The kind with XX chromosomes not pretending to be boys, and definitely not LARPing dudes, surgically altered or not. Also, actual FUTAs don't exist, so don't even go there.
Technically, actual futas can exist, with the current technology. Surgeons now know how to create a vagina without using the flesh of the penis. So, it's possible to have some trans women with both a penis and a vagina. The penis can be erect and there is ways to make a vagina that can self lubricate a bit too. That's what i plan to do in the future by the way.
There is even ongoing research to transplant uterus to a trans woman so that she can have kid with assisted pregnancy technology, it will probably be possible in less than a decade according to specialists.
Next step is:
You must be registered to see attachments
First of all sorry to butt in but I have to correct you. Futas (in a sense) are actually real but very very rare and even rarer as adults.
Reason for that is (at least here in germany) a law that forces parents of "Zwitter" (children born with both reproductive organs) to choose one for their child and the other one is then removed surgically.
Sauce: I actually knew a guy who was born with a fuly functioning penis, testicles AN a vagina with a functioning uterus. Granted: That was years ago and maybe laws here in germany have changed but my point stands, Futa (as a person with both sexes) are technically real.
Yeah there is also those people case. They are call intersex in english, meaning that they don't fit in the oversimplified binary vision. It can be because they have genitals different than the norm, sexual chromosomes pairing different than XX or XY, level of hormones which are outside "the norm" (norm which has been mostly arbitrary define, you take two books about it, they give two different value about what is normal, there is no real science behind it). According to most recent estimation (that's probably under reality because as you say, some of those people are submit to surgeries at a young age without consent), around 2% of people are intersex so it is statistically significant. It proves that sex isn't binary, just like for gender, facts that most specialists agree on today (most people in the anti gender crusade are journalists, writers, politicians, priests... not physicians, biologists, sociologists, historians... so they are talking about a subject they know and understand nothing about).
You must be registered to see attachments
I think that's a very simplified view on things.
A company sells stocks so they can attract investors. To attract investors, they need some level of trust in how the company is run. This is why CEOs earn these amounts, they provide much more value to the company than their wages and bonuses and whatnot combined because they have a track record that gives investors confidence in the company. Contrary to popular belief, CEOs don't decide themselves how much they earn.
The mistake most people seem to make, is to think that publicly traded corporations are still concerned about the quality of their product. They're not. As soon as a company becomes public, their primary concerns become public perception, marketing, and making as much profit as possible to satisfy their investors. What is perceived as greed, is these companies doing what they're supposed to do. Attract investors, grow, and pay interest/dividends.
It's your neo liberal view that's simplistic and naive, unfortunately there is so many poor people who have Stockolm Syndrom and praise the people who exploit them. Workers produce the goods and the services, value come from them, a good CEO can eventually manage to rise the productivity but they are not creating any value by themselves. There is no proof that any CEO ever rise the productivity to the point such salaries and advantages would be justified. Plus, evaluating bosses is difficult: what part of the rise in profit come from them being a good manager and what part come from the economic context? And even bad managers who ruin their company go out this a massive golden parachute, how can that be considered ethical? Anyway, it's impossible that a CEO work 30 time as hard as a worker, even less 250 time, they don't deserve that much money.
Giving all the power to the shareholders is extremely dangerous. Those are just greedy and lazy parasites who are paid to do nothing useful. They only think about maximizing short term profit, they are in a logic of looting, not actually help companies to grow and prosper. Today economy ideology is so irrational that some companies take loans to pay more to the shareholders or spend all their profit reimbursing the debt someone got... by buying the company using money they don't even have: many healthy companies died because of such sharks. Also, it's been decades that such politics are applied, we have obvious proof that they only benefit the richest 1% (the economy is stagnant, we have economic crisis after economic crisis, but inequalities are on the rise almost everywhere, rich have never been so rich, when poor people salaries stagnate or fall) and don't have any good effect on the real world economy.
Instead of the neo liberal vicious circle, we need a more rational approach that is consistent with reality. If we spend the profits on improving salaries, buying more efficient machines, doing research... instead of giving it to shareholders, it would increase consumption, productivity, reduce costs... it would have a far more important effect in improving economy. Even launching money by helicopter would be more effective and rational than giving it to shareholders regarding common good for the society.
