As someone from San Francisco, I’d suggest at least looking into it as an option. (I’m a straight white guy though so maybe not the best source here…). In particular https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castro_District,_San_Francisco

For some color on the type of neighborhood it is, here’s a recent incident. Unfortunately it involved some violence, but the good guys won (I don’t think it should be triggering…): https://sfstandard.com/2024/07/11/nudists-save-tourist-attack-castro/

Of course, San Francisco being in the US, I wouldn’t blame you for trying to find somewhere else. But California (and SF in particular) is very different than Trump country.

Same, an R4 with an i5 4670k I built in grad school. It’s my ham radio computer now, as happy running Debian as the day I built it.

According to the screenshot, it doesn’t even call her a trans woman, it calls her a man. Presumably because man and woman are the only options on her little TERF world.

In his Thursday decision, Circuit Judge Michael Stelzer wrote that Bailey can collect documents under Missouri’s consumer protection statute that aren’t protected under federal mandate, namely the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, better known as HIPAA.

I’m confused. Is it saying, “for records which are not protected by HIPAA, you can have the documents”? Or is it saying, “you can collect these because I’m declaring them not subject to HIPAA”?

If the former…are there any relevant records which aren’t covered by HIPAA? And if so, why in the world aren’t they covered by HIPAA?

And if the latter, this seems (???) like a slam dunk ACLU or similar case?