You’re trying to bring facts, knowledge, understanding and the preexisting scientific consensus into a thread started by powerstruggle, an avid anti trans troll who respects trump’s definition of sex above anyone else’s and shows up in any trans-positive post to derail the conversion for hours and days, and suck any happiness out of it. I’ll tell you this now. It won’t work. They won’t listen.
Sorry, but the facts, knowledge, and understanding of the preexisting scientific consensus is that sex is binary, in exactly the way I’ve been saying. You’re welcome to provide any citations to the contrary, but you can’t. In fact, any sources that people have linked have ended up proving my point. Such as the paper Sex Redefined which is commonly linked to by people that didn’t read it. The author themselves says that there’s “Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.”
Remember, just because you don’t like the truth, doesn’t mean it’s “trolling” to speak it. You have nothing on your side but pseudoscientific grifters.
Lol no, you’re just an anti trans troll who dismisses any evidence that goes against your worldview. Anyone who takes even the slightest scan of your post history can see you spending days and days arguing about sex rather than gender any time anyone mentions something reasonably trans positive. It’s toxic.
It wasn’t me that was claiming consensus, oh beligerent anti trans troll.
This is a post about gender, and you spend all your days arguing that a consequence is a cause, all because you believe trump’s stupid definitions above well known scientific ones with a litany of bad faith arguments, ignoring other people’s valid points and derailing the conversation onto your favourite talking points.
Where’s my proof of all this? In your post history. Anyone can read it and see.
To anyone reading this, this user is obsessed with Trump. I don’t really know why. I suspect they might be a cheap LLM and this is a waste of my time. It’s the same every time: “If I don’t like you, you must be a troll! And love Trump! Bad faith! Derailing!” It’s super ironic that that they talk about “derailing the conversation” when that’s exactly what they’re doing by hurling insults and bringing Trump into this repeatedly.
I’ve explicitly differentiated between sex and gender. You keep conflating them.
Your proof that there isn’t a consensus has never been presented. You simply insult, because you have nothing. That’s called trolling. Every accusation is a confession, eh?
You’re talking about gender there and I agree! That’s why I explicitly differentiated between sex and gender in my original comment. Sex is an empirical, objective fact, which shouldn’t be confused with gender.
That chart shows variation within a sex. That’s all how sex is determined, but not how it’s defined
EDIT: As an example, it mentions “male characteristics” in the context of 5αR2D. If sex were defined by phenotypes, that would be a circular definition. You can’t define “male characteristics” in a coherent way across species without referring back to gametes.
No, I think that unlike you, science is descriptive, explanatory and neutral and that instead of understanding the consensus you pick out one or two outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.
You’re just the same as people who believe there’s a link between MMR and autism because you found Pons and Fleischman and some nurse you meet swears it’s a cover up by big pharma.
It’s funny that you said elsewhere that this has nothing to do with RFK, yet here you are, behaving exactly like him, Dunning-Kruger lived out in absolute full force.
Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were saying that since any definition needs to be grounded in the gamete type which is binary, then any definition would necessarily also be binary.
The closest analogy I can think of where this is applicable is that qubits could be compared to an embryo that could be said to not yet have a sex, with a measurement of a qubit being roughly the same as an embryo developing to the point of being sexed. Which sure, it’s an interesting analogy, but doesn’t dispute the sex binary.
It’s not an analogy. It’s a counterexample. One that is irrelevant because I appear to have misunderstood your argument, but you’re not clarifying, so I have nothing new to add here.
Sex is absolutely NOT binary
See diagram below for clarity:
You’re trying to bring facts, knowledge, understanding and the preexisting scientific consensus into a thread started by powerstruggle, an avid anti trans troll who respects trump’s definition of sex above anyone else’s and shows up in any trans-positive post to derail the conversion for hours and days, and suck any happiness out of it. I’ll tell you this now. It won’t work. They won’t listen.
