"it's basic science!!!" | the basic science in question:
"it's basic science!!!" | the basic science in question:
local twitter user forgets how the sun works 
It kinda boggles my mind that an evolutionary biologist and atheist has their knickers in a twist due to intersex, trans, and non-binary gender. Bro, if god isn't real, the world is a fucking chaotic mess that decides what does and doesn't work for weird and abstract reasons, and the social construction of God, and binaries are what stop us from advancing. Can you please move the fuck on from people's genitals? You sound like a fucking deacon at a church, you weirdo.
Biological sex is a fucking mess and the roughly 2% estimate that chuds freak out about is itself a very conservative estimate. The load bearing cope that leads them to denying even this is the belief that conditions like Klinefelter syndrome or Turner syndrome shouldn't be counted as intersex conditions. Diagnosis rates are also incredibly low, largely because of bigotry.
The reality is that not only is the scope of which conditions are considered intersex far too restrictive (even where the 1.7-2% estimate is reached), but these conditions are massively underdiagnosed. A more realistic and all-encompassing view of intersex conditions with an accurate diagnosis count should result an incidence rate of around 5% of the global population, with rates somewhat higher in some communities.
People cannot handle this reality because it destroys their world view.
"A third sex has struck the twin towers"The problem your point here has is hydrogen can't be helium
That doesn't even have anything to do with the point, the point was that you can't just say something doesn't exist because you arbitrarily decided there's not enough of it. If there was one unicorn in the world, would you say unicorns don't exist?
It's cool how checks notes Richard Dawkins singled out intersex as the only legitimate non binary/trans identity in order to minimize the existence of trans people just because it makes it look smaller on the graph.
Wow hes so fuckin objective, I'm sure because he's so rational there's no way there's an ulterior motive for making this point.
Metals are just transhydrogen
Indeed, hydrogen can't be helium (except in the case of bigender comrades): that's why trans women are women, not men; and trans men are men, not women. Glad everything is understood.
If you think about it the Earth is kinda trans because it has so much of the other elements
I am shocked, SHOCKED to learn that Richard Dawkins is a transphobe. Well, not that shocked.
Mfer doesn't know how helium is made lmfao
Okay, let's run with it:
Hydrogen and helium can be determined scientifically through observation. You can't just point at a gas and claim that it's hydrogen without first determining the makeup of the gas scientifically.
They're claiming that this is an accurate analogy for gender identity.
So then the logical conclusion of this argument would be that a person is non-binary until we have scientifically determined their sex (and therefore their gender). Given how rare it is for someone to undergo sex testing, this would mean that the overwhelming majority of people are of indeterminate gender, especially when considering the entire history of the existence of humanity.
That would mean that Dick Dork's claim about molehills applies to both sides of the traditional gender binary and that it should be disregarded as a statistical outlier.
Obviously none of this actually makes sense, for reasons that I'm not going to bore anyone here with, but it's impressive how these facks & logick types will immediately agree with any statement that superficially affirms their worldview, even if agreeing with it would undermine their entire argument upon closer examination.
(I use this argument in a distilled form to bait the "gender is a scientific fact" types - I start by asking them their gender or assuming their gender based on pfp/name etc. when they tell me their gender I ask them when they had this determined scientifically and if they identified as non-binary until that point.
For people who are at least not an irredeemable shithead about it, I might actually engage in a discussion with them and ask them that if they got results back tomorrow that they proved they were biologically the opposite of their gender identity, would they immediately change their name, the clothes they wear, and the pronouns they use to refer to themselves by. Obviously this is a near-impossibly difficult pill for them to swallow [almost like gender is something that you feel as your identity and it's not your chromosomes or your hormonal makeup...] but it's really interesting to observe the beginnings of an earth-shattering realisation for these people when they begrudgingly admit that they wouldn't be able to just wake up one morning and swap to a completely different gender [and to likely have their sexual orientation completely upended in that process as well].)
This is genuinely infuriating. Like, you’re both saying things that disprove this theoretical binary you are so weirdly invested in. Most of a given thing fitting into two categories ceases to be a binary when you have outliers that don’t fit into those categories. At that point it becomes more accurate to describe what you’re looking at as a SPECTRUM.
nobody should care about dick dork in 2024
For a guy whose whole schtick is jerking off to evolution he really doesn't understand biology
This is your brain on the metaphysical world outlook
Liberals and there endless need to deliberately misunderstand very basic terms like “spectrum” and “binary”
What is bro (Dawkins) yappin abt
This dork never listened to van der graaf generator
Aaaahhhh yeah!