When people mix pairs, it is most often to single out the woman. One of the most egregious is guy/girl. The use of "lady" is old-fashioned, and raises a red flag about what other "old-fashioned" ideas the speaker might hold.
No, you just purport "lady" to be old-fashioned because it furthers a political point.
Keep your paws off my shared language. I want to be able to refer to people without googling for the polite terminology du jour, since even "woman" is offensive in some circles.
No, I'm saying it has a connotation. In my experience, it is exclusively used by men who DO, demonstrably, have a certain view towards women. I do not like being referred to that way. It has ALWAYS come with other baggage that works its way into the workplace, however politely it is used. The red flag is based on lived experience, not an abstraction.
/me waves. Nice to meet you. I'm assuming I don't have this certain view towards woman. Hopefully, you can now remove your "exclusively" tag (absolutes seldom hold). I grew up with a strong woman figure in my mom and stories of my grandma. The top students in most my classes through high school were girls. I grew up _knowing_ that girls are smarter than guys. Full stop. I had to get to college and take education classes to learn about systemic issues affecting woman negatively in education. So my unconscious bias is that woman are more intelligent than their male counterparts, and I have to work to keep calibrated towards "people are just people, and guys can be just as smart as girls." And I use the word "lady" a lot. It never even occurred to me that it could hold negative connotations. Other words I use: fellas, folks, y'all, kiddo, boss, guys. Lastly, your "the red flag is based on lived experience, not an abstraction" -- beware of confirmation bias. When you look for something, sometimes you find it more often.
Edit: to further clarify, when I use "lady" it quite literally means the same as "guy" with the caveat that the gender is taken into account. "You ladies going out for lunch?" is the same as "You guys going out for lunch?" with the difference being there would be no males in the first group. "I interviewed a lady" is the same in my head as "I interviewed a guy."
Ah that makes me sad, I grew up in the south with hippie parents and they all used lady normally. I wonder if that is a Southern thing they adopted or what?
I showed your comment to my colleagues (a mixed group of men and women) and they were surprised to hear anyone had such a negative view of the word "lady".
I suspect you're more or less alone in your opinion.
"Woman" sounds a bit old, "girl" sounds a bit young. "Guys" (or "you guys") is slightly gender neutral, so many people would use "guy" as a gender neutral term, and avoid "gal" altogether.
In my native language, there is a semi-formal term we use which is neither rigid nor offensive... "tuan" for men (Sir) and "cik puan" for women (Miss Mrs). For English, I think the closest to this is "lady", and this might be why many non-native English speakers use "sir".
I don't know where you live in Canada, but that's not entirely true. There are long waits for some procedures (far longer than medically indicated) and a significant number of people cannot access primary care because of the shortage of GPs (especially in rural areas). I would still, 100%, rather live in Canada than the US but your comment (intentionally or not) completely glosses over the waiting lists for some medical specialties.
People in the US see short lines and think "wow I can use our system whenever I want" instead of "wow our system is so expensive that it's usage is much lower than capacity".
Just because something is minor does not mean it isn't urgent or best tended to sooner rather than later. Strangely enough, those of us with universal health care don't make it a hobby to go to the doctor's office because it is "free" at point of use. We only go when necessary, we just don't have to weigh the possible trade off of food, shelter or savings in the equation that turns minor, easily treated conditions into major, life threatening ones.
If you want a to track medical research the only way to get reliable information is to read the actual medical literature. Every single mass media report on a study gets at least some aspects of the research wrong (sometimes ridiculously so). Also the mass media has a terrible track record on following up initial reports when subsequent studies are done.
The best layman's source I have found for health news is the Nutrition Action newsletter. They don't take advertising, they translate (fairly accurately) medical research into layman's terms, they give you a clue as to how to act on it and they DO follow up on subsequent studies that the mass media ignores. The subscription is also very affordable (~$25USD I believe).
Edit: I think one of the reasons that their health reporting is more accurate is that they use either subject matter experts or writers that at least have a science background rather than just an interest in science. It doesn't keep them from getting anything wrong, but it definitely cuts the errors down considerably.
Not wanting to have kids is, in fact, a medical issue for many women. Pregnancy is dangerous for many women, especially those with pre-existing conditions.
It is not a medical dysfunction. "Not wanting to have children" is not a medical disorder, it's a preference. It's not necessary to use birth control if you don't want to have kids. You could instead just not have sex.
