blepdoge🌸

tech, gaming, infosec // 20↑ // on that cyber grind
- gender tbd

[blepdoge🌸 @blep_doge]

Top 1000 sur Trackmania united c'est fait mtn prochaine étape : top 100

[nini @nini_mortelle]

toutes les reviews de la meuf, je lache des commentaires en mode "haha trop content que t'aies kiffé", son tel arrête pas de vibrer, elle commence à baliser, regarde partout autour d'elle, je sais pas pourquoi j'ai fait ça c'était très creepy mais excellent passe temps

[CH @CH_Laval]

Viens de tomber par hasard sur le insta de quelqu’un qui a appelé son chien à qui il manque une jambe trépied

[blepdoge🌸 @blep_doge]

@tinybnuuy

[Aru🦦VGen OPEN @Arekkunsu]

I saw this, and I did this.
#warframe #warframefanart #tennocreate

[blepdoge🌸 @blep_doge]

@tinybnuuy Only so much we can do to give support behind a screen but even if it's easier said than done, some professionals might be able to give a listening ear and help you out :) you're not worthless!! You deserve appreciation as much as anyone else

[blepdoge🌸 @blep_doge]

Ryanair explosion

[🪰 poppy 🪰 lamine yamal fan account @saperlipoppyy]

quel intérêt les débats sur les bi ? mm les bus sont bi

[onigiri tajine 🇲🇦🇺🇿 @metrobleu]

je pense très souvent à ce tweet

[blepdoge🌸 @blep_doge]

@vegetiny Hideux sah

[blepdoge🌸 @blep_doge]

@vegetiny Link sous gros unreal

[𝓟𝓻𝓲𝓷𝓬𝓮𝓼𝓪 🐸 @princesalamwane]

La méduse qui porte le crabe pour l’aider à faire son six seven

[Cerfia @CerfiaFR]

🇫🇷📱💶 FLASH | SFR est VENDU au consortium Bouygues, Orange et Free pour 20,35 milliards € :

- Bouygues récupère 5,9 millions de clients grand public ainsi que SFR Business, une partie du réseau mobile et des infrastructures : soit 42% du total

- Free récupère l’intégralité des clients de RED by SFR (6 millions) et une partie des clients grand public (1,6 millions de clients) : soit 31% du total

- Orange récupère 4,9 millions de clients grand public ainsi que Réglo Mobile, Syma et Coriolis : soit 27% du total

[Rikali ✨🏳️‍⚧️ @Rikalii_old]

I may be in the minority, but I actually like this question. It is, ultimately, a very pro-trans question. At least, if you take it seriously and not just as a gotcha question.

If you ask "what is a woman" (or a man, but for simplicity's sake let's take that as assumed), you are essentially asking for a definition. For some criteria that can be applied to anyone, and that will faithfully tell you whether that person is, in fact, a woman.

That's fine. Nothing wrong with definitions. But let's be very clear what we're thus looking for a test that:

can distinguish women from non-women, and

successfully identifies all women. That is, it must be 100% accurate. It cannot leave any women out, and cannot accidentally identify any non-women as women. (i.e. no false positives and no false negatives.)

100% is a pretty stringent level of accuracy to reach, but it necessarily must be so: the question essentially asks "what are the defining qualities of women", in which case all women must share those qualities, whatever they might be, literally by definition. And conversely, no non-woman can also share all such qualities, or by definition, that person would also be a woman!

And anyway, whoever asked the "what is a woman" question can hardly cringe at requiring such a high standard, can they? One presumes they want a reliable answer to their question, right?

Moreover, as a less purely logical but definitely common-sense criteria, we should add one more thing to our test:

it should agree with "obvious" cases.

That is to say, if you can point to someone who everyone agrees is a woman (e.g. Gal Godot or somebody), then the test should also indicate that they're a woman. Likewise, the test should never identify as a woman someone everyone agrees is a man. Otherwise, you permit non-sensical tests which, for example, might be pointlessly restrictive or pointlessly broad, to the extent that they are useless for any actual purpose within society. There will always be edge cases of people where everyone doesn't all agree that that person is a woman, but that's exactly why we need this test, right? That's exactly why the question is being asked in the first place. We want a test that is definitely correct for the obvious cases, so we can have confidence that it's right for the edge cases too.

