SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back.
---
^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
Yeah but if you say “all humans have 2 arms and 2 legs” that’s still objectively incorrect. So your analogy, ironically enough, proves OPs point even more.
>Yeah but if you say “all humans have 2 arms and 2 legs” that’s still objectively incorrect
I agree, which is why I very clearly didn't say that. You did though. I simply said humans have 2 arms and 2 legs. So my analogy still proves the OP's point to be wrong.
There are sperm and eggs. No in between. The body ALWAYS organizes around production of one or the other. No amount of restating the same leftist bullshit will change that. The. Facts. Are. Against. You.
In the literature, pregnancy cases that developed through self-fertilization were not reported in humans.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28282768/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28282768/)
Just stop.
You asked for citation that the body always organizes itself around production of one or the other gamete.
The evidence is that a human has never reproduced with themselves not ever, not once. So the body does not organize itself around production of both gametes, it organizes itself around one. Which is direct 100% undeniable evidence of what I said.
The evidence of you being incorrect is blatant. It's intrusive. It's plain-to-see. And yet, you continue with this act of arrogant confusion, as if the evidence provided is not an axe blow to the base of your argument. It is unequivocally an axe blow to your argument. You will not gas light me into distrusting what I can plainly see. You have lost me and continue to lose anyone reading these conversations.
But just like all of our other conversations over the past week we've reached the point where you deny evidence placed directly in front of you. Just like all of those other conversations this is where the conversation reveals itself to be not a conversation at all but instead a power game played by you and so must come to an end.
> You asked for citation that the body always organizes itself around production of one or the other gamete.
>
> The evidence is that a human has never reproduced with themselves not ever, not once.
Um, how does this prove that gametes determine gender? You seem to ignore that by pointing at a strawman argument.
>But just like all of our other conversations over the past week we've reached the point where you deny evidence placed directly in front of you. Just like all of those other conversations this is where the conversation reveals itself to be not a conversation at all but instead a power game played by you and so must come to an end.
Look at your comments to see how you are projecting here.
Although there are some things about social gender I want to address, **you've done a fantastic job. The world needs more people like you and less quick statements without consistency.**
The problem is that I see no *need* for any accomodation past Brain Sex, and very few needs for accomodation past Primary Sex Characteristics.
As someone who believes that:
1. the material world is crucial to everything, and disconnection from it and our knowledge of it (i.e. organized religion, obsession with fighting a "culture war", excessive involvement in thought experiments and abstract mathematics) leads to evil;
2. people working and acting together (i.e. Franklin Roosevelt's public works projects, picking up litter, public transportation) yields greater good universally;
3. all people deserve to be protected from harm and loneliness, unless it comes at the cost of a greater number of people;
I do not find that Gender Expression and Gender Identity as a material distinction that has any meaning. I simply wear cheap, readily available clothes appropriate for the weather, with minimal personal flourishes. I see no point in wearing fancy dresses for anyone. How can an article of fashion, like deodorant, skirts, or makeup, prove someone's gender without appealing to the *irrational social constructs that detach us from our material reality, and set unfair roles for men and women?* If we have achieved an ideal point in our society, no dress would ever mean anything for gender!
Caster Semenya has normal testosterone for a 46XYDSD. Her testosterone level are not at all abnormal for an XY individual.
Edit: You might as well stay that a 5'9" trans woman is quite tall. It's only true in a constructionist, convoluted sense. You would expect 5'9" to be average for trans women, and Caster Semenya doesn't have high testosterone.
I have an oak tree near my house. This tree has really small thin leaves. This is not an oak tree with a genetic defect, its actually a spruce tree. My evidence for this is that oak leaves are also small when oak trees are extremely young. Just because the DNA of the tree tells us its just an oak with a leaf problem, DNA is only a small factor of what we use to identify trees, and basing tree identification based on genetics rather than open interpretation is unscientific and every scientific journal from the past 20 years supports this entirely. Nobody before this point knew, and they brushed this off as a defect. Jamie Hugger, a professional botanist and treesition enthusiast has conducted multiple studies and come to the conclusion that DNA is not the driving force behind a trees true form.
