To start, it relies on a false premise you input - that I was misconflating the biology term hermaphrodism. But, it does helpfully demonstrate that people exist who can produce both gametes, even if they cannot successfully gestate, so again proves your definition of sex means it's bimodal.

No one produces both gametes and can play both sexual roles. Unlike biological hermaphrodites like some snails.

That was never your assertion. Your assertion was sex is defined by which size gametes someone had. The fact that people exist with both gametes demonstrates that your definition of sex is that sex is bimodal. You can try to move the goalposts all day long. We all know you lost. Badly.

Your own text contradicted you, dumbass

It was written by an LLM. As Abe Lincoln said, "When you go to an LLM for answers, you have lost."

Was there anything wrong in the text?

Oh, so we’re being blissfully ignorant. Cool.

I mean, if you can’t see how that text contradicts your not-so-finely crafted one-line narrative, might need your vision checked

It’s true, I saw him say it.

Me too! I didn't know you were there too!

I was hanging in the back with Elvis and Bob Marley

Oh that's why I didn't see you. I was up front with Hendrix and Freddie.

It’s LLM output. It has no truth value whatsoever.

Is it correct? What is wrong in the text?

It conflates actual analysis from the human brain with inherently flawed algorithmic summation but you go, quackie.

So very dishonest of you.

Oh but that’s been the game all along with him

Why should I bother analyzing text created by a nonsense machine?

I adopt this text as my own. And will defend it.

Just as you've defended all of your claims, right?

You haven't successfully defended your premise that sex is binary and not bimodal so I have my doubts you can do it here LOL

Same question.

It makes quite good sense. I think this time it’s probably accurate. But the burden here is not on you to refute it. It is on the person who provides the text to back it up with citations to the literature (which funnily enough you get for free if you quote a scientific paper!)

Well, too, the falseness comes from the prompt given. This was output based on a prompt assuming someone was misunderstanding biological hermaphrodism and conflating it with humans who have DSDs.

Thanks! I noticed that, but didn’t think about it. It’s worth thinking twice about.

Sure, it might. But why bother even looking into it? The sources it links to, maybe, but I can’t get those from a screenshot.

Even if you could get them, it’s still bogus. The thing is that I typically want to see the list of references for the source of the quote (or paraphrase), and then the list of references for each citation in the quote, if I’m going to make a reliability or suitability for purpose judgment. 1/

Even the WP article describes several different uses of the term. 1) To describe species that are not gonochoric 2) as a historical and medical term. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaph...

Look, I’m not interested in these irrelevant details. I forget which group you want to erase (trans?), but it’s pretty clear that you need a binary definition of “sex” to go on with that program. The problem is that what we have here is not a biological question that can be discussed fruitfully 1/

The simple fact that there are two discrete sexes is being erased by the pseudoscience of gender ideology. I am not the one engaged in erasure.

That “simple fact” that you haven’t been able to substantiate after five days.

in biological terms (for example, frequent updates for COVID vaccines via mRNA tech), but a social issue involving a widespread mental dysfunction (the belief that “trans in bathroom” is a threat to women), a scientifically unresolved question about whether trans in sports is a real advantage, 2/

If you think the question of whether men perform better at sport than women is not "resolved" I cannot help you. You are nuttier than squirrel shit.

economic policy questions of whether trans in the service should get care on the US’s dime (just the overpayment to Trump hotels on Trump’s travel would cover that), etc. None of those questions require a precise biological definition of sex to resolve. So what are you on about? 3/3

If the main text is generated, then I usually need to go another level deeper in the reference graph because you can’t expect a unified point of view or level of reliability from a random set of citations. (“Random” is literally true here.😳) 2/2

The text is correct, in proving you wrong and showing your love of stepping on rakes

“…humans with this condition have a range of variations in their sexual anatomy and often do not have perfect sets of male and female organs, nor are they necessarily able to procreate with both…”

Yes, a lot actually. Particular when applied to YOUR previously stated positions regarding sex determination. That's the thing, you keep taking pieces from various areas - one off sentences or statements that "agree" with you and try to stitch them together into an entire thought.

