The vast majority of information published anywhere at any time is not any more "actionable" than that. You just don't like this information because it makes you uncomfortable... as it should.

Well, do I have news for you!

Contrarianism has become a mental disorder

One of the challenges with disproving this hypothesis is that there's pretty much no control group left on the planet. Everyone has exposure to these chemicals.

These thoughts, like every other thought anyone has, are mediated by hormones. I'm not saying any particular balance or resulting thought is good/bad/right/wrong/healthy/unhealthy.

But this is akin to saying "being aggressive represents a state of excessive confidence, not elevated testosterone levels." Sure! That's true. But it's also true that elevated testosterone levels tend to increase the frequency and intensity of occasions in which people find themselves in a state of excessive confidence.

For example, female → male transitioners have like a 2x - 3x higher incidence rate of PCOS before any therapies. Obviously there's something different going on.

The EDC question is also related to prenatal hormone exposure, which is not related to your anecdote about pre-therapy hormone testing.

In any case, the theory being put forth here re EDCs is not that every (or even most) transgender people are such due to EDCs and resulting hormone imbalances, but rather that even a small change (read: compression of variability) in hormone distributions across the entire population would produce all sorts of effects like everyone being slightly more androgynous. If that's the population-scale effect, you'd presumably expect more people to slide each way across the binary designations we tend to use for gender.

How is it that you're immediately detectable as not-American on a messaging board then?

Hint: It's the low-trust third-worlder attitude, which unfortunately the legal process of naturalization doesn't always solve.

Hilariously, your allegation of me being a foreigner was the nail in the coffin, as any actual American would know they can have disagreements on stuff like this without accusing the other of being a foreigner. But, being what... Russian? Georgian? Israeli? Obviously everything must be infused with an (unearned) nationalistic superiority haha.

Talk about projection, lmfao! Not even here long enough to prevent your weird writing quirks from revealing that you're a foreigner, and yet comfortable implying some strange nationalist superiority to a native-born American. Beyond parody.

Are people from your country unable to answer simple multiple-choice questions like "which of these three options do you believe?"

Here's how it's detected: "There are 1000 ballots from this one address that has never had more than 3 ballots sent from it. We should look it up in our GIS and tax records and see how many people reside there. We should also make sure that the affiliated registrations are fully documented as having individual residencies there from e.g. their drivers licenses or utility bills at time of registration."

Sorry but you are naive beyond words if you think voting systems don't flag even a dozen ballots sent to a single residential address, or you don't think there's any investigative capability to look further into flagged cases.

Which do you believe? There are only three options:

1. You believe that 1000 ballots sent to a single address will not be flagged

2. You believe that it would be flagged but not investigated

3. You believe it would be flagged and investigated, but not actually result in any prosecutable offense

Virtually every type of fraud is first detected by detection of a nominally legal but abnormal behavior, then it's investigated to figure out whether fraud actually occurred. That would – obviously – be exactly how any voter fraud detection scheme works, but I guess you're saying that because the initially detected abnormality is not itself illegal, it wouldn't be investigated?

This is like saying "it's not illegal for all the numbers on your tax return to end in $xxxx.00 and $xxxx.50, so therefore tax fraud is undetectable by means of analyzing numerical patterns."

> Can you describe the specific chain of events required to create a fraudulent vote that is "impossible" to detect?

You literally just described a scheme that is possible to detect in any meaningful amount. 10, 100, or 1000 ballots coming from a single address is, obviously, trivially detectable.

Huh? There is literally no evidence or even allegation of that. The person was paid to collect petition signatures, so she fraudulently obtained petition signatures. Which obviously are way less closely tracked than actual votes.

> So what? If it was illegal to register multiple voters at the same address then it could have been detected at the registration time.

Well it's not illegal to register multiple voters at the same address, obviously. It's illegal to vote under someone else's name. A bunch of votes coming in from a single residence would be flagged. Should voter registrations from a single address get flagged? Sure! And they probably do! But as you say, that's not a crime. Voting fraudulently is, which is not even alleged here.

And the trade off here is this person gets 10, 30, 100, or 1000 votes in a single county and at the minuscule risk of the rest of her life in prison?

(To be clear, this isn’t what DOJ is alleging, they alleged she was just collecting petition signatures, but I’m extrapolating out your proposed mechanism for actual voting)

Always funny when Trumpers try to this out as a gotcha lmao.

As a believer in democracy, I think it's better that our government is more responsive rather than less responsive to the public.

Surely if you can confidently state the system not only is this way, but is purposely designed this way, you should have zero problem describing it exactly step by step.

Extra credit if you can describe a method that can produce 10, 100, or 1000 votes.

Doing this even 10 times seems unbelievably hard.