Ain't no fucking "royal we" here, alt-right snowflake. Just don't "celebrate" if you were soooo confused by the preceedings — 180 Proof

:lol:

Defects are not the norm. We do not go around humans don’t have ten fingers simply because a tiny minority have twelve.

There are TWO sexes. There are males and females. There are exceptional cases where the lines are not so distinct (due to various defects).

Gender, like sexuality, is more flexible. But again, a women and men are generally the default across all cultures, but there is certainly more room for different terms there as the minority size is far, far larger than for sex distinctions. And the default for sexuality is extremely diverse and always has been - although shunned in most cultures at some point historically.

In terms of men and women, I think it is fine to go with trans men and trans women as well. I would certainly not simply except (scientifically) calling a trans woman a woman because it could cause problems medically and in some competitive sporting environments.

It is not massively complicated but some people wish to make it so and others wish to oversimplify it due to prejudices and hang-ups inherited from their personal experiences (or rather lack of them).

I am well aware of cases where males (in terms of chromosomes) have lived as females most of their lives whilst completely oblivious to the fact they are ‘male’ (in terms of chromosomes). I see no reason not to accept people in such cases as whatever they wish to be called (legally too). BUT these cases are nowhere near as common as people who are trans (different distinction completely as it is heavily focused on gender).

Science isn't normative. There's no "rule", there's only classification. There are three visually distinct sexes, there are more based on chromosomes. Not all chromosomal abnormalities are infertile which means there's more to sexual reproduction than XX and XY.

Here is a very basic breakdown: https://www.biologyonline.com/dictionary/sexual-reproduction#Sexual_Reproduction_Definition

And to repeat, if we were to define a human scientific by visual prompts alone we would not say they have 0-12 fingers because there is a degree of normative classification within biology. It is not physics.

Sex, as a reproductive act, requires (for humans) two sex cells. This is a fact. To my recollection there are no instances of an immaculate birth that have been scientifically verified for humans? As for non-functioning body parts we may as well do away with the classification of males and just call them females with non-functioning nipples?

The constant hairsplitting is a very big problem and seems to give people a reason to interpret the more nebulous science of biology as a form of social science. No, no, no. Not having it. True enough there are grey areas everywhere but they are not vast areas and to declare that there are more than two biological human sexes is disingenuous and, in some circumstances a purposefully attempt, to use colloquial wordplay alongside different scientific contexts to spout nonsense.

It's time for the birds and the bees, Harry.

First black woman on the SCOTUS! Yay! — frank

It's time for the birds and the bees, Kentaji.

I was merely channeling her confusion in trying to answer the question of what a woman is.

Ain't no fucking "royal we" here, alt-right snowflake. Just don't "celebrate" if you were soooo confused by the preceedings. :victory: — 180 Proof

Of course, 180. You only see things in black and white, or right and left. There can be no room for anyone in the middle in your warped world-view. Anyone that doesn't agree with you MUST be alt-right. It's a pathetic waste of your wits.

I only care about the ridiculous claim that there is a reasonable claim of being more than two sexes when there aren’t.

In terms of sex (for humans) it is simply a matter of male and female. — I like sushi

They can make all the claims that they want. It's when they want to take away your rights to think differently than what they claim that crosses the line. The Dems are more of a threat to liberty and free-thought than the Reps are right now. It's what happens when you are too weak to think for yourself - you become a victim of political or religious ideology. The weak-minded need a Big Brother -whether it be god or government.

Okay, if you say so.

:lol: Wow ... :ok:

The Dems are more of a threat to liberty and free-thought than the Reps are right now. It's what happens when you are too weak to think for yourself - you become a victim of political or religious ideology. The weak-minded need a Big Brother -whether it be god or government. — Harry Hindu

Hilarious. The critical theory dog and pony show that Republicans have been playing, at the confirmation hearing and elsewhere, seems to have gotten you all riled-up. Mission accomplished.

Hilarious. The critical theory dog and pony show that Republicans have been playing, at the confirmation hearing and elsewhere, seems to have gotten you all riled-up. Mission accomplished. — praxis

They both play that game. The fact that you only think that one side puts on a show for their constituents just shows how much of a pawn of the political parties you are. Ban all political parties. No more Ds and Rs next to candidates names so that people like you won't know what to think when it's no longer hand-fed to you

The fact that you only think that one side puts on a show — Harry Hindu

You’re a funny guy, Harry. :grin:

Yes. And it is a good thing people question the validity of certain terms and rehash more archaic terms too.

It is simply down to everyone else to assess their points carefully, clinically and as honestly as possible. If you think it looks wrong, sounds wrong and/or you have evidence to show/infer otherwise then you should speak up or we will all have ti suffer the consequences down the line.

As for Reps and Dems … I’m not American. As for a black woman getting a job she is capable of doing, great! Maybe no one will bat an eyelid about such a thing in a decade or two, just like people don’t make a deal about black actors or scientists being black.

Thank you. I'll be here all week.


The sooner we all get over ourselves and realize that we are much more than the identities the political parties label us as for their own benefit, the better.

Anyone that doesn't agree with you MUST be alt-right. — Harry Hindu

No, Harry, just bigots – whether or not they disagree with me – who are apologists for 'status quo ante bigotry' like yourself (according to your history of posted replies to me).

Then your problem is that you are judging me based on me calling you out for your ad hominem attacks and not on posts that were not necessarily to you which are a small fraction of what I've posted in regards to politics.

I'm sorry, but since when is advocating for the abolition of political parties (and group-think in general), term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court and banning lobbyists, "status quo"?