President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
I love how not a single one of you “sex is a binary” folks will actually engage on the substance and just keep going with the fallacious arguments:
-it’s common sense
-the people I like agree with me
-this is the way people always thought about sex taxonomy
All obviously fallacious arguments.
Most of the time, it works every time.
You’re phrasing this like understanding that biological sex in mammals including humans is binary is some sort of intellectual pursuit. It’s common sense and common knowledge. Only a segment of the left on a short bus is trying to re imagine these things or in a state of confusion. How embarrassing
I never said that I disagreed with Richard Dawkins. It isn't obvious to me that Richard Dawkins and Gorgonian would disagree, and to the extent they did, I suspect that the disagreement would be more semantic than scientific.
In any case, I stand by my comment that I am not especially knowledgeable about the various ways that biological sex is expressed in the human body or the frequency of permutations. And I stand by my comment that your posting is atrocious no matter how correct or incorrect it is to describe biological sex as purely binary.
You’re another habitually brilliant one
Yeah good point. Some people are born with 6 toes. It’s 0.00001%. The number of toes humans have is on a spectrum. Why can’t someone explain this to Dawkins. He just doesn’t understand!
On an unrelated note, wtf does this tweet have to do with whether it is correct to describe biological sex as binary?
I love how not a single one of you “sex is a binary” folks will actually engage on the substance and just keep going with the fallacious arguments:
-it’s common sense
-the people I like agree with me
-this is the way people always thought about sex taxonomy
All obviously fallacious arguments.
Bro. This is settled science and common sense. A handful on the fringe with a trans activist agenda are trying to pretend their alternate reality isn’t ridiculous . It’s fringe nonsense. The moon landing conspiracy theories are more reasonable
Yeah. I'm confused. I've never heard anyone here argue that a person's interest in dating a transgender woman is some sort of litmus test for whether that person really believes that transgender women are "real" women. The supposed connection between the litmus test and the conclusion doesn't even make sense to me.
UP all agreed that it was indeed transphobic. ofc they also modded the guy who said he didnt want his HS daughter to lose a race against a trans women but he said it in the most derogatory way possible. so who knows with libs.
hmm yeah nothing more convincing than appeal to authority of [some grifter]
wtf is the point you're even trying to make here?
jfcWhat kind of df thinks women you aren't attracted to aren't women?I'll put this simply so even those with drool on their shirts can understand: it's normal for straight men to be attracted to femininity. Penises are not a feminine trait. Woman can have all sorts of traits that are not feminine and that's ok. They are still women.Get this, though - the more masculine/non-femi
Are you saying a women’s penis isn’t feminine?
Is the femininity of a woman’s penis not on a spectrum?
UP all agreed that it was indeed transphobic. ofc they also modded the guy who said he didnt want his HS daughter to lose a race against a trans women but he said it in the most derogatory way possible. so who knows with libs.
I can't speak to what someone on UP may have said. In any case, the people in this forum aren't responsible for something that someone else said on a different site.
In an unrelated note, iq test repeatedly ask “what does this have to do with”. People who are stumped don’t score as high as those who can connect dots
I think you have diagnosed the problem, Dr. juan. You are just too smart for me and everyone else here.
Bro. This is settled science and common sense. A handful on the fringe with a trans activist agenda are trying to pretend their alternate reality isn’t ridiculous . It’s fringe nonsense. The moon landing conspiracy theories are more reasonable
What’s settled science? The existence of simultaneous hermaphroditism? The existence of organisms that don’t produce any gametes?
I’m asking you how you define sex multiple times. You seem unwilling or unable to do so. Is it the gamete-based sex taxonomy?
UP all agreed that it was indeed transphobic. ofc they also modded the guy who said he didnt want his HS daughter to lose a race against a trans women but he said it in the most derogatory way possible. so who knows with libs.
thanks you, not surprising at all either
i love how there's ample evidence of this all over the place and whenever it is brought up as evidence of the craziness, the same people who were part of the lynch mob are like "what is brand new concept i never previously heard of"
My nephew's friend picked up a chick, and the next morning she told him she used to be a he. Peeps like lag or juan would go D4vd on her and/or be so tormented that they would end up taking a bubble bath with a toaster within a week.
What’s settled science? The existence of simultaneous hermaphroditism? The existence of organisms that don’t produce any gametes?
