Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)P

powerstruggle

@ powerstruggle @sh.itjust.works

Posts
723
Comments
327
Joined
6 mo. ago

Why?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • So you don’t understand? Would you like simpler words?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • So you don’t understand? Would you like simpler words?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • So you don’t understand? Would you like simpler words?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Sadly I think you missed this. Again, not undiscernable. Are you able to understand that?

    You should let the author of this text book know that his definition is complete crap lol:

    In sexually reproducing animals, there are two sexes, the male and the female. There may be different ways to express maleness or femaleness, as we will see, but the divide is a real one. [..] We have already defined male and female based on gonads and on the type of gametes produced in those gonads, either eggs or sperm.

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Bruh. You realize that each one of those charts isn't a different sex, right?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • So you don’t understand? Would you like simpler words?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • So you don't understand? Would you like simpler words?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Every accusation is a confession, eh?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Are you still confused? I can use simpler words, if that will help. Maybe you could ask chatgpt for an ELI5, if human text is too hard?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • My apologies, I didn't think I needed to spell it out this simply. I gave one example of how people with that condition are unambiguously sexed, and asked if you were confused on the others.

    There's no getting around the fact that it's a bad chart, but somebody conveniently has already made better ones. I'll copy them here, in order that they appear in the colored line in the chart. Here's the first one that explains what each box means:

    (Mixed gondal dysgenesis, as discussed above, this isn't a single condition, it's an umbrella term)

    Note the sex listed on each chart. None of them are unambiguous. Before you start inevitably complaining about the chart, why did you trust the first chart? Simply because it agreed with you?

    Stop and consider before you respond: do you have any substantial critiques of these charts? Or are you just going to find some irrelevant detail and obsess about that? That's called trolling, and you certainly wouldn't want to do that, right? You'll respond in good faith, yes?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Again, I'll spell it out. I'll use simple words. That sentence does not talk about me in any way. "Others" is you reading your meaning into it, based on your obsession with me.

    If you think you're up for the challenge, I can explain it more using adult words too.

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Ah, so you do misunderstand. You're very obsessed with me. That statement makes no claim about me.

    That sentence means that, just because some random conservative on twitter talks about the sex binary, doesn't mean they're wrong. They might be right for the wrong reasons, but they're still right.

    I'll use a simple analogy to help you. Just because Hitler was a vegetarian doesn't mean that vegetarianism is bad. Are you able to understand now?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • I think the meaning is clear. You seem rather upset. Are you having trouble understanding it?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Well no. You're not even citing any sources, but if you did, you'd be relying on outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.

    Every accusation is a confession, eh?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Again, not undiscernable. Are you able to understand that?

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Right, so you’re refusing to engage with peer-reviewed sources.

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • Right, so you’re refusing to engage with peer-reviewed sources.

  • Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

    Jump

  • I'm legitimately trying to understand where you're coming from here. When you say "definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary" that's all fine and well but doesn't imply anything about the binary.

    If X is a binary, and Y is something that results in X after a process, pointing out that Y isn't binary has no bearing on the fact that X is binary.