I understand the idea of a loan: borrow money, pay it back over time plus a fee for the favor of having more money sooner.
I understand having a company and taking out a loan: borrow money to do something to help the company make more money and pay it off... but it's OK you made enough that it was a good idea.
But HOW can someone borrow money to BUY a company then say the cost of the loan should go on the companies books?
This is a thread, it was originally on twitter posted on tumblr and i found it in my export. I think that this is a very important thing for people to hear, especially in regards to alt text on fedi. Please be mindful of the people around you, and try to make things accessible. I think that the people around me can relate to this, I have had a lot of times my short term memory would just blank out and I would have to ask over and over again for someone to repeat themselves.
Gold ring with quartz intaglio depicting an ant. Roman, 1st-2nd century AD
I wonder who wore this ring. Why did they choose an ant as their symbol? It's interesting to me that the depiction is specific enough that it can't be written off as a general "bug" the mandibles, and body plan make this explicitly an ant.
The ant motif appears on garnets in other rings.
This is up in New Haven at the Yale University Art Collection and I am not contemplating becoming a cat burglar.
@morecowbell@Silverseren@motoridersd disregarding the fact that yes, sex is in fact assigned by the doctor that delivers a baby based on an arbitrary heuristic despite not always being as clear-cut as you imagine...
legal definitions are a separate realm entirely
if you would actually read the article and its discussion of how the 2004 and 2010 bills interact and why a ruling on them matters very materially to the legal rights of trans people, you'd see that
even if anything you've mentioned so far was relevant at all to the court case... neither genome sequencing nor karyotyping nor even any kind of testing on gametes are performed at birth and have no bearing on sex assignment by the delivering doctor. like i said, it's an arbitrary heuristic, usually based on appearance (which is often surgically altered if they don't already match one of the two expected results).
i would really rather not continue that line of discussion, though, since again, it's not relevant to the court case.
@morecowbell sorry for the confusion, but that's the way it is! blame the 2004 bill. the word "sex" was already so embedded in the body of gender-related law that it was practically impossible to provide trans people with legal status corresponding to their gender without changing the legal definition of "sex" to essentially mean gender instead.
@morecowbell to be quite frank, the primary concern of trans people everywhere is not whether legislators have their "hearts in the right place", they care about the material impact of the legislation.
as it stands, the material impact to trans people of the ruling that JKR et al are putting their money behind would be very negative, and giving her the benefit of the doubt regarding her intentions is not just folly but dangerous. if that makes the activists opposing it "annoying", so be it
@morecowbell sure: workplace and hiring discrimination. the legal basis to file complaints or suits in response to discrimination against trans people would become ambiguous at best, null at worst.
@morecowbell that is the problem: the law doesn't say that. as previously mentioned, the majority of existing gender-related law was written with regards to "sex", because in the eyes of legislators long past, there was no distinction.
unless additional legislation were to be introduced at the same time as this appeal, a ruling in favor of the appeal will necessarily remove many of trans people's legal protections. that is why it is folly to assume that this is only about "clarity of definitions."
@morecowbell i am not sure how you are still confused, i explicitly said that i agree with you that the laws should be amended.
the appeal is not rewriting anything, it is just asking for a specific interpretation of the law by the supreme court, in order to set a legal precedent for future cases. the effect of that appeal, if it succeeds, would be disastrous without further legislation.
yes, that gap in protection "can be addressed", but For Women Scotland have not shown any intention of addressing it. even if such legislation were introduced now, it could be years before it goes into effect. that is the point: the immediate material impact.
Holy shit, waking up to a spambot flood. Luckily most of the spam accounts were from just several domains, so added some domain blocks, and now close to 1000 spambots should be suspended. But geez.