The problem you have is that, when placed in their proper context, they DON'T agree with you, often in fact CONTRADICT you, or at BEST are not relevant to your position. But you stitch them together and claim it all adds up to "the science says [you're] right" But that's not a valid argument

As for your "is there anything wrong with that statement." It's literally impossible to know because you cannot evaluate the "correctness" of an AI answer without at least two things: 1. The full text of the prompt 2. Access to the sources it's drawing from

You do not need to know these things in order to know if the statement is correct or not. FFS. If I got the LLM to state "Lyon is the Capital City of France" you would would not need to know prompts etc to know if it correct. You could look it up independently.

If you’re sharing something as an assertion of fact, sure. We could research the statement to figure out whether it’s BS or not. If you’re citing something as an authority, and you really must use an LLM, we’d need the prompt too.

I am not citing the LLM as an authority. I fully adopt the output as my words. Am I correct or not?

Without further context, it seems reasonable enough. You’re saying that some organisms are fully hermaphroditic and sometimes that term may be misapplied to some human developmental conditions. Is that correct?

An LLM is just advanced pattern recognition. The patterns aren’t necessarily correct. That’s why LLMs keep going all racist and such. There’s racism in the patterns used to create the model. Racism in, racism out. BS in, BS out too.

If you could look it up independently, then the LLM output wasn't necessary or relevant in the first place.

It was a good way of explaining to you. But my mistake was expecting you to read it and engage in good faith.

Are you engaging in bad faith again?

Yes, actually, we do. Sorry that you don't understand how questions or LLMs work in addition to not understanding gender is bimodal, but that's your own ignorance.

I adopt the LLM words as my own. Am I correct in saying there are two meanings to the term "hermaphrodite"? And we are not discussing "gender" - whatever that is.

No, you're not correct that there are two (or more) meanings to hermaphrodite. And I'm aware you don't understand the difference between sex and gender. I mean, you also adopted definitions as your own that you also can't support.

I have given you two meanings. SO it is now up to you to explain why they have the same meaning. Again, 1) a hermaphrodite animal has an evolved capability to act in male and female reproductive roles 2) a human "hermaphrodite" has a disorder of elopement and cannot reproduce at all often.

Sorry, the fact that you gave two meanings does not mean there actually are two meanings.

I have just given two meanings. These concepts are different. One is a evolves sex configuration. The second is an old fashioned and disputed term for disorders of sex development. We can see this in dictionaries they are treated as different concepts.

Nonsense. You could find your own sources to verify it. My point is that the term hermaphrodite is used as an equivocation. Am I right or wrong?

You're flatly wrong.

Then you simply do not understand. The term is used to describe how a species reproduces and is used for types if rare development disorders. Two different meanings that are conflated by people who do not know what they are talking about.

Sweetie, you do realize that hermaphrodism is quite normal in many species, right? You're the one assuming that I was using it only to talk about humans.

How are we in like week 8 and still don't have an answer to 'if gamete production is dispositive, what about people who produce both or neither?'

Because we have covered this many times but idiots refuse to take onboard the answer. Your sex is description of your phenotype not a description of you actively producing gametes. The latter is an idiot position.

You're the one who adopted the definition of sex that was entirely about gametes. That's your problem.

And you can't see why that's an impossible answer?

I mean, if you'll forgive me for not following your two week long argument (Im sure you appreciate, if not understand, that have a household, hobbies, fitness routine, career and family that still talks to me), it seems that you're saying that there are two gametes, from which we derive the sexes

The two gamete types have driven the evolutionary development of two different sexes - individuals in a species with different body plans to support one or other gamete type. That is a simple statement of fact about evolutionAnd we call bodies associated with sperm - male; and eggs - female.

But if sex describes phenotype, not sex, but I'm not sure how it could possibly be binary. Surely gamete production is *part* of your phenotype? It's certainly observable. If someone produces no gamete, or the other gamete, or both from birth, how do we describe that phenotype?

This literally makes zero sense if you understand what phenotype is

Andrew Tate has a better understanding of gender than you and I’m not even kidding

You don't know what "phenotype" means do you...

