Those diagrams two overlapping distributions for males and females coloured red and green and labelled as males and females. The paper treats the sexes as categorical and labels sex as such.
Replies
What you're saying is that your quackometer reading is quite high.
aug 27, 2025, 7:58 pm • 0 0 • view
The paper is looking at overlapping sex traits in males and females. It does not define a sex by that "score". It treats sex as distinctly categorical.
aug 27, 2025, 3:33 pm • 0 0 • view
For example, height makes an overlapping distribution with more male heights (tall) and more female heights short). This does not mean tall people are male.
aug 27, 2025, 3:33 pm • 0 0 • view
Because they've categorized the modes. When one removes the categorization from that graph, what kind of distribution do you see?
aug 27, 2025, 3:53 pm • 3 0 • view
Males are larger. That’s a sexually determined/influenced trait in many many species. And yet, overlap.
aug 27, 2025, 3:53 pm • 4 0 • view
Oh, so this whole time you just haven’t known what “bimodal” means?
aug 27, 2025, 3:36 pm • 27 0 • view
What did I get wrong? Can you say?
aug 27, 2025, 4:06 pm • 0 0 • view
"Mode" means "sole data point in a set of one" do I have that right
aug 27, 2025, 4:25 pm • 0 0 • view
Say “overlapping distributions” again
aug 27, 2025, 4:14 pm • 19 0 • view
Ha Ha. That is because bimodal distribution arise in statistics when you think you are sampling one population but are in fact sampling two with different characteristics - and they overlap. See point 2: www.statology.org/bimodal-dist...
aug 27, 2025, 4:53 pm • 0 0 • view
I dare you. I double dare you. Say overlapping distributions one more goddamn time!
aug 27, 2025, 4:19 pm • 4 0 • view
www.statology.org/bimodal-dist...
aug 27, 2025, 4:55 pm • 0 0 • view
I think you broke him.
aug 27, 2025, 4:20 pm • 2 0 • view
I had to take ten away to recover from yoru ignorance. Bimodal distributions arise because of overlapping distributions from two distinct populations. www.statology.org/bimodal-dist...
aug 27, 2025, 4:56 pm • 1 0 • view
Yes, summer “chidl”, we’ve been over this already. And who are you trying to convince at this point anyway?
aug 27, 2025, 5:02 pm • 1 0 • view
It's a little hard to tell, but the distributions you show probably aren't bimodal when you add them to produce one distribution. The third one, non-pubertal sex scores, definitely isn't. I'm sure many other gender-related distributions are bimodal, but you didn't pick a good example.
aug 27, 2025, 4:07 pm • 1 0 • view
I am happy to accept that many sex-related traits - like brain size show a bimodal distribution - but sex itself does not - it is structly categorical - as the above diagrams show in their representation of sex.
aug 27, 2025, 4:38 pm • 0 0 • view
I called that!
aug 27, 2025, 3:58 pm • 1 0 • view
I await for someone to explain why they think I do not know what bimodal means.
aug 27, 2025, 4:30 pm • 0 0 • view
Because you were shown a disaggregated bimodal distribution and said that it was not by bimodal
aug 27, 2025, 4:36 pm • 3 0 • view
Can you rewrite that please so it is intelligible.
aug 27, 2025, 5:02 pm • 0 0 • view
Those distributions aren't bimodal. If you aggregate them, there will be one mode. The two modes aren't far apart enough in the examples given. If the summed distribution was bimodal, it would have two distinct peaks *when you add the two distributions together*. These wouldn't.
aug 27, 2025, 4:49 pm • 0 0 • view
But it’s so vital for Quack to pretend like they do. Because the world has to exist in perfect little boxes lest their whole view shatter like fine China.
aug 27, 2025, 3:39 pm • 3 0 • view
It’s really breaking you that things aren’t so neat and simple, isn’t it?
aug 27, 2025, 3:58 pm • 4 0 • view
What is breaking me is the capacity for obstinate and wilful stupidity in humans.
aug 27, 2025, 4:30 pm • 0 0 • view
lol
aug 27, 2025, 4:32 pm • 4 0 • view
I’m an educator. This is a daily challenge in my work. Nonetheless, I persist. For example, I’ve not given up on you . I think that you are capable of learning.
aug 27, 2025, 4:35 pm • 4 0 • view
You are most likely caught in a motivated reasoning trap and so cannot make progress and are stuck thinking you have to educate me.
aug 27, 2025, 5:02 pm • 0 0 • view
Of all the things that have ever tracked, this post did it most.
