But Eigel isn’t alone in his condemnation of the bill. Another Republican, Missouri State Senator Sandy Crawford, claimed the incest and rape provision shouldn’t pass because “God is perfect.”

“God does not make mistakes. And for some reason he allows that to happen, bad things happen,” Crawford said. “I’m not gonna be able to support the amendments because I am very pro-life.”

You can’t help but appreciate the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance you gotta have to say, “God is perfect,” and “…for some reason He allows … bad things [to] happen.” How delusional can you be to say that raped children giving birth is part of some perfect, divine plan?

Social conservatism is a complete joke.

Explanation for anyone who wants it: https://explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2878:_Supernova

You forgot Rule 1 of the fediverse: Kbin does not exist.

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

the comments on the satirical tiktok are absolutely hilarious

Do you plan to do this with Firefox?
Yes and it will be named Poopenfartenfox.

The names are an edit of the original xkcd comic, where the states are blank.

Many residents of Kentessee would love to change the name to Elevennessee, but that’s been found extremely exclusive by the former Kentucky residents who were lumped into the state upon its creation.

Oooo, you’re right. I originally had (north–south) Washington → Columbia → Oregon but then realized that Oregon’s shape was second and so lazily swapped the two names. Cool to know!

That’s the other part of Michigan, unless the Upper Peninsula decided to become Upper Dakota while I wasn’t looking.

It’s just a fancy name for “Dakota[citation needed]”.

Breaking news: Fossil fuel company CEO who was somehow allowed to run an international climate change summit says that fossil fuels aren’t bad. Everyone is befuddled as to how such a thing could have happened.

Massive waste of space. Should’ve used a smaller font size.

Lots of wasted space on the tail. Could’ve fit a ball pit or two back there.

What do you mean? They’re all completely real

Well, looks like I’ll just stick to using Invidious.

Hmm, fair point. I can see how increased ball velocity and decreased reaction speed could make an injury more likely. Nevertheless, I still have these doubts:

• How much of a difference actually is there in reaction speed? I have a hard time believing that there’s enough of a difference for a biological female be unable to dodge a throw where a biological male would.
• Going with the previous question, is this alleged difference in exhaustion actually observed to a great extent among professional cricket players?
• Are these safety factors really significant as to be part of a reason to ban transgender players? If a cis woman came around that bowled significantly faster than other cis women in the sport, would it be reasonable to want them banned from the sport or to portray them as a threat to other players?

Unless there really is some big safety concern, still seems absurd to ban people on these metrics and tell people that you’re protecting the other players by doing it. With the evidence I’m aware of, it still seems minimal to me, and we’ve seen BS reasoning for banning trans women in other women’s competitions (e.g., chess). While I can’t say with confidence that there’s no decent argument in support of a ban, I still don’t think safety is part of it.

Again, we’re talking about throwing “essentially rocks” at speeds that are insanely fast no matter who’s doing the throwing. When you’re talking hard objects being thrown at such high speeds towards people in protective gear, the difference in danger (even if that danger is significant) is going to be minimal. If women “are far more likely to be exhausted” at the end of a match, they’re more susceptible to really bad injuries from any cricket ball moving at such a high speed. A trans woman throwing the ball isn’t going to pose much more risk, definitely not enough for safety to be a factor in banning trans women from women’s cricket.

I think there’s definitely a discussion to be had in regards to what’s fair and how we approach fairness and sports in a world that’s accepting of trans people. However, the moment you go out and pretend that there’s some safety risk posed by trans women in sports, you unjustifiably paint them as threats to cis women, and that’s completely unacceptable.

100%, but the hardness of a cricket ball doesn’t change with who’s using it. A really really hard ball moving really really fast is still a really really hard ball moving really really fast, so it’s not like there’s some significant difference in danger posed. And even if there was such a big danger posed by someone assigned-male-at-birth playing cricket, why would it still be perfectly fine for men’s cricket?

Safety of the players? How do trans women playing cricket endanger cis women?