I’m asking you how you define sex multiple times. You seem unwilling or unable to do so. Is it the gamete-based sex taxonomy?
I have posted,multiple times in multiple ways. You can read what Dawkins says or grok. I posted both. It’s mainstream biology. What do you need me to explain this to you for? I have also posted the explanation about gametes from both sources. I think I even bonded the specific issue you have. I also posted a video from an expert in the field breaking down all the misconceptions and nonsense peddled by activists on the topic the first time I had learned gorgonian believed biological sex was on a spectrum. Probably a year ago
Like are you totally unaware that you’re arguing a position that is totally fringe? Nevermind ridiculous but just very very fringe among biologists. Or normal people
My nephew's friend picked up a chick, and the next morning she told him she used to be a he. Peeps like lag or juan would go D4vd on her and/or be so tormented that they would end up taking a bubble bath with a toaster within a week.
Yeah unless you’re blackout drunk it’s probably not an accident. If the person actually didn’t know, they’re victim of some sort of crime
I have posted,multiple times in multiple ways. You can read what Dawkins says or grok. I posted both. It’s mainstream biology. What do you need me to explain this to you for? I have also posted the explanation about gametes from both sources. I think I even bonded the specific issue you have. I also posted a video from an expert in the field breaking down all the misconce
-Appeal to Grok
-Appeal to Dawkins
-Appeal to nebulous expert
Let’s try again. You are apparently assenting to the definition of sex as corresponding to gametes. Within this taxonomy we have four options:
1) Produce large gametes
2) Produce small gametes
3) Produce both gametes
4) Produce no gametes
That is clearly not a binary, as a binary requires there to be only two options. This analytically entails that sex is not a binary by definition.
So you talking about how many sources you provided isn’t interesting to me unless you can overcome this very simple logical issue with your position.
By the way, as was pointed out before, I’m not asserting that sex is a spectrum. In fact I would agree with you that sex is not a spectrum. And I don’t agree with the activist left’s position on sex, that it is a useless concept or white supremacist or whatever ridiculous quote you can come up with.
-Appeal to Grok-Appeal to Dawkins-Appeal to nebulous expertLet’s try again. You are apparently assenting to the definition of sex as corresponding to gametes. Within this taxonomy we have four options:1) Produce large gametes2) Produce small gametes3) Produce both gametes4) Produce no gametesThat is clearly not a binary, as a binary requires there to be only two options.
you're listing four outcomes as if they're equally weighted. two of them cover well over 99.9% of real world cases. the other two are developmental anomalies measured in fractions of a percent
it's no different from arguing humans don't have two eyes because occasionally some are born with deformities. you can technically say that and be "technically correct" it doesn't mean anything in the real world
Yeah unless you’re blackout drunk it’s probably not an accident. If the person actually didn’t know, they’re victim of some sort of crime
Are you saying there is a law or there should be one?
Also, if it were you, would you delete yourself over it?
you're listing four outcomes as if they're equally weighted. two of them cover well over 99.9% of real world cases. the other two are developmental anomalies measured in fractions of a percentit's no different from arguing humans don't have two eyes because occasionally some are born with deformities. you can technically say that and be "technically correct" it doesn't mean any
that 0.01% is sterile
Given the topic, it just highlights how stupid the discussion is even further
it's no different from arguing humans don't have two eyes because occasionally some are born with deformities.
Visible light IS on a spectrum. This is settled science. See, idk Newton probably.
you're listing four outcomes as if they're equally weighted. two of them cover well over 99.9% of real world cases. the other two are developmental anomalies measured in fractions of a percentit's no different from arguing humans don't have two eyes because occasionally some are born with deformities. you can technically say that and be "technically correct" it doesn't mean any
A binary means that there are only two possible outcomes. Once you stipulate that there are other possible outcomes you no longer have a binary. So if you are not disagreeing with the possible outcomes that I have presented, then analytically sex is not a binary.
By the way, yes if we are only talking about human reproduction then that might be true that it covers 99.9% of cases, but if we are talking more generally about biological sex then the other outcomes have a higher percentage of the probability space.
ITT people insist on confusing bimodal and binary.
Hint: binary doesn't mean "almost everything fits in one of two categories." The "almost" is the key.
(not to mention probably 30%+ of all women don't produce gametes at all)
A lightswitch only has two settings: on and off. Clearly light is binary.
Let me guess, this magical light spectrum forms a rainbow! [emoji1787]
