Oh wow, way to quote text that directly contradicts your contention. "one may say that this is very easy to answer... In reality..."

Moron

I accept your surrender.

Second self-own today.

You have the intellectual depth of a bag of gravel. Of course it is a hard problem of why we only see two sexes. The paper is all about showing how that has been solved.

Sweetie, you're as bad at insulting me as you are at understanding what the paper is saying.

Pretty sure I've said way worse to you.

A solution you misunderstood.

The paper: “Reproduction does not require sex. It is one of many possibilities. We may never know exactly how this system evolved; it may have appeared in several different ways independently. The mechanics do not tell us the reasons behind it.” Quack: “YOU GUYS SCIENCE SAYS THIS IS THE ONLY WAY”

Really. The depth of dishonesty you stress now having to display is staggering. I have never claimed what you say I have. Always producing straw men.

Hey, do you remember claiming that no organisms can fulfill both (or all) reproductive roles?

No, I never claimed that. you’ve imagined that

Excellent. Now that I have your attention, where are my statistics showing the majority of gynecomastia cases are "voluntary"?

We are going to have to leave that one. As I that is an entirely different discussion. Maybe we can come back to the prevalence of cross dressing fetishes (-3%) and autogynephilia later.

No, we are not leaving that one. Where are the statistics that support your claim that the majority of gynecomastia cases are voluntary? And why do you think trans women are getting diagnosed with gynecomastia? bsky.app/profile/quac...

🤣🤣🤣

I see the chud streak of citing sources that debunk their arguments has followed us to Bsky.

He's sulking now. 😂

He did get awfully quiet.

What’s the rest of the sentence that gets cut off there at the bottom?

It says there are many different sex determination mechanisms in nature that drive male and female development. What is you point?

Why did you cut it off there?

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?

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.

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.

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?

bsky.app/profile/enga...

Oh, dude. This whole paragraph (both your excerpt and the part you cropped out) are making the exact opposite point to yours.

You are conflating sex determination with sex definition. The paper did not do this. It is just saying there are more ways of producing males and females than XX/XY. Sex determination mechanisms proliferate. Sexes do not. Idiot.

I didn’t do anything except quote your favorite paper back to you. You said it “shows why more than two sexes cannot evolve.” It does not. (And, just to be clear, it wouldn’t help your case even if it did. This study has basically no discussion or bearing on individual sex assignment.)

You misunderstood what you were quoting

LOL No, sweetie. You did. You believed you had a paper to support your statements but you didn't read it closely enough to understand what it is actually saying. And now all you have are ad hominem attacks, lies, and running away from claims you made. Sad.

Oops.