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.

Does...he not know Klinefelters and Turner's syndromes exist?

He doesn't think that means the sexes aren't binary. But he also can't define sex in a way that makes it binary.

To be fair, he did also try and limit the discussion to classification of reproductive systems (or roles) only to then immediately pivot to classifying people and pretend those weren't two significantly different things.

Thats ridiculous. Those two syndromes alone don't fit within the 'sex is binary' assertion. I would kill for quality STEM in schools.

This is, I believe, a British TERF. That we're batting around as a chew toy. So.

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.