The xenophobia and classism is so next level the only comparison in the west is a deranged Trumper who believes white people should be paid more than any other race for their contributions to ccultured civilization.
I don’t have alot of personal experience with transphobia as other than Fillipino and Thai ladyboys, who are kinda their own thing, culturally. (Not to say their societal reputation is very good, or even a positive, as they are basically expected to emgage in sex work. I have never meet a asian trans person outside the west other than the two previous examples.
Japan is on of the few western aligned countries that i believe literally needs a big dose of post modern French style feminism. Full on women strikes across the board. The average Japanese man is physically and emotionally incapable of taking care of himself and any potential children or dependents.
And btw, this decision has, to this date, never been overturned. So yes, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, it is ok and constitutional to forcibly sterilize people.
to the best of my knowledge even after this ruling, you would still need to be sterilized to get your gender marker changed as the requirement of having genitalia that matches your preferred gender is still in effect. You also need to be 18+, unmarried and have no children who are minors.
Japan’s Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to require citizens to be sterilised before they can officially change genders.
The woman’s lawyer had argued that her reproductive ability has already been diminished by years of hormone therapy, adding that surgery entailed physical suffering and the risk of after-effects.
“The government now needs to act quickly to remove the clause,” Kanae Doi, Japan director of Human Rights Watch told news agency Reuters after the verdict.
Recent opinion polls have shown growing support for LGBTQ-friendly laws - although there is opposition from conservative sections of society and politicians.
Earlier this month, a local family court ruled in favour of a transgender man - Gen Suzuki- who requested to have his gender legally changed without undergoing the surgery.
The family court judge, Takehiro Sekiguchi, said the current law violated Article 13 of the Constitution that stipulates all people shall be respected as individuals.
The original article contains 307 words, the summary contains 152 words. Saved 50%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Kind of a weak statement. I feel like it’s been a given that we’re going to end up there sooner or later; even if politicians didn’t want to ever go, the resources are going to run out sooner or later.
The question isn’t whether or not we’re going to go green, the question is how many people are going to die along the way before we get there.
Great, so we should start reuptake now because it’s already too late. I know it’s a controversial subject and I know why but we better get used to the idea of it now because it has to happen.
According to estimates, PV including battery storage will be the cheapest energy source to develop for nearly every country in the world by the 2030s. Surely even the most determined doomsayers won’t go so far as to say we’ll “kill the planet” until then.
Except global warming, even if we went net zero today, is still gonna have temps rise for a long time. We’ll have to go net negative by a ton before we can reverse the effect.
Not to mention, cheap to make doesn’t imply full on adoption. Oil, gas and coal will still be in use around then. I’d love to be wrong here, but it costs more to change than to stick with what’s working.
The more pessimistic (already prior to this report unlikely!) projections of climate change are conditional on sustained heavy investment and development of fossil energy sources, which seems to me would make little sense if the alternative is significantly cheaper. So there’s now an even lower chance we’re in one of those truly apocalyptic timelines.
Thing that drives me crazy is those assholes have had all the money in the world for decades to become global leaders in renewable tech and infrastructure. They know as well as anyone that fossil fuels are unsustainable and finite.
But nah, they'll just keep riding this thing into the dumpster fire while gaslighting regular people about how our forgetting to turn off a light bulb is the problem.
Their mindset is “Fossil fuels are still needed now, and if my company doesn’t grab them, someone else will” and it’s just so easy to continue getting those short term profits for their shareholders.
They may have long term plans for investment in renewables, but they won’t enact them until forced to (by government or market conditions). I imagine oil costs (and therefore profits) will skyrocket as it becomes more scarce, and they’d want to ride that all the way to the bank (and hell) before pivoting.
Basically, capitalism will be capitalism - its only moral is money. The only way is to have governments worldwide force them to change, and that ain’t gonna happen.
I think what they are trying to convey is that it is inevitable- it’s going to happen, and that companies holding out need to stop hedging their bets and jump onto the bandwagon quick
The world is on an “unstoppable” shift towards renewable energy but the phase down of fossil fuels is not happening quickly enough, a new report says.
It praised the significant progress countries had made in expanding renewable energy and supporting consumers with the shift to electric vehicles and heat pumps instead of gas boilers.
It’s not a question of ‘if’, it’s just a matter of ‘how soon’ - and the sooner the better for all of us," said International Energy Agency (IEA) Executive Director Fatih Birol.
The report recognised that oil and gas would continue to play a role in the world’s economy and that maintaining investment was “essential”.
That compares with the pledge made in 2015 when political leaders agreed on limiting temperature rises to “well below” 2C and to make every effort to keep it under 1.5C, to avoid the most dangerous impacts of climate change.
But the IEA warned that it meant further uncertainty compounding an already unsettled global economy - Middle Eastern countries, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia - account for 67% of world oil reserves.
The original article contains 711 words, the summary contains 181 words. Saved 75%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Have you ever seen an elderly dog? They have the same characteristics as an elderly person. Gray hair, lack muscle tone, eyes that just look old… that dog is not 31.
Ah, the wonderful prevailing argument sweeping the internet the last few years: “that looks like something else, so it must be that. Let’s disregard sources and science. Everything must be what it looks like.”
People lie about their age all the time. There’s been many elderly people with badly documented births who fudged the numbers and added a decade or five to their age.
Unless there’s good documentation, be skeptical of extreme longevity claims.
lol. The language you chose proves you’re a moron. I suspect that you know you’re actually a moron. That’s why my comment cut so deep. You can’t buy brain cells but you can read more. There’s still a chance for you little dunce :)
Yeah usually like 9-15 years. Even long-lived small dogs like mini poodles are lucky to get to 18. For a big dog, 31 must be akin to a human living to 200.
bbc.co.uk
Newest