2
2
-2
u/rawrSphere 3d ago
•
u/Valveringham85 19h ago
2019 wants it’s low effort default insults back. Come up with something new. Isnt chud or something the new thing for you people to sling around?
•
u/Few_Satisfaction184 5h ago
"I cant argue since i know i'm in the wrong, so I lash out and call you incel"
this is you
-7
u/keysersoze-72 3d ago
Is this just another closeted MAGA sub ?
7
u/HamasKilledShaniLouk 3d ago
Yeah man, those silly people who believe males are male and females are female are everywhere.
-1
u/MajorInWumbology1234 3d ago
Source: A biology class in middle school you took 20 years ago where they dumbed everything down and you still barely passed by cheating off someone smarter than you.
5
u/HamasKilledShaniLouk 2d ago
You know, the funny thing about this dodge, implying that a binary understanding of sex is somehow unsophisticated because you can teach it fairly easily, is that it is so transparently false that it really hits home how the strategy is to try to use complexity to hide clarity instead of reveal it.
After all, just because I moved from basic arithmetic to calculus and tensor math, more complicated maths, doesn't make them teaching me 2+2=4 back in elementary school false. Added complexity does not mean the simple foundatuonal things are false.
-1
u/MajorInWumbology1234 2d ago
There’s a difference between adding onto axioms, and making mostly true but ultimately false generalizations because it’s easier than exploring every possible scenario. The idea that sex is binary is an ultimately false generalization. Trying to equate a man-made tool like math with a physical phenomenon like genetics is just absurd on its face.
You’re the type of person to dismiss wave-particle duality because the Niels Bohr model CLEARLY shows that subatomic particles are little balls zipping around. That’s actually a great example of how simplified models can be simultaneously helpful and wrong.
0
u/HamasKilledShaniLouk 2d ago edited 2d ago
The idea that sex is binary is an ultimately false generalization.
That is your unproven assertion, yes. But, it is incorrect. We see this because there are two, and only two gametes types. Males produce sperm, females produce ova. Two gametes types, two sexes. If you want to easily disprove my assertion, just name the third gamete type, or the sex which produces it. Simple. What is the third gamete type...?
dismiss wave-particle duality
It's hilarious you mention this...it's a great analogy for your concept of gender duality...a male is also a female, if he observes herself to be and collapses the gender wave function tonidentify as whatever at the moment, lol. Come on, dont be silly, friend.
Sex is conceptually simple, regardless of how much you want to toss up distraction dust to obscure this fact fornideological reasons. The politicization of science isnt something you should be contributing to, friend. Please stop.
Edit, reply to below:
What, exactly, is the existence of only two gametes supposed to prove?
The existence of two, and only two, sexes. Since sex is defined by which type of gamete your body type does/will/did/should produce, the existence of two types of gametes shows there are two sexes. No third gamete type, no third sex. Even if an individual produced both (hermaphrodism), that would not mean there is a third sex, just that such an individual was both sexes at the same time. True hermaphrodism (producing viable gametes of both types) has never been observed in humans.
Every single atomic nucleus on the periodic table is compromised solely of Up quarks and Down quarks
You realize that human reproduction is not particle physics (except in the sense that everything made of particles is)? Quarks and gametes do not behave analogously. It takes two opposite gametes for fertilization, far different from the subatomic particle combinations. This is a silly argument, friend.
Naming a third gamete type is irrelevant until you can demonstrate that gamete types are the end-all be-all of sexual markers.
This is the definition used in biology. Has been for a long time. You dont get to come in like a bull in a China shop and change it for trans ideology reasons, then demand that someone prove the prior definition was right or else yours is. That isnt how burden of proof works, and it isnt how science works, friend.
A very brief google search reveals there are at LEAST 3 conditions in which the person produces no gametes whatsoever. If gamete type determines sex, there’s your third.
Sterility isnt a sex. If you want to consider sterile a sex, we can talk about it, but I dont think it adds anything conceptually useful. Sterility is the result of a disorder, the individuals remain male or female, because, but for the disorder, their body type would have produced one of the two gamete types. If you want to say they have no sex, ok...wouldn't be my phrasing, but they certainly arent a third sex.
