neidu4@piefed.social to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 days agoWhy do we need legal genders at all?message-squaremessage-square280fedilinkarrow-up1344arrow-down128file-text
arrow-up1316arrow-down1message-squareWhy do we need legal genders at all?neidu4@piefed.social to No Stupid Questions@lemmy.worldEnglish · 4 days agomessage-square280fedilinkfile-text
I was originally going to ask how many legal genders there should be, but I fail to see a compelling argument against 0.
minus-squaremonotremata@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·3 days agoI know it’s just a typo/autocorrect, but I seriously chuckled at “tax invectives.”
minus-squarehansolo@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up2·3 days agoThanks for the catch. I didn’t have my glasses so the blur of text looked like the right blur.
minus-squaremonotremata@lemmy.calinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·3 days agoIt’s extremely apt. I’m definitely going to remember it next tax season.
minus-squarehansolo@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkarrow-up1·2 days agoHey, a constant point John Hodgeman makes on his judgement podcast is that long term cohabitation without the tax breaks is foolish. There no reason to give the state more money just to stick it to convention.
I know it’s just a typo/autocorrect, but I seriously chuckled at “tax invectives.”
Thanks for the catch. I didn’t have my glasses so the blur of text looked like the right blur.
It’s extremely apt. I’m definitely going to remember it next tax season.
Hey, a constant point John Hodgeman makes on his judgement podcast is that long term cohabitation without the tax breaks is foolish. There no reason to give the state more money just to stick it to convention.