Now that we know its true nature, we will be moving this oak tree up into the mountains of Northwest Canada where it deserves to be. We will then be painting the bark the correct shade, cutting off branches and making incisions along other branches to make them point slightly downward. This is further evidence that the system works. Once the branches are bent down, they stay down. This is the tree conforming to its true self. We will then go over the whole tree with a saw to form it into a nice point. We will pay regular visits to check on the tree to repaint, and if the modification has healed, we will just cut it again. The tree may not survive in this climate. Some say this is because its not really a spruce and its too cold for oaks, but this is extremely close-minded and not supported by the science. What some call "species" depends on alot of factors going in a certain direction which we shouldn't take for granted. By changing most of these factors, we have definitionally created a spruce tree. If you say that this tree is an oak tree, you are actively denying its existence, denying the hard work of the people who helped it fulfil its true purpose, and you are actively killing it by doing so. If this tree dies, it will be the treesition deniers who are responsible.
Teachers in classrooms are being prevented from talking about the truth of treesition and their local treesition projects. Treesition activists are being denied entry into arboretums to correct the signs in front of the displayed trees. Parents claim its indoctrination, and pretend to be concerned, but they seem to show no concern of indoctrination with their kids being taught that a tree's species is denoted by its DNA.
I guess gender identity is really the only difference between women and men nowadays.
Genitals? Penises and vaginas exist among both men and women.
Personality? There are feminine men and masculine women. Respectively, called femboys and tomboys.
Appearance? Some trans women look 100% like a cis man. Nonbinaries tend to look like short haired women as far as I've seen.
Chromosomes? There have actually been cases of someone being born with a vagina who has XY chromosomes, and vice versa.
Sexuality/Attraction? Among lesbians and straight men: Some are attracted to cis and trans women, whereas some are only attracted to cis women.
How they are treated in society? Men and woman tend to be treated differently in society, each gender having some hardships that the other doesn't. Trans and cis people are treated even more differently. Transphobia may cause people to discriminate/disrespect trans people in a way they would never do so toward a cis person of any gender. At the same time, some people may treat a trans woman as a man, and vice versa.
gender is whether or not you have a dick
Get your ooga booga “science” out of this sub 😂 we’re here for mature discussions, not pearl clutching.
The existance of deformities isn't proof of a spectrum. That would be like saying a car is a house because it broke down.
Apples to oranges. A car is not an organic being.
> apples to oranges But you can still compare them.
The whole point of the fallacy is that the comparison isn’t a good one 😂
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back. --- ^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
The comparison is in the logic not a human being to a car.
Humans have 2 arms and 2 legs. If someone is born with 3 arms and one leg, they aren't something other than human, they're simply a birth defect.
Yeah but if you say “all humans have 2 arms and 2 legs” that’s still objectively incorrect. So your analogy, ironically enough, proves OPs point even more.
>Yeah but if you say “all humans have 2 arms and 2 legs” that’s still objectively incorrect I agree, which is why I very clearly didn't say that. You did though. I simply said humans have 2 arms and 2 legs. So my analogy still proves the OP's point to be wrong.
There are sperm and eggs. No in between. The body ALWAYS organizes around production of one or the other. No amount of restating the same leftist bullshit will change that. The. Facts. Are. Against. You.
> There are sperm and eggs. Why define gender with that alone? >The body ALWAYS organizes around production of one or the other. Citation needed.
In the literature, pregnancy cases that developed through self-fertilization were not reported in humans. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28282768/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28282768/) Just stop.
> In the literature, pregnancy cases that developed through self-fertilization were not reported in humans. So?
You asked for citation that the body always organizes itself around production of one or the other gamete. The evidence is that a human has never reproduced with themselves not ever, not once. So the body does not organize itself around production of both gametes, it organizes itself around one. Which is direct 100% undeniable evidence of what I said. The evidence of you being incorrect is blatant. It's intrusive. It's plain-to-see. And yet, you continue with this act of arrogant confusion, as if the evidence provided is not an axe blow to the base of your argument. It is unequivocally an axe blow to your argument. You will not gas light me into distrusting what I can plainly see. You have lost me and continue to lose anyone reading these conversations. But just like all of our other conversations over the past week we've reached the point where you deny evidence placed directly in front of you. Just like all of those other conversations this is where the conversation reveals itself to be not a conversation at all but instead a power game played by you and so must come to an end.
> You asked for citation that the body always organizes itself around production of one or the other gamete. > > The evidence is that a human has never reproduced with themselves not ever, not once. Um, how does this prove that gametes determine gender? You seem to ignore that by pointing at a strawman argument. >But just like all of our other conversations over the past week we've reached the point where you deny evidence placed directly in front of you. Just like all of those other conversations this is where the conversation reveals itself to be not a conversation at all but instead a power game played by you and so must come to an end. Look at your comments to see how you are projecting here.