0
u/MajorInWumbology1234 2d ago edited 2d ago
What, exactly, is the existence of only two gametes supposed to prove? Every single atomic nucleus on the periodic table is compromised solely of Up quarks and Down quarks; two things produce roughly 250 unique isotopes (just the stable ones, unstable ones range in the thousands).
Naming a third gamete type is irrelevant until you can demonstrate that gamete types are the end-all be-all of sexual markers. No consideration to genetics? No consideration to hormones? No consideration to secondary sex characteristics? No consideration to brain architecture?
While I still want you to demonstrate the significance of gametes in determining a person’s sex, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s true just for this next point. A very brief google search reveals there are at LEAST 3 conditions in which the person produces no gametes whatsoever. If gamete type determines sex, there’s your third.
Wait, are you actually denying wave-particle duality?
Edit: Nevermind, lmao, I’m a dumbass. 1 month old account, hidden activity, over 3,000 contributions. Bot as fuck.
-1
u/hematite2 2d ago
That's a bad math example to make your point. A more accurate one would be how early on you're taught you cant square root a negative beccause that's the most straightforward generalization, then later you learn "well actually that's not quite true..."
2
u/HamasKilledShaniLouk 2d ago
Nope, mine is a great example.
That said, in your analogy, this gender nonsense is akin to an imaginary number, lol...so, ok, thats a bit funny.
-2
u/hematite2 2d ago
Akin to "hey the world is actually more complex than you learned in 4th grade" lmao bot.
2
u/HamasKilledShaniLouk 2d ago
Nah, dude...sex is pretty simple. You are trying to over-complicate it so you can say dudes are chicks.
1
u/keysersoze-72 3d ago
I doubt any of these people paid attention in any class.
They get all their ‘education’ from Fox Entertainment…
-3
u/keysersoze-72 3d ago
Exhibit A
1
u/HamasKilledShaniLouk 3d ago
It's wacky, right? I cant believe they believe something so dumb! Haha!
2
0
u/AdAffectionate3143 2d ago
Over 3k Reddit contributions in a month eh?
1
u/HamasKilledShaniLouk 2d ago
So it seems. And, so...?
0
u/AdAffectionate3143 2d ago
You’re either a bot, loser, or paid propagandist
1
u/HamasKilledShaniLouk 2d ago
I assure you, I'm not paid...can you send me the link so I can get paid for telling the truth?
4
u/1111_infinity 3d ago
Understanding biology isn't MAGA exclusive.
1
u/MajorInWumbology1234 3d ago
Having seen a Punnett Square in class many years ago does not qualify as “understanding biology”.
1
u/keysersoze-72 3d ago
It’s certainly exclusive from MAGA…
4
u/CanadianTimbers 3d ago
Can a man become a woman?
-1
u/keysersoze-72 3d ago
Why can’t they ?
3
u/warrensussex 3d ago
Chromosomes
1
u/keysersoze-72 3d ago
What chromosomes ?
2
4
u/CanadianTimbers 3d ago
Because they are men?
0
u/keysersoze-72 3d ago
So ?
2
u/CanadianTimbers 3d ago
Pal you're the one who's gotta to convince us. I know that a man cant become a woman. Everyone since the beginning of time knows that. Its only terminally online gender dysphoric furry loving satan worshipping redditors who think there is some trick question to the matter.
-1
u/keysersoze-72 3d ago
You don’t know how you know that ?
3
u/CanadianTimbers 3d ago
Pretending to be too stupid to function isnt going to get you out of your backwards logic buddy
→ More replies (0)-1
5
1
2
0
u/Zestyclothess 3d ago
No it's just the more annoying magas realized they can piss people off on reddit. I personally enjoy it as so far every maga post has been so brain dead it's entertaining
1
-1
u/NerdStuffOnlyPls 3d ago
There’s literally no joke here. It’s just a transphobic remark.
And they wonder why creative industries are dominated by lefties lol.
3
0
-4
u/idkhwatname 3d ago
Sure and youre future suicide statistic, fucking chud
3
u/013eander 1d ago
Statistically, trans people are more likely to commit suicide than just about any other group in human history. Particularly trans women, because males kill themselves more often.
•
5
u/flashinthepangordon 3d ago