yenahmik

Could be, but they would still be required to pass tests to prove their hormones are in the appropriate range, just like cis women have to do when tested for doping with testosterone.

If there's any real debate to be had, it's along the lines of male hormones and penises. Should either be present in a place which essentially only exists for the purpose of keeping those things out?

They are. Every sporting governing body I'm aware of requires trans women to be on hormone therapy for a minimum of 2 years before they can compete in the women's category. This is completely in line with the medical community's research into how long it takes before the benefits of being biologically male are counteracted by the hormone replacement.

The debate has been had in the medical community and has been resolved. Now random people who never gave a fuck about women's sports before think they should have input when they have no qualifications, just because they have prejudices.

I no longer buy cereal because it has become way too expensive for the low nutritional/satiety value. Sorry, Kellogg, you'll have to do better if you want to convince people to eat more cereal.

How high are you OP?

A while back I applied with the USPS and got called in for an interview. It wasn't a real interview, but more of a presentation on all the required next steps to be hired (there were at least 20 of us in the room). I ended up getting a different job before my start date, but if you were able to do all the steps by the deadline the job was yours.

That is the example that OP referred to in their question

Wow. That sounds like terrible management. If you don't know what your employees are doing for an entire year, you are failing at your job as a manager.

Glad to hear you got out.

My 97 year old grandma spent Christmas in the hospital with COVID and congestive heart failure. I'm honestly shocked she isn't a part of this statistic.

General retirement advice is to contribute 15% total to your retirement account. Since your employer adds 12%, you should contribute a minimum of 3%.

As for your coworkers advice, it may or may not be valid. Contributing to your 401k or a taxable account, both allow you to invest your money. The 401k comes along with tax advantages. Assuming you are making Traditional contributions, then you are saving taxes at the marginal tax bracket (potentially 22 or 24%). If you contribute enough to drop your MAGI to the 12% bracket, then the tax benefit is much less. You can still contribute to Roth, which means you can withdraw that money tax free in the future but you have to pay taxes on it now.

Another thing to consider is the fees in your 401k. Since you are limited to the options provided, sometimes fees are quite high. If you don't have any options that cost less than 1%, you likely are better off investing your money elsewhere.

Finally, you get into the really personal part of personal finance. What are your goals? Do you have short/medium term goals that you would prefer to save this money for? For instance, if you want to save up for a down payment for a house in the future, putting that money in a 401k is a bad choice. Do you have a comfortable emergency fund to pay for unexpected expenses? Do you have high interest debt to pay off?

A good resource is this flowchart from r/personal finance: https://imgur.com/u0ocDRI

You should wait for the statement to pay your spending instead of covering it same day. Otherwise it's not reported to the credit agencies and it looks like you have no activity on your card.

Also, generally speaking some fluctuation from month to month is to be expected. I wouldn't worry too much about 10 points in either direction.

Absolutely, they are both a part of the problem. However the former likely won't recognize they are a part of the problem because of the unconscious nature of their biases. So they won't ignore the data because they don't trust it, or whatever, but they won't recognize how their actions contribute to it.

In the case of unconscious bias, they probably brush off the data because they don't believe they are a part of the problem. It's those other doctors who are overtly racist that are the problem...