And again, whoever asked the question shouldn't object to that requirement either, because after all, they are asking the question in the context of a society, and one presumes they want to be able to apply the test in actual social settings.

Now that we know what properties such a test should have--gives a yes/no answer for everyone and is never wrong (which implicitly means it will agree with the obvious cases anyway)--we can start to ask what the test is looking for.

Here, we can work from the outside in, from the superficial to the internal, and see where we end up.

Perhaps the measure of a woman is in clothing, hairstyles, and makeup? The most obvious, most superficial measure of all. Except, no, that can't be right. Such a test would identify skillful drag queens as women, even though everyone (including the drag queens!) agrees that they are not women.

Fine, then. Get rid of the clothes and go one layer deeper. Maybe the measure of a woman is her boobs and vagina. Except, no, that can't be right either. What if you have a vagina but no boobs? Either because they're too small, or because of breast cancer, or because you're pre-pubescent? And boob-growth is a continuous process, so how do you draw the line between what is and isn't "enough boob" to qualify someone as a woman?

Well, if boobs are problematic, then what about reproductive capability? Except, again, what if you don't have that? There are plenty of people who society absolutely agrees are women even though they're infertile. Maybe they have really bad PCOS. Maybe they had a hystercetomy. Maybe their bodies never developed a uterus in the first place (this happens in something like 1 out of every 10000 female births).

Ok, forget reproduction. Maybe the measure of a woman is the absence of a penis! Ha! What about that? Sure. So long as you're willing to say that soldiers who got their dicks blown off when their Humvee drove over an IED are women, then I guess that works. Oh, you're not willing to say that? Yeah, neither am I. Also, that fails the "obvious cases" criteria.

Is it hormones? Does that determine womanhood? Well, no, because a) hormones change throughout life so there's no single determinative standard you could use for hormone levels, and b) again sometimes medical conditions mess with your hormones in ways that would make the test disagree with some obvious cases of women.

But the chromosomes! Show me those two X chromosomes! Well, hate to disappoint you, but there are a lot of genetic conditions that can yield people who are obvious cases of women yet don't have the typical two-X chromosome pattern. People who, if this was your test, you would absolutely for sure swear were completely obvious women, until you looked at their chromosomes. The most extreme example of this is CAIS, which yields an individual with XY chromosomes but with the most extreme feminization possible because their bodies simply do not respond at all to androgen hormones. Like, literally the most feminine people possible are CAIS XY individuals. And if that's not enough to get someone to shut up about chromosomes, then I don't know what.

Fine, so not chromosomes. Maybe the measure of womanhood is something less tangible. Maybe it's life experiences. After all, women are socialized different and have different experiences growing up. Women are subject to marginalizations that men aren't. Perhaps this is the test we need! (This is a frequent TERF argument, by the way.) Except it doesn't work, because socialization and marginalization are very different from one society to another. Which means that, like with the boobs, you can't have one standard that correctly identifies all women. This fails one of the basic requirements for our test. And, coarsely speaking, such a test would say that women in matriarchal societies, where women are the politically dominant gender, are not women. Or that the Queen of England is not a woman because she has too much status and power. C'mon.

So, jeez, what the hell is left? Everything we can possibly measure doesn't work because some people still manage to be obviously women while not fitting that measurement! And, yeah. That's the problem with human diversity, borne of our messy biology and equally messy nature as social animals. We are so diverse that any such measures will inevitably fail.

But there is one thing left. One thing that doesn't have this problem. That thing is a woman's inner gender identity. This one thing is different precisely because it is not subject to external measurement. It is only measurable subjectively. Internally, within the woman's own mind.

Which is exactly the conclusion we should come to. Because the measure of a woman--that is, whether you should label someone else as a woman--is not something you can measure. It is not something externally visible, not even if you amplify the power of your vision with microscopes and biochemical testing.

The measure of a woman is that her gender identity is female. And because gender identity is inherently subjective, because it is a phenomenon that emerges from the complex operation of our minds, because it is an essential aspect of our deepest selves, it can only be observed by our selves.

I, and I alone, am capable of observing what my gender identity truly is. You, and you alone, are capable of observing what your gender identity truly is. Neither of us has any authority whatsoever to declare what the other's gender identity is based on anything we can observe or even theoretically observe.

