• powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s not unknowable, you’re just being intentionally obtuse. It’s knowable with better science, it’s just possible that an expert is wrong. If they’re wrong, that doesn’t change reality.

    Someone’s sex exists regardless of my ability to discern it. Your example is bad faith trolling.

    If it’s irrelevant then just ignore it. You can’t handle the truth and so you troll and try to derail and accuse and insult.

    • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      sex exists regardless of my ability to discern it

      1. Yes, your abject uselessness at that shines through most things you say. At last something we can agree on.
      2. So having complained about me calling it unknowable, you admit that it’s undiscernable (which is of course completely different /s), we come back to the irrelevance of everything you said to everyday life.
        • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          I love that you admit that you can’t do it and even that the greatest experts mightn’t be able to do it but yet still believe it’s a useful definition! It’s a useless and crap definition! Actually useless! Complete crap!

          Chromosomes are testable. Verifyable. Take a blood sample, some time in the lab and it’s done! This is why scientists use them to define sex. Your definition is untestable! It’s not science. It’s pseudoscience. It sounds plausible because it uses technical terms, and stupid people believe it because it sounds clever. But because you believed trump, who is famously very stupid, you have believed a stupid thing, and you can’t stop talking about it, in public!

          If I found out that trump had duped me into believing some pseudoscience, I would be ASHAMED. You, not so much.

          • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            Sadly I think you missed this. Again, not undiscernable. Are you able to understand that?

            You should let the author of this text book know that his definition is complete crap lol:

            In sexually reproducing animals, there are two sexes, the male and the female. There may be different ways to express maleness or femaleness, as we will see, but the divide is a real one. […] We have already defined male and female based on gonads and on the type of gametes produced in those gonads, either eggs or sperm.

              • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                In addition to the other links I’ve already posted to peer-reviewed papers explaining the same thing, yes, the fact that you can find the same definition in any textbook on biology shows that is a useful definition that’s used widely across the field of biology.

                You can’t cite anything to the contrary.

                • oftenawake@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Nobody needs to cite a damn thing. You’re not interested in science except where it suits you.

                  You on the other hand, making attacking trans people your daily mission rather than getting on with your life?

                  You will make a fascinating case study for a psychologist one day.

                  Closeted cowardly little attack dog scared of your own shadow.

                • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  I was being sarcastic. Secretly I think you’re far, far more stupid than you begin to realise, because everyone who tries to explain what science or scientific method or scientific consensus means has wasted their breath because you’d rather cling to and defend daddy trump’s pseudoscience than learn amything. It’s willful ignorance and maybe the only cure is when trump’s goons kidnap someone you actually care about in real life that you might begin to question him in any meaningful way.