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?
Replies
You're flatly wrong.
aug 30, 2025, 3:51 pm • 4 0 • view
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.
aug 30, 2025, 4:33 pm • 0 0 • view
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.
aug 30, 2025, 4:47 pm • 1 0 • view
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?'
aug 30, 2025, 4:27 pm • 6 0 • view
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.
aug 30, 2025, 4:34 pm • 0 0 • view
You're the one who adopted the definition of sex that was entirely about gametes. That's your problem.
aug 30, 2025, 4:48 pm • 3 0 • view
And you can't see why that's an impossible answer?
aug 30, 2025, 4:38 pm • 3 0 • view
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
aug 30, 2025, 5:00 pm • 3 0 • view
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.
aug 31, 2025, 11:35 am • 0 0 • view
No one said otherwise. You just continue to change your definition of sex, hopelessly trying to make it be a binary instead of bimodal. You can't.
aug 31, 2025, 12:00 pm • 3 0 • view
Pardon the interruption, but let’s say we base the definition of sex on the basic genetics behind gamete production. Back when I was in molecular biology, that would have been a perfectly okay way to define male vs female.
aug 31, 2025, 12:30 pm • 2 0 • view
So, for the sake of argument, let’s say we’re using a context for “sex” where the basic XY or XX karyotype works. What sort of conclusions or public policies does that indicate we should adopt?
aug 31, 2025, 12:30 pm • 4 0 • view
What’s quack’s views on sexual orientation? XY status is strongly associated with attraction to XX individuals. Not always, though. If there are genetic factors beyond XX/XY status that influence gender attraction, why can’t there be genetic factors that influence gender identity?
aug 31, 2025, 12:49 pm • 2 0 • view
The funny part is that when you first learn biology, you think that XX / XY is the end of the sexual differention process during fetal development. The more you learn, the more you realize it's actually the first step, like picking a floor plan for a new house and trying to build to it.
aug 31, 2025, 12:46 pm • 3 0 • view
The issue is less about the definition and more about quack trying to prove sex is binary rather than acknowledge it's bimodal.
aug 31, 2025, 1:05 pm • 0 0 • view
That still makes me ask “so what?” Let’s say it’s binary. What am I supposed to do with such a conclusion?
aug 31, 2025, 1:12 pm • 1 0 • view
I mean, I would say a body without the organs to produce a particular gamete isn't meant to support that gamete, which seems problematic
aug 31, 2025, 12:26 pm • 1 0 • view
Well, there you go - who planned the human body?
aug 31, 2025, 12:05 pm • 2 0 • view
What are you on about mate? I clearly said these two distinct body plans in species evolved.
aug 31, 2025, 12:14 pm • 0 0 • view
A plan requires a planner. It's right there in the word.
aug 31, 2025, 12:17 pm • 0 0 • view
Evolution created those body plans. A blueprint is encoded into the DNA of living things. We have teo such blueprints encoded into our DNA and they are switched between early in our development.
aug 31, 2025, 12:39 pm • 0 0 • view
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?
aug 30, 2025, 5:00 pm • 5 0 • view
This is not tricky. We have evolved two body plans. That is all. Sometimes things go wrong with a person and they are infertile. They still have one or other of those body plans. That is how a doctor knows whether to look at (say) sperm quality, or ovulation problems.
aug 31, 2025, 11:37 am • 0 0 • view
You have yet again failed to account for people who do not develop any gonads or people who develop both.
aug 31, 2025, 11:58 am • 0 0 • view
Well no, we've evolved a great many body 'plans', and we broadly group observed forms into two categories. This is why I described your notion as intelligent design. There are no plans, only commonly observed forms.
aug 31, 2025, 12:16 pm • 1 0 • view
This literally makes zero sense if you understand what phenotype is
aug 31, 2025, 5:02 am • 4 0 • view
Andrew Tate has a better understanding of gender than you and I’m not even kidding
aug 31, 2025, 5:13 am • 0 0 • view
You don't know what "phenotype" means do you...
aug 30, 2025, 4:50 pm • 15 0 • view
He sure doesn't
aug 30, 2025, 4:51 pm • 4 0 • view
Just ignoring that whole "observed characteristics" part of the definition cause it completely blows his argument out of the water.
aug 30, 2025, 5:09 pm • 4 0 • view
She absolutely does not
aug 31, 2025, 5:02 am • 13 0 • view
folks there's no reason to debate 80-follower anonymous transphobe accounts, block until the sunlight no longer reaches them
aug 31, 2025, 5:34 am • 4 0 • view
I'd wager there are, coincidentally, two and only two phenotypes in her universe
aug 31, 2025, 5:05 am • 10 0 • view
There are only two evolved classes of phenotype in humans based on yoru sex.
aug 31, 2025, 11:39 am • 0 0 • view
Where did anyone say otherwise?
aug 31, 2025, 11:58 am • 0 0 • view
Oh wait I went back and read more of the thread. Yes. That is the conclusion from which all evidence is then coldly and persistently drawn
aug 31, 2025, 5:11 am • 2 0 • view
I wonder what she thinks of phenotype when it comes to race
aug 31, 2025, 5:10 am • 12 0 • view
It does not matter what race you are. The two sexually dimorphic phenotypes in humans are quite distinct. You do know this of course.
aug 31, 2025, 11:40 am • 0 0 • view
No one said they were not distinct. Once again with the dishonesty.
aug 31, 2025, 11:57 am • 2 0 • view
And?
aug 31, 2025, 11:59 am • 4 0 • view
He’s still quacking. Damn, that duck has a lotta hate.
aug 31, 2025, 12:22 pm • 2 0 • view
An interesting question. My bet would be a claim that it's not relevant because, as we all know, race is a social construct not rooted in biological reality,
aug 31, 2025, 5:53 am • 3 0 • view
Right on the money. Nice job.
aug 31, 2025, 12:48 pm • 1 0 • view
Not too hard to predict the next notes from a music box that's been playing for a while now
aug 31, 2025, 2:18 pm • 2 0 • view
aug 31, 2025, 5:47 am • 1 0 • view
Don't worry. Her shift starts back up in about an hour and she'll come and insist she does.
aug 31, 2025, 5:20 am • 4 0 • view
I admit I get way too much glee from seeing this thread pop back every day or so.
aug 30, 2025, 4:56 pm • 7 0 • view
You still haven’t responded to my answer of your thought experiment.
aug 30, 2025, 3:04 pm • 11 0 • view
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.
aug 30, 2025, 4:49 pm • 1 0 • view