Ahh thanks for the heads up. I wasn’t familiar with their game. I’ll block them now then
Sorry, but the facts, knowledge, and understanding of the preexisting scientific consensus is that sex is binary, in exactly the way I’ve been saying. You’re welcome to provide any citations to the contrary, but you can’t. In fact, any sources that people have linked have ended up proving my point. Such as the paper Sex Redefined which is commonly linked to by people that didn’t read it. The author themselves says that there’s “Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.”
Remember, just because you don’t like the truth, doesn’t mean it’s “trolling” to speak it. You have nothing on your side but pseudoscientific grifters.
Lol no, you’re just an anti trans troll who dismisses any evidence that goes against your worldview. Anyone who takes even the slightest scan of your post history can see you spending days and days arguing about sex rather than gender any time anyone mentions something reasonably trans positive. It’s toxic.
So where is your proof of a consensus? Or are you just lying?
It wasn’t me that was claiming consensus, oh beligerent anti trans troll.
This is a post about gender, and you spend all your days arguing that a consequence is a cause, all because you believe trump’s stupid definitions above well known scientific ones with a litany of bad faith arguments, ignoring other people’s valid points and derailing the conversation onto your favourite talking points.
Where’s my proof of all this? In your post history. Anyone can read it and see.
To anyone reading this, this user is obsessed with Trump. I don’t really know why. I suspect they might be a cheap LLM and this is a waste of my time. It’s the same every time: “If I don’t like you, you must be a troll! And love Trump! Bad faith! Derailing!” It’s super ironic that that they talk about “derailing the conversation” when that’s exactly what they’re doing by hurling insults and bringing Trump into this repeatedly.
I’ve explicitly differentiated between sex and gender. You keep conflating them.
Your proof that there isn’t a consensus has never been presented. You simply insult, because you have nothing. That’s called trolling. Every accusation is a confession, eh?
I’m just telling people they can check your post history to see the sort of anti trans trolling person you are.
Most of my post history is responding to bad faith trolls like you. If you weren’t trolling, I’d have a lot fewer comments
deleted by creator
You’re talking about gender there and I agree! That’s why I explicitly differentiated between sex and gender in my original comment. Sex is an empirical, objective fact, which shouldn’t be confused with gender.
deleted by creator
I wish the best for you and your relationship with your gender
That chart shows variation within a sex. That’s all how sex is determined, but not how it’s defined
EDIT: As an example, it mentions “male characteristics” in the context of 5αR2D. If sex were defined by phenotypes, that would be a circular definition. You can’t define “male characteristics” in a coherent way across species without referring back to gametes.
deleted by creator
Well, why do you care so much?
deleted by creator
That’s a lot of text. Why do you care so much?
deleted by creator
Why do you care if I do?
deleted by creator
A bit that can be 0 or 1 is binary. A quantum bit is not binary, even though it’s a linear combination of 0 and 1.
Sure, but that’s not relevant here
Neither is your anti trans ranting.
If you think science is anti trans, that’s completely on you.
No, I think that unlike you, science is descriptive, explanatory and neutral and that instead of understanding the consensus you pick out one or two outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.
You’re just the same as people who believe there’s a link between MMR and autism because you found Pons and Fleischman and some nurse you meet swears it’s a cover up by big pharma.
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?
It’s funny that you said elsewhere that this has nothing to do with RFK, yet here you are, behaving exactly like him, Dunning-Kruger lived out in absolute full force.
Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were saying that since any definition needs to be grounded in the gamete type which is binary, then any definition would necessarily also be binary.
What are you actually proposing? That an entire person exists in a superposition until they produce gametes?
I’m saying that a definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary.
The closest analogy I can think of where this is applicable is that qubits could be compared to an embryo that could be said to not yet have a sex, with a measurement of a qubit being roughly the same as an embryo developing to the point of being sexed. Which sure, it’s an interesting analogy, but doesn’t dispute the sex binary.
It’s not an analogy. It’s a counterexample. One that is irrelevant because I appear to have misunderstood your argument, but you’re not clarifying, so I have nothing new to add here.
deleted by creator