Sorry, how is that a joke, though? What’s the funny bit? Like, what’s the subverted expectation, or the unlikely juxtaposition?
I didn’t accuse you of being one of those people, and I edited my post to make that clear.
No thanks, I’m happily married
Yeah, not doing this. The joke isn’t for you. I get it. Let’s just move on.
That’s the only one I’d heard of, but it doesn’t support @Babale’s position at all. Also, I doubt he’s ever heard of it. The dude just doesn’t understand what ‘debunked’ means.
No, it’s not “for” me, but it’s apparently a joke about people I care pretty deeply about. So, I thought I’d give you an opportunity to explain how it was a failed attempt at humor, and not just you being an utter shithead.
Apparently, “shithead” it is.
This makes so much sense! It hadn’t occurred to me that something that all modern progressives agree is terrible is equivalent to modern Republicans doing everything they can to bring about a Nazi state right now!
You are fundamentally bankrupt. You think that after being accused of facism that the correct response is to argue the other side is just as bad? Is there any way to convince your shit-for-brains that fasism is a bad thing? Or do you bring your face to your food?
I have a PhD in physics, and you know jack shit about how physics works. Yes, the idea of a block universe is attractive, but there is not one physicist worth their salt that claims they know for certain that this hypothesis is true.
People with those conditions are not actually different sexes, and that isn’t what gender means anyway. The only people who aren’t definably male or female are true hermaphrodites (sorry, that’s probably not PC, but I don’t know any other term), who are both.
Fascism like the modern left and their assault on fundamental liberties? Yeah it’s wrong. And I doubt you have a PhD in physics if you are ignorant of the fact that a majority of them believe the block universe is accurate. I know you don’t have the intellect to refute it which is why your whole post comes across as an unhinged rant.
Vanish thine self, dissembling mountebank, and remove with you the stench of mendacious obloquy! You are a synecdoche of the very phenomenon the o.p. declaims, you skulking plague of corruption and irrectitude.
Stranger
Well, that depends on how we choose to define “sex”. If we employ a rigid binary classification for biological sex, in which “male” means that you have a penis AND testes AND XY chromosomes while “female” means that you have a vagina AND uterus AND XX chromosomes, then we’re gonna need one or more additional sex categories to classify people who don’t fully meet those criteria.
Fair point. We can define the social construct of gender however we like, and gender categories can have varying degrees of correlation to biological sex.
? I can see how we could set up a non-rigid sex binary system in which we could loosen up the above criteria in order to be able to put almost any intersex individual into either the M or the F box. But ISTM that the tweaking of the criteria would automatically be somewhat arbitrary. And in fact we could have a variety of slightly different non-rigid sex binary systems, none of which would be necessarily more scientifically valid or objective than the others.
In your model of a sex binary system that can successfully classify everybody except “true hermaphrodites” as “definably male or female”, how would you assign the intersex people instanced by steronz? Namely, an XY person with androgen insensitivity and external female genitalia but no internal female reproductive system, or a person with XXY chromosomes, or a person with a penis but a vaginal opening instead of a scrotum? Which of those individuals are “definably male” and which are “definably female” in your system?
As a third party observer, I am really having a hard time figuring out why you are so offended by this, given that QuickSilver seemed to be making a point that I think you would agree with, and if the “joke” was pointed at anyone it was pointed at bigoted conservatives and one eight armed individual in particular.
He even edited to say that Octopus was the target of his comment.
To break it down. Quicksilver was asserting that the notion that which bathroom a person should go into being purely a matter of a 2nd grade biology notion of male, is false. Instead the designation of which bathroom a person goes into is directed more by conventions instituted by society.
When Quicksilver said that such a notion was “laughable”, he was saying that the notion was absurdly stupid, not that it was a particularly funny situation for those who are the target of discrimination.
I can understand that you are sensitive about this topic, but you are really manufacturing offense where none was intended or even exists.
English?
How would you define a dandelion such that all dandelions and only dandelions met the definition?
It’s the “No True Hermaphrodite” fallacy.
The fact is, the word “definably” is doing a heck of a lot of heavy lifting here. Yes, we can choose to define all phenotypes expressed in the population as “male” or “female” aside from a tiny handful called “true hermaphrodites”, or we could give precise clinical terms to each of hundreds or dozens of variations and define each of them as a distinct “sex” with some kind of byzantine classification system, or we could call sex a spectrum. In none of those cases are we changing reality, any more than astronomers who decide that Pluto is no longer a planet have.
Regardless of how you choose to define it, a wide range of phenotypes exists - and that’s just talking about the physical anatomy of the reproductive system without even considering the brain or psychological mind. What’s under discussion here is not the existence of a wide range of phenotypes, but how society should treat those who aren’t neatly one or the other.
I think you are mixing up my post, and QuickSilver’s post which it was in response to.
The answer to that is that everyone should be treated fairly. Regardless of biology.
Ooops!
I wouldn’t bother trying, because apparently even professional botanists can’t totally agree on exactly how to define a dandelion. Different botanical authorities recognize different numbers and categories of subspecies and microspecies of dandelions, “and the taxonomy and nomenclatural situation of Taraxacum officinale is not yet fully resolved”.
In fact, octopus, your question beautifully illustrates the exact sort of biological ambiguity and arbitrariness I’m talking about, which reinforces my point. It’s really not much use pretending that the oversimplified rigid classification schemes of “second-grade biology” somehow represent true reality, when what actual real-world biology is ultimately about is continuously variable distributions rather than rigidly discrete categories.
There’s no 100% unambiguous and rigorous way to define a dandelion, and there’s no 100% unambiguous and rigorous way to define what constitutes “male” or “female” in the human species either.
Sure, but have you considered the fact that these so-called “botanists” are actually COLLEGE EDUCATED LIBTARDS who can’t understand SIMPLE 2ND GRADE BIOLOGY, meaning they’re the REAL science deniers in the dandelion taxonomy?
Checkmate.