aug 27, 2025, 5:03 pm • 1 0 • view
Yeah, I know, it’s been really painful to watch you. I almost think I need compensation.
aug 27, 2025, 4:33 pm • 3 0 • view
And that’s his ideological perspective and motivation. He clearly has a strong preference for simple classifications and determinations. He has a much stronger case on two sexes, but wants to ensure simplicity by calling them, discreet and immutable. And that argument doesn’t work .
aug 27, 2025, 4:10 pm • 5 0 • view
Do you accept that 1) Gametes come in two distinct sorts 2) Reproduction takes place though the combination of two gametes, one of each type, in animals like us 3) We call the biology associated with small gametes male; and large gametes female - the two sexes. What is wrong with these statements?
aug 27, 2025, 4:46 pm • 0 0 • view
Nothing, except that it’s not what you have have actually been talking about. You said that we need to take an evolutionary perspective, but here you are just talking about conception—not even all of biological reproduction. This doesn’t even get you to birth. 1/
aug 27, 2025, 5:05 pm • 3 0 • view
So you accept male and female are tied to the gamete types. That is **big progress*. Do you now accept this?
aug 27, 2025, 5:06 pm • 0 0 • view
No response.
aug 27, 2025, 5:26 pm • 0 0 • view
Newsflash: no one likes bad faith assholes
aug 27, 2025, 5:27 pm • 0 0 • view
aug 27, 2025, 5:09 pm • 1 0 • view
You’ve been conflating things, throughout. Sexual reproduction at the cellular level with reproduction at the evolutonary level. Both science. Both have specialist biologists that study them, but not the same thing. Both are “reproduction” and “biological reproduction.” But different things. 2/
aug 27, 2025, 5:05 pm • 3 0 • view
Explain how I have made that conflation,. Give an example. I think you have no idea what you are talking about.
aug 27, 2025, 5:18 pm • 0 0 • view
Spare the bullshit, dude exited the chat. Some have better things to do than argue with a bad faith asshole on this little app.
aug 27, 2025, 5:20 pm • 1 0 • view
David - you are a moron.
aug 27, 2025, 5:25 pm • 0 0 • view
That’s some IMAX projection
aug 27, 2025, 5:27 pm • 1 0 • view
There’s your jingle fallacy of equating “male”/“female” in the context of biological reproduction on the cellular level—really just the conception process—with the larger reproductive roles that are relevant. Especially from the evolutionary standpoint—which you said we should favor. 3/
aug 27, 2025, 5:05 pm • 3 0 • view
There is a direct link between the "celular level" and reproductive roles in animals. Darwin was one to the first to study this. We knweo how very detailed understanding how phenotype evolve to support specific gamete types. e.g. peafowl. why do sperm producers create such phenotypes...
aug 27, 2025, 5:20 pm • 0 0 • view
You’re right, they evolved to form into razor sharp contrasts. That’s why all women are small and petite while all men are tall and strong and built like gods. 😔🙏🏻
aug 27, 2025, 5:26 pm • 1 0 • view
Oh shit, you actually believe that, don’t you?
aug 27, 2025, 5:29 pm • 1 0 • view
Diversity in phenotypes. No way! That's impossible there is a direct link!
aug 27, 2025, 5:27 pm • 1 0 • view
And then there’s been this subtext throughout of equating “male”/“female” in the sex context to that gender context. Again, that’s your basic jingle fallacy. 4/
aug 27, 2025, 5:05 pm • 2 0 • view
I have never mentioned gender.
aug 27, 2025, 5:20 pm • 0 0 • view
(Jingle Fallacy: mistakenly thinking that because the same word is used in two different contexts that they are not the same construct. Jangle Fallacy: Same idea. Mistakenly thinking that different words necessary refer to different things.) (I might have typed the wrong one the first time.) 5/
aug 27, 2025, 5:05 pm • 3 0 • view
You keep trying to extend that simple cellular dynamic to a broader context. You claim that you’re not, but then keep slipping. 6/
aug 27, 2025, 5:05 pm • 3 0 • view
That is what biologists do. Darwin was one of the first to analyse why male peacock phenotypes are so elaborate. The fact they are sperm producers is absolutely key to understanding why peacocks evolved to be so flamboyant.
aug 27, 2025, 5:21 pm • 0 0 • view
This cellular contribution to reproduction has SO VERY MANY steps on the way to claiming it contributes something to discussion of gender. And yet, that’s the reason you are struck on it—despite your clear mistakes and conflations. 7/
aug 27, 2025, 5:05 pm • 3 0 • view