The chart describes various variations in sex chromosomes and other factors and how they result in different primary and secondary sexual characteristics
The chart has many criss-crossing lines; it’s very tangled.
You claim that there are exactly two sexes and that it is simply “organised around” producing small gametes vs “organised around” producing small gametes
Therefore you should be able to split this chart into your two binary separate sides, your “organised around” producing small gametes side and your “organised around” producing large gametes side, and definitely the primary and surely the secondary sexual characteristics too should be part of that “organisation”
Whether or not you believe in my understanding of the chart, yours is surely deep and sound, and you can surely demonstrate your far superior understanding and the overwhelming explanatory clarity of your simple definition by untangling this chart into your binary male and female halves with all the criss-crossing lines (that everyone else in the thread keeps bringing up and you keep dismissing peicemeal) now neatly packaged into the two “organised around” binary sides, with all this (according to you) unnecessary tangling gone
Of course I believe no such chart exists and that your “sex is binary, just use trump’s size-of-gametes definition” is a bunch of oversimplified crap that’s of no use in either science or life, but you believe in all that shit and peddle it anywhere you think someone trans might be having a good day, so you ought to be able to do it if you’re right and sex really is as simply binary as you claim
Feel free to admit that it’s actually a bit more complicated than that. OH WAIT, NO, YOU CAN’T DO THAT, IT WOULD MEAN YOU’RE WASTING YOUR LIFE ARGUING A USELESS PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC DEFINITION JUST TO FUCK WITH TRANS PEOPLE BECAUSE FOR SOME INSANE LOGIC EVEN MORE SCREWY THAN YOUR DEBATING STYLE YOU THINK TRANS PEOPLE DON’T HAVE ENOUGH SHIT TO DEAL WITH.
My apologies, I didn’t think I needed to spell it out this simply. I gave one example of how people with that condition are unambiguously sexed, and asked if you were confused on the others.
There’s no getting around the fact that it’s a bad chart, but somebody conveniently has already made better ones. I’ll copy them here, in order that they appear in the colored line in the chart. Here’s the first one that explains what each box means:
(Mixed gondal dysgenesis, as discussed above, this isn’t a single condition, it’s an umbrella term)
Note the sex listed on each chart. None of them are unambiguous. Before you start inevitably complaining about the chart, why did you trust the first chart? Simply because it agreed with you?
Stop and consider before you respond: do you have any substantial critiques of these charts? Or are you just going to find some irrelevant detail and obsess about that? That’s called trolling, and you certainly wouldn’t want to do that, right? You’ll respond in good faith, yes?
Love how you have me ten charts with plenty of overlap and claim that they’re all separate but when you look even superficially, you find that they overlap a lot like the original chart!
You claim there are two binary sexes then give me TEN and the male and female ones overlap!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You can’t even tell the difference between two sexes and ten!
Of course you can’t complete the task. It’s impossible.
If you like, try again. Two sexes. One chart. No criss-crossing. No sneaky putting the same thing on both the male and female sides of the chart, because it’s binary, isn’t it? Simply split it by what size of gametes the body is “organised around” producing! Your very own (oh, no, sorry, trump’s) definition!
They’re disentangled already, but before clarifying how you’re wrong, let’s make sure you understand. Can you affirm you understand that those don’t each represent a different sex?
What the fuck are finding hard about “same thing at the top of several of them” that made you think they were disentangled? If I made maps where only one underground line was on each map it would in no way prove that the lines aren’t tangled in real life! Are you completely stupid or is it an act for the purpose of trolling more?
Given that we disagree about the meaning of the word sex and your charts use your definition, why on earth would it be meaningful for you to slap the word male and female on ten diargams that appear unconnected in only the most stupid and superficial sense that they’re in separate images, and why the fuck do you think I would fall for such a juvenile ruse?
If your (trump-following) “organised around producing” large gametes or small gametes theory that you’ve been telling everyone about for days and days on end holds water, have one chart, no duplicated nodes, split by gamete size, no tangles, the body is “organised” around the size of the gametes by your own definition, all the primary and secondary sexual characteristics well easily follow the “organisation” you claim is so definitive.
Did you understand that anyone who actually knows something about it also knows that sex is more complicated than you claim? Did you understand that you’re being a complete arse to trans people? Wait, yes, you knew that one. That was the deliberate part.
My apologies, I didn’t think I needed to spell it out this simply. I gave one example of how people with that condition are unambiguously sexed, and asked if you were confused on the others.
There’s no getting around the fact that it’s a bad chart, but somebody conveniently has already made better ones. I’ll copy them here, in order that they appear in the colored line in the chart. Here’s the first one that explains what each box means:
(Mixed gondal dysgenesis, as discussed above, this isn’t a single condition, it’s an umbrella term)
Note the sex listed on each chart. None of them are unambiguous. Before you start inevitably complaining about the chart, why did you trust the first chart? Simply because it agreed with you?
Stop and consider before you respond: do you have any substantial critiques of these charts? Or are you just going to find some irrelevant detail and obsess about that? That’s called trolling, and you certainly wouldn’t want to do that, right? You’ll respond in good faith, yes?
Love how you have me ten charts with plenty of overlap and claim that they’re all separate but when you look even superficially, you find that they overlap a lot like the original chart!
You claim there are two binary sexes then give me TEN and the male and female ones overlap!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You can’t even tell the difference between two sexes and ten!
Of course you can’t complete the task. It’s impossible.
If you like, try again. Two sexes. One chart. No criss-crossing. No sneaky putting the same thing on both the male and female sides of the chart, because it’s binary, isn’t it? Simply split it by what size of gametes the body is “organised around” producing! Your very own (oh, no, sorry, trump’s) definition!
Bruh. You realize that each one of those charts isn’t a different sex, right?
I’ll take that as “no you can’t disentangle them”
They’re disentangled already, but before clarifying how you’re wrong, let’s make sure you understand. Can you affirm you understand that those don’t each represent a different sex?
What the fuck are finding hard about “same thing at the top of several of them” that made you think they were disentangled? If I made maps where only one underground line was on each map it would in no way prove that the lines aren’t tangled in real life! Are you completely stupid or is it an act for the purpose of trolling more?
Given that we disagree about the meaning of the word sex and your charts use your definition, why on earth would it be meaningful for you to slap the word male and female on ten diargams that appear unconnected in only the most stupid and superficial sense that they’re in separate images, and why the fuck do you think I would fall for such a juvenile ruse?
If your (trump-following) “organised around producing” large gametes or small gametes theory that you’ve been telling everyone about for days and days on end holds water, have one chart, no duplicated nodes, split by gamete size, no tangles, the body is “organised” around the size of the gametes by your own definition, all the primary and secondary sexual characteristics well easily follow the “organisation” you claim is so definitive.
Or admit that your definition is useless.
I didn’t slap anything on anything. Do you understand that those charts don’t each represent a different sex?
Did you understand that anyone who actually knows something about it also knows that sex is more complicated than you claim? Did you understand that you’re being a complete arse to trans people? Wait, yes, you knew that one. That was the deliberate part.