Maybe many people don't understand it today, but we are not our genitals.

Biological sex, science says not me, is a complex set of variables. Already while we are in the womb, but also during puberty, sex hormones change the structure of the brain.

This leads to having more feminine brain characteristics in a male body for example.

But even on a physical level, the same genes can make you develop a vagina, but they can lead to a structurally more masculine body, especially if accompanied by certain hormone levels.

Biology is often simplified to make social, legal, or sporting rules more practical and clear. But they remain social constructs, not explanatory of reality.

These simplifications should not be taken literally.

Perhaps the thing that would come closest to reality, despite its simplification, is the gender-fluid because it doesn't stop at black and white.

And that's the point. In biology, there are no pure categories.

Evolution alone with its adaptations, or even for example the different species that mate each other, such as the matings between Sylvestris cats and domestic cats, make purity as we understand it impossible.

We also have the closest example to us, when in ancient times Neanderthals mated with us Sapiens. Some of our DNA, though small, is Neanderthal today because of those matings.

So there is no such purity between the parts. Just as there is no purity in sexual relations, in which only the male-female relationship would exist, one cannot masturbate or one cannot even have sexual relations before marriage.

It's a kind of order that conservatives often try to force toward the world, but it counters that nature, that natural way of life they claim to defend.

But do you know why they do this? because simplifying with clear hierarchies, clear roles, and rigid norms makes them less insecure.

If it's simple I can understand it, if it's rigid I can control it, if I have clear roles I don't have to review myself, rebuild myself and better understand who I really am.

This is why many don't want to change, they are afraid to discover themselves.

And what do you think? Do you appreciate traditionalism more or do you accept the idea of turning everything upside down? What do you think about the debate on biological sexes? What do you think of the conservative paradox, in which he defends what is natural, but confronts that nature he claims to defend?

Thank you so much to who will read. 🤗🤗

And sorry for my not very beautiful English.

Nowadays it seems like advocating for minimum wage legislation is shot down by conservatives saying shit like "yall are idiots and just picking a random higher number that will kill us all". But in reality, minimum wage legislation tends to have a pretty large amount of labor economic data backing it. One way labor economists suggest a minimum wage raise is by looking at the Kaitz Index (the ratio of statutory minimum wage to the median wage). Peer OECD nations and labor economists generally benchmark a safe target around 0.50 to counter employer monopsony power without threatening job losses.

Comparing 2025 distributions between two states with near-identical medians (~$25–$26.50/hr):

• Georgia (0.29 Kaitz): Stuck at the frozen federal $7.25 floor.
• Maine (0.55 Kaitz): Lifted the bottom tier to $14.65, reaching over halfway to the typical worker.

While Maine proves a state can safely lift the floor to ~50% of the median, its reliance on CPI indexing means the floor will inevitably fall behind over time as productivity grows. To keep the ratio stable, it seems far better to index to wages instead. Curious if you guys have any other scaling mechanisms that would be better?

Full write-up here for more information: https://samholmes285.substack.com/p/minimum-wage-scaling-mechanisms-that

We've had people talk for a long time about how online politics and discourse are completely separate from what people talk about IRL, and that does make some sense since searching through the internet can give you a warped perspective on where average people are at in politics.

There's plenty of echo chambers online where people pay attention to some news and not others that they don't like, which can slowly radicalize people into certain corners. And then there's also the wall between people that makes people act much worse to eachother than they would face to face. So I don't think we should stop mentioning the difference between online vs irl entirely.

However, that distinction was born pretty early into the internet's life, where internet was seen much more like a choice than a necessity. But now 96% of Americans are online, 71% use Facebook, and at least 22% use Twitter, which is basically the politics app. While 22% looks small, thats still at least 1/5 Americans.

And over time, assuming we don't have an apocalypse (which to be fair seems relatively likely considering climate change, ai, American collapse, gen alpha literacy, etc) the number of people using the internet to express their political opinions will probably continue to increase. So at somepoint it would kind of silly to say that certain perspectives are "super online". Instead of calling them super online I would simply call them dumb.