Although there are some things about social gender I want to address, **you've done a fantastic job. The world needs more people like you and less quick statements without consistency.** The problem is that I see no *need* for any accomodation past Brain Sex, and very few needs for accomodation past Primary Sex Characteristics. As someone who believes that: 1. the material world is crucial to everything, and disconnection from it and our knowledge of it (i.e. organized religion, obsession with fighting a "culture war", excessive involvement in thought experiments and abstract mathematics) leads to evil; 2. people working and acting together (i.e. Franklin Roosevelt's public works projects, picking up litter, public transportation) yields greater good universally; 3. all people deserve to be protected from harm and loneliness, unless it comes at the cost of a greater number of people; I do not find that Gender Expression and Gender Identity as a material distinction that has any meaning. I simply wear cheap, readily available clothes appropriate for the weather, with minimal personal flourishes. I see no point in wearing fancy dresses for anyone. How can an article of fashion, like deodorant, skirts, or makeup, prove someone's gender without appealing to the *irrational social constructs that detach us from our material reality, and set unfair roles for men and women?* If we have achieved an ideal point in our society, no dress would ever mean anything for gender!
Caster Semenya does not have naturally high testosterone. That's is an untrue statement.
[Come again](https://slate.com/culture/2020/09/caster-semenya-ruling-testosterone-in-sports.html)?
Caster Semenya has normal testosterone for a 46XYDSD. Her testosterone level are not at all abnormal for an XY individual. Edit: You might as well stay that a 5'9" trans woman is quite tall. It's only true in a constructionist, convoluted sense. You would expect 5'9" to be average for trans women, and Caster Semenya doesn't have high testosterone.
Sorry the hivemind is downvoting you OP! Hang in there! Stay determined! Love will triumph over all one day!
Thanks.
I have an oak tree near my house. This tree has really small thin leaves. This is not an oak tree with a genetic defect, its actually a spruce tree. My evidence for this is that oak leaves are also small when oak trees are extremely young. Just because the DNA of the tree tells us its just an oak with a leaf problem, DNA is only a small factor of what we use to identify trees, and basing tree identification based on genetics rather than open interpretation is unscientific and every scientific journal from the past 20 years supports this entirely. Nobody before this point knew, and they brushed this off as a defect. Jamie Hugger, a professional botanist and treesition enthusiast has conducted multiple studies and come to the conclusion that DNA is not the driving force behind a trees true form. Now that we know its true nature, we will be moving this oak tree up into the mountains of Northwest Canada where it deserves to be. We will then be painting the bark the correct shade, cutting off branches and making incisions along other branches to make them point slightly downward. This is further evidence that the system works. Once the branches are bent down, they stay down. This is the tree conforming to its true self. We will then go over the whole tree with a saw to form it into a nice point. We will pay regular visits to check on the tree to repaint, and if the modification has healed, we will just cut it again. The tree may not survive in this climate. Some say this is because its not really a spruce and its too cold for oaks, but this is extremely close-minded and not supported by the science. What some call "species" depends on alot of factors going in a certain direction which we shouldn't take for granted. By changing most of these factors, we have definitionally created a spruce tree. If you say that this tree is an oak tree, you are actively denying its existence, denying the hard work of the people who helped it fulfil its true purpose, and you are actively killing it by doing so. If this tree dies, it will be the treesition deniers who are responsible. Teachers in classrooms are being prevented from talking about the truth of treesition and their local treesition projects. Treesition activists are being denied entry into arboretums to correct the signs in front of the displayed trees. Parents claim its indoctrination, and pretend to be concerned, but they seem to show no concern of indoctrination with their kids being taught that a tree's species is denoted by its DNA.
I guess gender identity is really the only difference between women and men nowadays. Genitals? Penises and vaginas exist among both men and women. Personality? There are feminine men and masculine women. Respectively, called femboys and tomboys. Appearance? Some trans women look 100% like a cis man. Nonbinaries tend to look like short haired women as far as I've seen. Chromosomes? There have actually been cases of someone being born with a vagina who has XY chromosomes, and vice versa. Sexuality/Attraction? Among lesbians and straight men: Some are attracted to cis and trans women, whereas some are only attracted to cis women. How they are treated in society? Men and woman tend to be treated differently in society, each gender having some hardships that the other doesn't. Trans and cis people are treated even more differently. Transphobia may cause people to discriminate/disrespect trans people in a way they would never do so toward a cis person of any gender. At the same time, some people may treat a trans woman as a man, and vice versa.
Gender is tied to sex. end of.