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?

I’m enjoying this conversation while stuck at the airport 😂

That is...not wrong.

Found it. Not exactly a question, but tried to prove my supposed misunderstanding by doing that. bsky.app/profile/quac...

Is there anything wrong in that text?

lollll, every fuckin time

I'm pretty sure. Let me find it.

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.

Maybe it’s worse than when I got my PhD 40 years ago, but clickbait abstracts preceded the existence of clicks by many decades. And it’s not clear to me that it’s actually worse, on net, because it’s also symptom of a vast expansion in the number of people working in science. 1/

There’s also the “desk drawer problem”, that people are strongly biased to presenting and accepting for publication “significant” results (with a few exceptions like pharma based in government regulation), while “no such effect” results tend to end up in a stack in a desk drawer. 2/2

Particularly when the abstract is the only thing available if you don’t have (fiendishly expensive) journal access.

This is true. But whoever decided that turning abstracts into clickbait articles was a good idea needs to get smacked upside the head. It's not generating more journal subscribers, but LESS. Because people wrongly assume that the abstract is summarizing the report.

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?

@quackometer.bsky.social ?

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!)