Are_Euclidding_Me [e/em/eir]

Edit: Sweet! Kirby got banned from lemmygrad for their obvious bigotry, making this comment entirely pointless, you love to see it, hell yeah!

Go back and read my first comment in the thread, the long one, and tell me which bits of it are “denying reality”.

Ok, thanks, this clears up your position!

You’re extremely fucking transphobic and need to work on not being like that.

Ok, so being born with ambiguous genitalia is a deformity in your mind? Do you think that infants born with ambiguous genitalia should undergo surgery to make their genitalia fit cisnormative ideals?

And I have to ask, just so we’re extremely clear, what do you, you personally, mean by “sex”? How do you determine who is male and who is female? What criteria are you using to sort people into these two categories?

So you’re saying gametes determine sex and anyone who doesn’t produce gametes has no sex. Cool. That’s fine, and a reasonable way to define “sex”, if we must do so.

Your definition of sex isn’t a common one, most people who care to try and define sex don’t like saying that people can have no sex at all, which is what you’re saying.

I clearly said in my comment that every human produces at most one of two possible types of gamete, so I don’t know why you spent so many sentences talking about a hypothetical third gamete, I’m well aware there’s no such thing.

I’m also going to emphasize, once again, that genitals don’t always match gametes and, furthermore, don’t always fit cleanly into either penis or vulva, lots of people are born with ambiguous genitalia.

the stuff we all have between legs, that definitely defines sex.

Ok, but like, it doesn’t. See this comment I made yesterday.

Edit: I’m actually going to copy the comment here, so no one has to click on a link to read it:

What do we mean by “sex”?

Do we mean chromosomes? If so, there aren’t two sexes, there are a whole bunch, look at the list on this Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_chromosome_anomalies

Do we mean genitals? If so, again, there aren’t two distinct sexes, instead it’s more of a spectrum between “this is obviously a penis” and “this is obviously a vulva”. In fact, infants with genitals that can’t be neatly classified as a penis or a vulva frequently have surgery forced upon them and these (completely unnecessary) surgeries cause all sorts of issues later in life.

Do we mean hormonal profile? Again, it’s not as straightforward as testosterone = male, estrogen = female. The endocrine system is wildly complicated and the ratios of sex hormones people have can vary wildly. A person’s hormonal profile is also extremely changeable, which is something shitty right-wingers don’t want “biological sex” to be.

Do we mean size of gametes? This is the only option that even remotely makes sense, because it is true that in humans there are only two kinds of gametes, small gametes (sperm) and large gametes (eggs). Furthermore, there has never been a case of a human who produces both eggs and sperm, every human produces at most one of the two. But lots of people are completely infertile, producing no gametes. So if by “sex” we mean the size of gametes someone produces, then there are a whole lot of people who are sexless because they produce no gametes.

But ok, size of gamete produced almost works as a definition of “sex”. So maybe we could look at the gonads in people who don’t produce gametes and make a determination of their sex that way. Well, it turns out that doesn’t work either, because there are people with both ovarian tissue and testicular tissue, and sometimes these tissues are even mixed together in the same organ (called “streak gonads”).

So what are we left with? Nothing. There’s nothing to “sex”, it’s a meaningless term. Listen to any shitty right-winger try and define “biological sex” and you’ll hear them eventually say something like “a male is someone whose reproductive system is geared towards producing sperm”. But what does that mean? Fuck all, I’d say. What shitty right-wingers mean is “a female is someone who I think is a woman”. They’re all of them, to a person, talking about gender every time they say “biological sex”. They’ll deny it, but ask them about intersex people, or people with ambiguous genitalia or streak gonads, and you’ll get nonsense in response.

I’ve whiled away many a hilarious hour reading terfs (on ovarit, before it shutdown) arguing about which particular intersex people count as women. They never agree, there is no “party line”, it’s all vibes and always has been.

Ok, well, enjoy the results of your very obvious bait post I guess.

I find it extremely shitty for someone to actively pick a fight and then whine about how they didn’t actually want a fight, but you do you.

Mate, I just posted a meme in our own comm

Are you fucking serious? Remind me again what the first comment posted in this thread was? Was it you saying:

I expect some spicy takes in the comments soon…

Yes, yes it was, you disengenuous fuck. I’m beginning to agree with the people saying you have a humiliation fetish, I don’t know why else you’d decide to make this post.

I specifically time my pedestrian trips so as to avoid rush hour if possible. Why? Because of the number of times I’ve been almost flattened by a car trying to turn right at a busy intersection and literally not checking for pedestrians before hand. And then they look at me like I’m the asshole for trying to cross the road when I very clearly have the right of way. It’s bleak out here for those of us who use walking as a method of transportation!

Well see, here you have good proof that chatGPT isn’t actually “the best knowledge retrieving tool at the moment”. ChatGPT (and every other LLM) suuuucks at complicated math, because these text extruders don’t reason. Seriously, try out some more complicated math problems. I think you’ll find chatGPT gets most of them wrong, and in infuriating ways that make very little sense.

I don’t disagree that we need better math instruction for students. I’ve been saying this since I was a student. But using chatGPT being horrible at math as evidence of this is, well, ridiculous, frankly. ChatGPT’s performance isn’t based on how well your average high schooler understands something, and I don’t know why you’re trying to tie those two very different things together.

Hey, thanks for implying that I can’t read or think critically when the topic of China comes up. I really appreciate it.

I already read through the entirety of the deeply shitty RFA article you posted so that you couldn’t dismiss my criticism by saying I hadn’t read it. How many more deeply shitty articles must I read to satisfy you?

Will you do me the courtesy of reading an article about China that I suggest? Specifically, this one: https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

You know, actually, maybe the article I just linked satisfies the brief. There’s a problem in China (there are billionaires) and here’s an article about that problem that I think is actually quite decent. In particular, note the copious citations. If you want to check for yourself any of the claims in that article, you can, because the citation is right there and will point you to where the claim came from. The citations in this piece are night and day compared to the “citations” (there weren’t any) in the RFA article you posted.

Are we doing this? On a fucking article from Radio Free Asia? Really?

Literally every single claim in that article is backed up by social media posts or, at best, is said to come from “the news portal Shuiping Jiyuan”. We don’t get any links to these posts or to Shuiping Jiyuan though. Some of these claims could be verified though, especially the ones about people who were arrested. The author of the article could probably find arrest records for these people, which I would count as good reporting. But no, we don’t get that. We don’t get translated arrest records, we get shit like this (the following is a direct quote from the article): “Some netizens posted on Weibo in support of Sijindesijin, whose handle translates as “silky silky.” RFA couldn’t reach Sijindesijin for comment or confirm the details of what allegedly happened and if the writer was detained.”

according to RFA sources and media reports

Oh yes, this is definitely a real thing that’s really happening. You can definitely trust Radio Free Asia to tell you the truth about China.

(I’m being sarcastic. This article, like so much from Radio Free Asia is extremely light on proof and heavy on innuendo. We’ve got a lot of “anonymous sources” and “anecdotal accounts” and not a lot of fact-based reporting.)