He sure doesn't

Just ignoring that whole "observed characteristics" part of the definition cause it completely blows his argument out of the water.

She absolutely does not

folks there's no reason to debate 80-follower anonymous transphobe accounts, block until the sunlight no longer reaches them

I'd wager there are, coincidentally, two and only two phenotypes in her universe

Don't worry. Her shift starts back up in about an hour and she'll come and insist she does.

I admit I get way too much glee from seeing this thread pop back every day or so.

You still haven’t responded to my answer of your thought experiment.

The "you could find" line is funny because (a) given the hypothesis is that the quack is repeating nonsense, it follows you really won't find verification (can't verify falsehoods), and (b) producing anything that contradicts El Quacko results in assertions that you found "the wrong" evidence.

'"hermaphrodite" conflates a natural, non-human reproductive phenomenon (having both male and female reproductive parts) with a human medical condition, true hermaphroditism' -- yeah I hate when a term conflates hermaphroditic animals and people with 'true hermaphroditism'

No human can reproduce using both reproductive roles. That is what defines biological hermaphroditism. You are mixing up non-evolved, rare medical conditions of development with an evolved reproductive strategy in some creatures like molluscs.

Such obvious dishonesty. I never claimed, nor did anyone else, that a human can reproduce using both reproductive modes. Your adopted definition of sex has nothing to do with reproduction. It has to do with gamete size. So you again can't prove a binary and have to resort to blatant lies.

Developmental conditions that aren't environmental are necessarily evolved.

That is gibberish. Utter nonsense.

Do you know what evolution is?

Yes. But if you are asking me this because you think disorders of development are evolved, then you obviously do not.

LOL

Let's see if you can explain why disorders are development are "evolved"?

What do you think 'evolution' is, if not the manner by which your genetic code came to be as it is?

Yes. But development conditions are not evolved traits. Disorders of sex development are caused by de novo mutations (often) and maximally maladaptive. You have no idea what you are talking about.

De Novo mutations are literally what drives evolution lmao. There is no requirement that adaptations not be maladaptive.

They give real "Lamarck was right" vibes

People are real bad at separating a thing that happens and a thing that does things

It could easily be straight MAKING up it's sources.

If a LLM described water as h2o would you doubt its sources? You are free to argue that this argument is right or wrong since I fully adopt it as my own.

Thing is, the LLM part is superfluous at best and it's a Gish gallop at worst. It's not that it's right or wrong, it's that LLM is extremely unreliable to the point that it's reckless, even fraudulent, to rely on it.

If it described the molecular formula of water as H2O, it's still an unreliable source that happens to stumble on something correct and it's something that LLM adds nothing to. It's just noise.

It's as if you manage to predict the weather with dices and a table. It doesn't prove that your dices have any predictive powers, it proves that a random process can occasionally spit outputs that align with the weather

The point that I used a LLM to create an answer is immaterial to whether or not the answer is factually correct or not.

Correction, the point is that you used LLM as an attempt to create illusory support for your unsupported but desired "answer".

Which is to say, we should consider the source of this information to be… you?

Happy to adopt this as my position. Is it correct or not? My position is that the term is used for two different concepts. One an evolved reproductive Strategy for a species; the other an old fashioned term for rare medical conditions.

And as such, no human can or ever has reproduced in both male and female roles. Whereas some snails routinely do this.

And, if he needs to use a llm, he is fundamentally a worse source than a mediocre high schooler. Or, he knows enough basic chemistry to make llm irrelevant.

Am I wrong about the two meanings of hermaphrodite?

Who said there only two definitions of that term?

Yes.

In many cases AI answers will come from AI generated work, and AI can't tell the difference.

Or the AI has trained itself on Reddit sh*tposts and spews out the half-masticated results.

Or in the case of Gemini, CSAM. Yes, that's right part of the Google AIs learning database included CSAM, with their justification being "so it knew what it looked like and could prevent it".

Oh good lord. I hadn't known that.

Yeah, @izzos.us had a FEW words about that in the other place when he saw it. Here's an article on it. Just another way how AI - isn't.

Current AI is just a blind and brainless worm, ingesting words at one end and excreting them at the other.

That is definitely true.