I just commented this on a transphobic post that was all like, "In a sexual species, females have two X chromosomes and males have an X and a Y, I'm not a bigot it's just science." I'm a science teacher so I responded with this.

First of all, in a sexual species, you can have females be XX and males be X (insects), you can have females be ZW and males be ZZ (birds), you can have females be females because they developed in a warm environment and males be males because they developed in a cool environment (reptiles), you can have females be females because they lost a penis sword fighting contest (some flatworms), you can have males be males because they were born female, but changed sexes because the only male in their group died (parrotfish and clownfish), you can have males look and act like females because they are trying to get close enough to actual females to mate with them (cuttlefish, bluegills, others), or you can be one of thousands of sexes (slime mold, some mushrooms.) Oh, did you mean humans? Oh ok then. You can be male because you were born female, but you have 5-alphareductase deficiency and so you grew a penis at age 12. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but you are insensitive to androgens, and so you have a female body. You can be female because you have an X and a Y chromosome but your Y is missing the SRY gene, and so you have a female body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but one of your X's HAS an SRY gene, and so you have a male body. You can be male because you have two X chromosomes- but also a Y. You can be female because you have only one X chromosome at all. And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice - effing - versa. Don't use science to justify your bigotry. The world is way too weird for that shit.

Day 1 - Arrived in the early morning after an overnight flight where we didn't really sleep.  Walked around in a mild sleep-deprived daze.  Checked out the Eiffel Tower, which has the names of famous French mathematicians and scientists inscribed near the top, several of which I recognized.  Got acquainted with the subway system, which is actually quite good once you understand how it works (there's a very simple map of the line you're on, both in the station and inside the train). 

Day 2 - Walked around the Orsay Museum, which has a bunch of impressionist stuff.  Headed to Montmartre, the hilly section of town where the "adult" stores are located for some reason.  Climbed to the top of the Sacred Heart Church, which in French has a bunch of accents and weird symbols so I'm English-izing it. 

Day 3 - Checked out the Louvre, which had some famous art and a bunch of pushy tourists.  Toured Les Caves du Louvre, a local wine cellar/seller.  Headed to the Arc de Triomphe and climbed to the top for excellent views of the Champs-Élysées.  Throughout the day we did one of those hop-on/hop-off bus tours and saw a whole bunch of sights.  Finished the day with a boat ride down the Seine River, which really wasn't that great, or it was too much to fit into one day. 

Day 4 - Took a train to Normandy and went on a guided tour of several D-Day beaches.  Stopped at the Normandy Cemetery. 

Day 5 - Casually strolled around Paris and stopped at the Notre Dame Cathedral, the Sorbonne, and the Pantheon.  Looked for a wine store near our hotel and accidentally found the Porte Saint-Denis, an arc similar to the Arc de Triomphe. 

Day 6 - Flew home. 

• Are we not calling this a terrorist attack?  If the shooter had been even slightly Middle Eastern, CNN's headline would be "Terrorists Hit the U.S.".
• Saying this had something to do with mental health is an insult to people with actual mental health issues.  It takes a certain amount of mental acuity to plan out an attack of this magnitude, and saying the guy was "crazy" is a total misrepresentation of the word and the idea.
• This brings up the issue of motive:  Was he angry at those people?  Was he getting revenge for something?  Did he just want to make a name for himself?  This is the most troubling thing for me; if we can't identify something to fear, we're left fearing everything.  Hence, terrorism.
• Personally I'm in favor of extremely strict gun laws, background checks, magazine size restrictions, the whole gamut.  Guns are tools that have the potential to be dangerous, and they should be regulated as such.  That said, none of the proposed gun law changes would've had any effect on the outcome of this situation.  Banning assault weapons means he would've used a hunting rifle or several.  Restricting magazine size means he would've had to swap out magazines, which isn't difficult.  Background checks would've found nothing because he was fairly normal.
• The idea that the second amendment allows the populace to bear arms to support an armed insurrection against a tyrannical government has always seemed laughably naive to me.  The government has tanks and fighter jets.  End of story.

1. Insurance exists because of this.  It's a redistribution of wealth, or a collectivization of the cost of care for health or injury or accident or other large unpredictable expense.  The young pay for it, the old pay for it.  That's how it works.  All young people feel like they shouldn't be paying for it; all old people are thankful for the young people who do.  We need this.  So suck it up and get over it.
2. Many ideas and issues only become relevant when they happen to you.  Like that conservative politician who changed his tune on gay marriage after his son came out as gay.  Or the people who are anti-abortion until they unexpectedly get pregnant.  Or the people who say all drug users should be imprisoned until one of their family members gets hooked on painkillers and goes to rehab.  It's fascinating to me how entrenched people can become in their beliefs, only to quickly and drastically change their minds when faced with the proper experience.

1. Making something illegal doesn't reduce consumption or usage.  The fact that our country is in the midst of an opioid epidemic proves that people use drugs regardless of their legality.
2. Legalizing drugs wouldn't cause everyone to use them.  If heroin was legal, would you use it?  If you haven't already, you probably wouldn't start.  Drugs can maintain their level of dangerousness regardless of their legality.
3. The war on drugs is widely regarded as a failure, both in terms of usage reduction and crime prevention.  It has cost an inordinate amount of money and imprisoned countless people needlessly with mandatory minimum sentencing.  America has the largest prison population per capita in the world, and taxpayers pay for that, both economically and sociologically.
4. We already have legal drugs:  caffeine, nicotine, and alcohol.  Smoking cigarettes is a near-certain death sentence, and alcohol causes all kinds of health and societal problems.  Drawing the legal line after these drugs is arbitrary at best, racist at worst.
5. Drugs can be dangerous, and we should treat them the same way we treat alcohol:  use it responsibly, don't drink and drive.  The same guidelines can and should apply to all drugs.
6. Illegalizing a product that people desire creates a de facto black market.  Removing those restrictions should essentially remove the black market.
7. Black markets thrive on secrecy, secrecy breeds misinformation, and misinformation is harmful, especially when it involves putting foreign substances into one's body.  A legal open market would provide consumers with information necessary to make an informed decision.  Plus the federally regulated sale of drugs would ensure ingredient purity and dosage.  These things are all sorely lacking on the black market.
8. Drugs could cause an economic boom.  There's money to be made in farming, chemical manufacturing, taxing, and shipping.