There’s an overlap between autism spectrum and ADHD in the experience of sensory overload, so some association should be expected, though that doesn’t necessarily mean they share any direct cause. (E.g., if both conditions put stress on the same systems, then having one condition makes it harder to compensate for the other, and each would be more likely to be diagnosed when occurring together.) Overload is also one obvious cause of anxiety, so that’s another expected association.
Some association with introversion might also be expected (because introversion is largely an expression of high stimulus sensitivity), which fits the popular stereotype of autism; but I’m not aware if any association has actually been shown between introversion and ADHD.
[Standard caveat applies: individuals may vary.]
What do you think a Housing Minister can do about "corruption in the building industry" -- by which you mean what, e.g. development, construction, regulation? -- or for that matter, a systematic shortage of trained tradespeople and regulators? Agreed they shouldn't promise any short-term solution where none is possible, but these are problems whose solutions have to outlast the electoral cycle.
The Calvinist work ethic doesn't entirely equate to capitalism, though. We may well have to "work our way out of this one" -- but rather more of that work will be what's currently left to volunteers because it's not valued enough to be salaried.
(TL;DR it's more important to do it and live it than worry about the label or the definition, eh.)
Um. I’m sorry if that came off as directed at you personally; I intend it to apply to myself as much as anyone. (For context: I was remembering two much earlier threads I’ve been in, one about advocacy for minorities, and another about the difficulty of measuring “mana").
I agree with your most recent point above, with the caveat that we also check members of the disadvantaged group agree with what we're saying!
Yes. I think men self-labelling as "feminist" (thereby also claiming some stake in defining what that is) is on a par with someone claiming to have "mana": while establishing that the label/quality is viewed positively by the claimant, it rather misses the point of what is being described.
Turfs are not feminists
That’s the same argument as “(cis) men can’t ever be true feminists, because of privilege and lack of lived experience”. Which is not entirely valid in all cases (it’s basically the No True Scotsman fallacy, plus it gets really circular when extended to trans individuals -- as e.g. by TERFs), but it’s also hard to argue that it doesn’t contain some truth: at the very least, it is certainly much harder to be accepted as speaking for a group when you visibly are not directly a member of it.
If you define “feminist” as “pro-equality” then, yes, by definition, TERFs who see trans women as less than cis women aren’t that, and men can be that; but “feminist” isn’t necessarily merely “pro-equality” – and to be clear, that’s not necessarily a bad thing given the amount of institutional and cultural bias to be countered in promoting women’s rights.
There are a few nominations for #metoo back on page 1;
but of course repeating it’s especially appropriate!
(and … yes, you’ve also nominated it without the hashtag, near the top of page 3.)
In context, those questions are rhetorical (assumed answer “Bloody few”), and intended as an ironic comment on the rabbit-chasing away from the theme “Violence is mostly a male problem, yet impacts mostly on women”.
In retrospect it’s easy to understand the reaction “I don’t have any solutions to the problem as stated, so let’s talk about something else instead”, but it’s also easy to understand how that can get very frustrating.
Actually, why do we keep falling down that particular rabbit-hole?
(i) It’s easier to sympathise with a victim, so that’s where our attention goes.
(ii) A surviving victim needs to recover some sense of agency, which often means seeking out something they can easily change.
(iii) The aggressor is (presumed to be) harder to change.
(iv) An aggressor is harder to identify as such than a victim (after the fact; but also before the fact, in the sense that aggressors are better at identifying potential victims than victims are at identifying a potential aggressor [and trivially, an aggressor is more likely to know in advance they’ll be an aggressor than a victim knows in advance they’ll be a victim]).
(Hence we're left with -- inaccurate, but predictive -- profiling, e.g. by gender.)