Because nothing beyond that point was required to make my point. You (as always) are misreading what is said. Never in my life have I seen such motivated reasoning resulting in consistent absurdity. You are experts at it.

“I quoted the part that supports my argument. It’s not my job to acknowledge anything that contradicts it.”

Nothing contradicts what I said. Just motivated reasoning and plain ignorance leads to bizarre thinky-thoughts in these people's heads.

But I am glad you accept the bit I quoted supports my argument. The other dishonest clowns here do not.

Oh, that’s a miscommunication on my part. I’m just mocking how your brain works by translating your sad attempt at logic to what it actually sounds like to others. Accepting your premise isn’t necessary for that. Sorry for any confusion this might have caused, though that may just be your default.

If I were to selectively quote something I hadn’t read, I probably would try to come up with a better excuse than “that’s all that’s needed to support my point.” And if I hadn’t selectively quoted, I’d simply provide the full context. Because that’s easier and less fucking weird than what you did.

It was all I need to support my point. Can you tell me why I am wrong?

If I were to selectively quote something I hadn’t read, I probably would try to come up with a better excuse than “that’s all that’s needed to support my point.” And if I hadn’t selectively quoted, I’d simply provide the full context. Because that’s easier and less fucking weird than what you did.

There is nothing in that paper that contradicts my position that there are only two sexes and they are discrete: male and female. This is the empirical fact that the entire Paper is based on. Every objection raised has been a spectacular misunderstanding.

I notice you've left out "and no more than 2 sexes can evolve" this time.

Multiple things contradict your claim that there are only two sexes and they are discrete. But that's nice of you to acknowledge that you can't defend your prior claim that the paper is about evolution and why there can only be two sexes.

But why male models?

And yet my source supported what I said. Despite the efforts your team are putting into misconstruing it. PS I was also mocking your stupidity.

Oh yeah, of course you were. I fully accept that everything you’ve posted represents the absolute peak of your intellectual and rhetorical capabilities. Your mocking is exactly the degree of clever I’d expect.

LOL No it didn't. The irony of calling someone else stupid while you yourself are too stupid to understand.

Why did you abandon the “thought experiment” conversation you and I were having the other day?

Because you all refused to answer the simple question I had. And so I answered it for you.

That's a lie. You refused to fully outline the parameters of your question. Even after you claimed to shift to a framework of self-identity, you still kept trying to go back to the original undefined premise. And several people answered your question. You are just too dishonest to admit it.

Right? “None of you answered it the way I wanted you to” is not the same as “none of you answered it.”

After clarifying parameters, I even answered it with a specific percentage!

That’s not true. I answered, and you ignored my answer. bsky.app/profile/kath...

He’s a shitposter who seems hell-bent on reinforcing his binary worldview.

I’m aware.

And yet there are only two sexes.

I love how, if we take this yahoo at his word as accept that his scientific paper says there's only two sexes, he's laser focused on this one and not the multitude more that contradict him.

That's how science works: you can always find one paper that says what you want, but the truth lies in what the majority of papers are saying.

I mean the funniest part to me is the paper doesn't actually support what he's saying to begin with LOL

Isn’t that how it works? They just grab the first study they see and don’t even read it

Has she done the thing where she answers a question with a screenshot of an AI overview yet?

As a scientist, I feel we in the community have to take partial responsibility for this. We started writing abstracts for SEO by simplifying the language and generalizing, almost like we were writing the teaser for a novel, and people are reading that and then deciding that's the whole book.

Which are bimodal, not binary, as you yourself have demonstrated.

He’s stuck on the same line like a broken record.

Still not a binary variable, as confirmed by your own sources.

No source I have provided says there are more than two sexes or that sex is a continuous variable. This is your motivated reasoning working very hard to cope with evidence that contradicts your sense of self.

No one said that. You're making up a premise to distract from the fact that your original claim - that the two sexes are strictly binary - has been thoroughly disproven thanks to your own resources cited. Such obvious dishonesty.

Yeah, they literally do. You’ve admitted this several times already.

No I have not. I have been utterly consistent that are only two sexes. And my papers never contradict this. You motivated reasoning is a powerful force.

Is every non-female dispositively male?

Not sure if you’re really this delusional or trolling…

And yet still so much complexity.

Oh I’m sure, I just feel like it needed pointed out again. No particular reason.

I think that should be his _bimodal_ worldview.... (Heh heh heh!)

Yesterday I asked you if you could counter the idea that 'male' and 'female' are easy shortcuts for laypeople to use to describe the two most common, prevalent spectrum outcomes, and not the only possible outcomes. Can you?