No, I think that unlike you, science is descriptive, explanatory and neutral and that instead of understanding the consensus you pick out one or two outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.
You’re just the same as people who believe there’s a link between MMR and autism because you found Pons and Fleischman and some nurse you meet swears it’s a cover up by big pharma.
It’s funny that you said elsewhere that this has nothing to do with RFK, yet here you are, behaving exactly like him, Dunning-Kruger lived out in absolute full force.
Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were saying that since any definition needs to be grounded in the gamete type which is binary, then any definition would necessarily also be binary.
The closest analogy I can think of where this is applicable is that qubits could be compared to an embryo that could be said to not yet have a sex, with a measurement of a qubit being roughly the same as an embryo developing to the point of being sexed. Which sure, it’s an interesting analogy, but doesn’t dispute the sex binary.
It’s not an analogy. It’s a counterexample. One that is irrelevant because I appear to have misunderstood your argument, but you’re not clarifying, so I have nothing new to add here.
I’m legitimately trying to understand where you’re coming from here. When you say “definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary” that’s all fine and well but doesn’t imply anything about the binary.
If X is a binary, and Y is something that results in X after a process, pointing out that Y isn’t binary has no bearing on the fact that X is binary.
Sure, but that’s not relevant here
Neither is your anti trans ranting.
If you think science is anti trans, that’s completely on you.
No, I think that unlike you, science is descriptive, explanatory and neutral and that instead of understanding the consensus you pick out one or two outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.
You’re just the same as people who believe there’s a link between MMR and autism because you found Pons and Fleischman and some nurse you meet swears it’s a cover up by big pharma.
Well no. You’re not even citing any sources, but if you did, you’d be relying on outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.
Every accusation is a confession, eh?
It’s funny that you said elsewhere that this has nothing to do with RFK, yet here you are, behaving exactly like him, Dunning-Kruger lived out in absolute full force.
Every accusation is a confession, eh?
You:
Me:
I bow before your superior intellect and clever debating points.
You:
Every accusation a confession.
You don’t like your own words?
Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were saying that since any definition needs to be grounded in the gamete type which is binary, then any definition would necessarily also be binary.
What are you actually proposing? That an entire person exists in a superposition until they produce gametes?
I’m saying that a definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary.
The closest analogy I can think of where this is applicable is that qubits could be compared to an embryo that could be said to not yet have a sex, with a measurement of a qubit being roughly the same as an embryo developing to the point of being sexed. Which sure, it’s an interesting analogy, but doesn’t dispute the sex binary.
It’s not an analogy. It’s a counterexample. One that is irrelevant because I appear to have misunderstood your argument, but you’re not clarifying, so I have nothing new to add here.
I’m legitimately trying to understand where you’re coming from here. When you say “definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary” that’s all fine and well but doesn’t imply anything about the binary.
If X is a binary, and Y is something that results in X after a process, pointing out that Y isn’t binary has no bearing on the fact that X is binary.