The most critical flaw in this piece imo is a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of sexual offending by men, particularly voyeurism and indecent exposure. Self-declaration is a MUCH lower barrier than current requirements for these motivated offenders (who are not rare)

Recent experience with historical sex offence cases show how far the most motivated serious offenders are prepared to go- including getting specific lifetime jobs and volunteering positions. These are a relatively small number of men. Indecent exposure however 2/
Is a crime that roughly 3 MILLION women have experienced since age 16. Well over 100 THOUSAND offences were committed in the last year (official gov stats https://t.co/FxTUosXaFj )
3/
What percentage of these offenders would pretend to be trans in order to offend? Well, you might argue that a very large proportion won't, but what is the barrier proposed under self-ID? Filling in a form. There's no commitment to a process required 4/
And (this is key) there are women's spaces where it is normal to be unclothed. So these men can indulge their offending without any realistic possibility of conviction, AND 5/
The "but they'll find a way" argument falls so incredibly short because you're effectively "un-criming" what was previously a reasonably risky offence to commit. 100,000 a year. Not only do you not risk the shame of being labelled a sex offender, but 6/
Your ability to humiliate your victims is potentially enhanced by the fact that you're not only forcing them into the encounter, but forcing them to "not even complain". A dream for men who want to exert sexual power and control over women 7/
You do not have to go far on Twitter to see *self-declared* trans people using threats of sexual violence against "T€RFs" (though rarely the male ones, for reasons following from above). I choose to be sceptical that these people are Trans at all 8/
Calling people "bigots" for raising these concerns is utterly wrong. If you want to change the law, or our normal social practices, you have to engage with the evidence, and just handwaving away concerns, not seeming to know what the numbers are or why they exist is wrong 9/
Can't find the link to the piece now, it's by three female academic authors, amd Liam Bright tweeted it out as a work I think he found particularly convincing? 10/
Found it:
https://t.co/KNq1rHpHAc

More from Society

We finally have the U.S. Citizenship Act Bill Text! I'm going to go through some portions of the bill right now and highlight some of the major changes and improvements that it would make to our immigration system.

Thread:


First the Bill makes a series of promises changes to the way we talk about immigrants and immigration law.

Gone would be the term "alien" and in its place is "noncitizen."

Also gone would be the term "alienage," replaced with "noncitizenship."


Now we get to the "earned path to citizenship" for all undocumented immigrants present in the United States on January 1, 2021.

Under this bill, anyone who satisfies the eligibility criteria for a new "lawful prospective immigrant status" can come out of the shadows.


So, what are the eligibility criteria for becoming a "lawful prospective immigrant status"? Those are in a new INA 245G and include:

- Payment of the appropriate fees
- Continuous presence after January 1, 2021
- Not having certain criminal record (but there's a waiver)


After a person has been in "lawful prospective immigrant status" for at least 5 years, they can apply for a green card, so long as they still pass background checks and have paid back any taxes they are required to do so by law.

However! Some groups don't have to wait 5 years.

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
MASTER THREAD on Short Strangles.

Curated the best tweets from the best traders who are exceptional at managing strangles.

• Positional Strangles
• Intraday Strangles
• Position Sizing
• How to do Adjustments
• Plenty of Examples
• When to avoid
• Exit Criteria

How to sell Strangles in weekly expiry as explained by boss himself. @Mitesh_Engr

• When to sell
• How to do Adjustments
• Exit


Beautiful explanation on positional option selling by @Mitesh_Engr
Sir on how to sell low premium strangles yourself without paying anyone. This is a free mini course in


1st Live example of managing a strangle by Mitesh Sir. @Mitesh_Engr

• Sold Strangles 20% cap used
• Added 20% cap more when in profit
• Booked profitable leg and rolled up
• Kept rolling up profitable leg
• Booked loss in calls
• Sold only


2nd example by @Mitesh_Engr Sir on converting a directional trade into strangles. Option Sellers can use this for consistent profit.

• Identified a reversal and sold puts

• Puts decayed a lot

• When achieved 2% profit through puts then sold