So, now you’re denying the existence of people who aren’t trans? I guess we’re all trans now!

Oh, thank you for very helpfully pointing out yet another time that you're confusing sex and gender! You're doing GREAT

I have not confused sex and gender. Cis is a reification of gender. It is a thinking fallacy for morons.

LOL You just did it again.

Nope. Just accusing me of doing things without justification makes you look like a simpleton.

Still mad your adopted definition of sex proves sex is bimodal and not binary 😂😂

You accusing other people of reification is the second-funniest thing that’s happened in this thread.

What concept have I reified? There will be no answer to this.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

But he's now also helpfully demonstrating he doesn't understand what abstract means as he was trying to use it in his thought experiment.

🤣🤣🤣🤣

For the first few days it was funny watching you avoid every response. Now it's sad. You couldn't even justify your stupid claim that people don't get misgendered, so you flail by insisting categories don't exist. It must be hard living life as you.

I have never avoided any response (unless missed in the stream) The past few gays had been me repeatedly saving the same question to see how long each of you would avoid it. You put words in my mouth ask the time and never think about what I say. Or read any reference.

Why would anyone consider what you have to say? You claim this is all about gender ideology, but you keep mixing up sex and gender, you can't define sex in a way that makes it binary, thus proving yourself wrong, and you don't read the sources you cite. You're a walking caricature.

When have I ever mentioned gender or mixed up sex and gender? I have defined sex as a binary by tying it to gamete types. You have never made *any* definition of what a sex is.

You have also routinely avoided, deliberately, questions about classification for individuals who develop no distinct gonads or who develop both gonads. Because you're a coward who only listens to what you're told to listen to.

I have answered this repeatedly.

No amount of you whining that you did means you actually did.

You've said those individuals don't invalidate your definition because they're rare.

I have never said this.

You have though. Your whole "thought experiment" did that.

Disregarding entire demographics in science isn't new, it isn't even uncommon today. But doing so intentionally is incredible.

I have never disregarded any “demographic”.

I have been incredibly soft on your position. Can you supply a robust and coherent definition of the terms “male” and “female” that shows I am wrong?

You've answered it by pointing to secondary properties that correlate to "pathways" or "phenotypes". But then you also say sex assignment isn't undermined by variations in those properties. So which is it? What are the necessary and sufficient criteria to be a male or female?

Oh just keep reading. Just wait. He spectacularly destroyed his own argument.

If you're done so please link to the skeets where you do.

Most recently here. bsky.app/profile/quac...

Thank you for continuing to prove that sex is bimodal.

Linear time exists. I asked my question before you posted that. And if you're adopting the definition on that paper, you must either deny that existence of people who don't produce gametes or you must acknowledge that there exists humans that are neither male nor female.

He didn't read the whole glossary either.

You've tied it to gonads, not gamete types. Remember, you're not saying people have to produce the gametes, just be able to or have the biology to. That's gonads. And you clearly are incapable of learning the difference between sex and gender because your mixups have been pointed out.

When did i tie the definition of sex to gonads? Never.

Never. Exactly. Because you don't understand that the ability to produce gametes comes from gonads. The nonsense you spouted off about phenotypes was entirely a made-up thing when what you were trying to say is gonads.

You are imagining my argument rather than reading it. I adopt the definitions of male and female in this paper (for future reference). www.researchgate.net/publication/...

So, since you adopt this definition, you've proven that sex is bimodal and not binary. If an individual does not produce gametes, they are by definition neither male nor female.

What does the definition of male and female say in this paper? It does not say what you have said. It is clearly a category definition FFS.

I misunderstand nothing. It says males produce the smaller gametes and females produce the larger ones. It's your own problem that you adopted a definition that doesn't work for your political aims.

It dies not say that.

This entity you are engaging with has 23 followers, and might not even be human. Perhaps it’s time to block and move on.

That would indeed be the correct thing to do if your are a coward.

Where are my stats, coward?

*you’re, duh, it’s already a contraction, the r is superfluous and renders everything else bereft of meaning, much like you

Anyway, I’m not going to engage with a poorly tuned, really dumb GPT sea lion And if you’re not a really dumb, poorly tuned, GPT sea lion, I wouldn’t tell anybody if I were you

Good luck Greg.

There's value in speaking up against blatantly unscientific positions that result in bigotry and harm against vulnerable populations. You're free to mute the thread if it bothers you.

My position was adopted from a seminal paper in the evolution of sex. You have provided zero papers as an alternative. It’s not my position that does not have scientific backing.

The paper explicitly acknowledges that people exist who have both male and female gametes. You do realize they acknowledge that, and it's actually part of the discussion, right?

Quote the bit that says that.

LOL No it wasn't.

I explicitly said I was adopting the definitions in the glossary of that paper. You did your best to misunderstand them as always.

I think you’re making amazing points, the only thing that bothers me is the thought that *your* brain cycles are valuable, finite, and a threat to others, so there are systems in place designed to waste them

That's a fair point too. My apologies for assuming it was a critical point. Truth be told, when I'm not able to focus on something because of anxiety, I redirect it here. It's one of those mornings.

Oh, I totally get that, have at it!

I don't believe I've seen you define it anywhere. Young said it's related or tied to gametes, but you have not offered an actual definition. If I'm wrong, please show me where you're offered a concrete definition.

He tried to say it was based on the gametes produced. He had to backpedal when it was pointed out that not everyone produces gametes, and that's when the nonsense about tying it to phenotypes started showing up. Also has no answer about why features of trans men change when taking testosterone.

Dude makes Charlie Kirk and Ben Shapiro look like they're intelligent and engaging in good faith.

I'm sure you think that makes sense

I'm sorry you have to deal with yourself all the time. I only have to do it occasionally on the internet and can choose to disengage at any time. You're stuck with you forever.