Remind me of your point, if you would: > I think this is a massive over-correction (banning words is dumb) but they're not completely wrong. Is it that "they'

Remind me of your point, if you would: > I think this is a massive over-correction (banning words is dumb) but they're not completely wrong. Is it that "they're not completely wrong" to ban terms referring to events significantly more common than the occurrence of gold in the earths crust? To quote another: > it can't be that because that is an obviously stupid point. So what was your point? ---- For general interest: * frequency of "true" (undecidable) intersex (1 in 5,500 births): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224490209552139 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0022449020955213... * Mean global crustal ppm of gold: 0.004 (four thousandth of one in a million) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth%27s_crust#List_of_abundance_by_element https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abundance_of_elements_in_Earth... * Report on Gold deposits in a high yeild region: Gold Deposits of the Pilbara Craton https://www.ga.gov.au/pdf/RR0065.pdf https://www.ga.gov.au/pdf/RR0065.pdf (74 page AGSO report, 'rich' veins have 0.4 ppm gold)