It's not, the same stands... you'll go through years of elevated insulin before you see fasting glucose or A1C rise. A glucose tolerance test could be useful too, but a bit of a pain compared to simply testing insulin levels and comparing to the prior year.
Start by assuming that not all women who are friendly towards you "want you." That default assumption seems to be ingrained in some (by no means all) men and that is what gets them in trouble.
If you start with the default assumption that women who are friendly are ... just being friendly then misunderstandings are far fewer. Most men who approach you are just being friendly rather than coming on to you. Do you require men to reassure you that they are not coming on to you as well? Most women are not into every man they interact with. It's not their job to convince you otherwise. It's your job not to assume.
That's excellent advice. But I am saying it is a lot more likely men will start thinking and behaving that way if women explain it all to men, and if they behave in a consistent manner themselves.
What, exactly, are women supposed to explain to men? And why is it their job? (Honest question as I'm having difficulty seeing how this is supposed to work on an interpersonal level and no woman can speak for all women.)
Individuals can be consistent, populations are not. Men as a group do not all behave the same (aka "consistent" for their gender) or all have the same expectations, just as not all women behave/expect the same.
There has never been consistency at a population level when it comes to how men and women receive advances from the other.
>There has never been consistency at a population level when it comes to how men and women receive advances from the other.
True, but there are norms and averages.
>What, exactly, are women supposed to explain to men? And why is it their job? (Honest question as I'm having difficulty seeing how this is supposed to work on an interpersonal level and no woman can speak for all women.)
I explained this in my original comment. Women should have a reasonably standard way of behaving when they are sexually attracted and a perceivably different way of behaving when they are just feeling friendly. And they ought to explain to men what the two sorts of behavior are, so men can spot the difference. I don't see why that is unreasonable.
The fact that someone can't perceive a difference doesn't mean it isn't there. People are not as difficult to read as you are making them out to be. And if they seem to be, then that is a problem that other people can't fix for you. It is a skill gap that an individual needs to close on their own.
I've already said why your position is unreasonable, but I'll say it one last time: These homogeneous populations with homogeneous behaviours don't exist. Even within cultures and within generations, behaviour differs according to lived experience. You will falsely rule people in as well as out if you rely on some kind of shortcut rule of thumb to indicate interest. This applies to both sexes.
In terms of what? Quality of recipes, discoverability of recipes, or curation of recipes? For curation it's hard to beat the Paprika app (offline use is essential, which websites don't provide).
The problem that seemed to be largely missed in the discussion yesterday, is that it isn't the lab work that is sloppy (granted, they aren't doing whole genome sequencing, but there is nothing to indicate that their actual lab work is shoddy--edit: particularly when part of their business model is selling their database to pharma). The ambiguity comes in from the analysis and the size of the reference samples and the extrapolation of what we can actually tell from that (a lot less than is commonly assumed). You're not solving the problem by avoiding that part of the equation altogether since that part is the problem. Raw data is largely useless to the vast majority of consumers.
Edit: There is also a reason why the sort of data that you are proposing to provide is usually accompanied by genetic counselling. You might want to consult a bioethicist about your proposal if you decide there is enough interest in the service.
That's a good point and appreciate the critical feedback. This is the debate we've been having is that we don't want to get close to the "diagnostic" or "insights" world due to regulations.
Part of us believes that there are enough people who just want the data with some suggestions on tools to explore the data for their own curiosity. Almost like a hobby (similar to what genealogy use to be). Perhaps this is false but need more proof points.
There is the option of a sort of marketplace/forum/app place that we explored. Effectively, you'd get your data and then have a handful of options that we'd offer up as next steps. Instead of keeping that all in house, we'd act more as a platform to bring together the right services and software so that people can explore at their own will.
Frozen bananas can also be used for banana bread pancakes (which are not only tasty, but don't require eggs--that's what the bananas are for). Recipe here (I use regular flour, not the whole wheat they call for): https://www.howsweeteats.com/2011/06/whole-wheat-brown-sugar...
boy/girl guy/gal gentleman/lady man/woman male/female
When people mix pairs, it is most often to single out the woman. One of the most egregious is guy/girl. The use of "lady" is old-fashioned, and raises a red flag about what other "old-fashioned" ideas the speaker might hold.