If you want to know if someone is a woman, the literal and logical best you can do is to ask her, and to believe her answer. Subjective determination must be the the measure of a woman, because all other tests fail. This is all that's left.

That is why "what is a woman", or "what is a man", are such a profoundly pro-trans questions. Because if you actually take those questions seriously, they force you down a line of reasoning which ends at respecting everyone's autonomy to determine and assert what their own identity is.

[Remeli 🎾 @RemeliTennis]

Zverev va sûrement gagner son 1er GC et ça pose un problème. Pas du tout pour son niveau de jeu, mais parce qu'il ne devrait pas être sur un court de tennis

Il faut profiter du fait qu'il aura une immense médiatisation ajd pour rappeler qu'il a été accusé de violences conjugales par DEUX de ses ex compagnes.

(Je me permets de rappeler l'histoire pour celles et ceux qui en n'ont pas forcément connaissance)

Sa première ex n'a pas voulu porter plainte mais a témoigné des violences qu'elle a subies pendant leur relation. Certains médias ont repartagé son histoire mais ont fait face à des procédures baillons de la part des avocats de Zverev. C'est à dire des poursuites pour diffamation dès qu'ils décidaient de partager ces accusations (afin de les emmener dans des procédures juridiques coûteuses et donc de les dissuader d'en parler).

Sa 2e ex compagne et mère de son enfant a témoigné d'EXACTEMENT les mêmes faits et a décidé de porter plainte contre Zverev.

Les charges étaient suffisamment solides pour qu'il écope d'une amende de 450 000€ fin 2023.

Le procès a été interrompu par un accord à l'amiable entre les deux personnes. Mais il ne faut pas être dupe, ces accords sont souvent acceptés pour mettre fin à la pression financière, médiatique et l'harcelement que subissent les victimes.

Les deux ex de Zverev ont bien sûr été une deuxième fois victimes dans cette affaire en témoignant contre lui. Accusées d'être des menteuses, de faire ça pour l'argent etc.

Pour toutes ces raisons ça dégoute de voir ce joueur une nouvelle fois au sommet du tennis mondial (et voir certains journalistes/consultants être super complaisants vis à vis de lui mdr).

Mais bon c'est ça d'être un homme, riche et puissant 👍

[j0nathan @xj0nathan]

Faut absolument que vous sachiez comment Ubisoft a traité cet homme (créateur de Assassin's Creed) comme une merde :

- en 2010 il commençait à dire qu'il voulait réduire la cadence avec les AC et que le fait d'annualiser la licence allait nuire à la qualité des jeux
- quelques mois après il est poussé vers la sortie et démissionne (sûrement harcelé par Ubisoft vous connaissez les méthodes 🥹)
- en 2011 il rejoint THQ qui fondent spécialement pour lui un sous studio et commence a bosser sur 1666 Amsterdam
- en 2013 Ubisoft rachète THQ et vire spécifiquement Patrice, et conservent par la même occasion tous les droits sur sa création 1666 Amsterdam
- en 2016, après 3 ans de bataille juridique acharnée, ils récupèrent les droits sur son jeu
- en 2026, 10 ans après, il nous présente enfin 1666 Amsterdam

[blepdoge🌸 @blep_doge]

@Livieparis2024 Sincèrement désolé pour mon commentaire d'avant😭 je sais pas ce qui m'a pris

[blepdoge🌸 @blep_doge]

@pl0c2 Des experts indépendants valident ce glow up

[Earth Liberation Studio @EarthStvdio]

Another anti-AI hand drawing.

[Local Homosexual Dumpling @LoptrBayo]

Also, to everyone talking about how Warframe *went* woke

Friendly reminder that this tweet was made by Warframe’s lead writer

[Football Tweet ⚽ @Footballtweet]

⚽ 𝗣𝗘𝗡𝗔𝗟𝗧𝗬 𝗦𝗛𝗢𝗢𝗧-𝗢𝗨𝗧: GABRIEL MISSES!

🇫🇷 PSG: ✅✅❌✅✅
🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Arsenal: ✅❌✅✅❌

PSG HAVE WON THE CHAMPIONS LEAGUE!