Comment

And yet, when someone explained to you what the PhD said and meant, your response was:

So not what the phd claims

And just now you were still comparing them to anti-vaxx doctors “if they meant that”, when they clearly didn’t mean that, and you were already told what they meant. You’re still pretending that maybe they said something wrong. They didn’t.

source

Sort:hotnew top

ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

they clearly didn’t mean that, and you were already told what they meant.

Which one is it? Is it they clearly didn’t mean what that person said or is it they meant what that person said

source
- Uruanna@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  
  Or the thought the phd must have meant something else
  
  But sure the phd is wrong if he meant that; just like those anti-vax doctors and anti-abortion doctors
  
  The PhD is not wrong. The PhD meant what they said, but it is not what you think they meant or said. The mistake is yours, and you still insist that maybe it’s the PhD who’s wrong and meant something else they didn’t say - even after somebody else correctly explained what the PhD said and meant, to which you wrongly responded “that’s not what the PhD claims.”
  
  source
  - ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    So you’re saying the person’s explanation was correct so it is crazy conservative theories
    
    source
    Uruanna@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    You’re the only one here claiming that the PhD is equating gender and sex / genitalia. The PhD says no such thing. The person the PhD is responding to is the one trying to equate gender, sex, genitalia, chromosoms, reducing it to “there are only two sexes, male or female.” The PhD is telling that person that they are wrong, and chromosoms do not determine what comes out in the end. The PhD is correct an you are misreading them, and it has already been explained to you that the PhD is saying, verbatim, that chromosoms do not determine gender. If you think that contradicts the PhD, you are still misunderstanding and assuming that the one who’s wrong must be the PhD and certainly not you. But you really really want to say that the PhD is equating gender and sex, or that the explanation that was given to you is contradicting what the PhD is saying. At this point, you’re just trying to obfuscate what the PhD is claiming and what you are defending, and somehow the PhD is the one who’s wrong and as bad as anti-vaxxers.
    
    Once again: the PhD is correct, you misunderstand what they said, someone explained to you what the PhD was saying, and that explanation is not contradicting what the PhD said. The PhD and the explanation are both correct and they are saying the same thing. You keep trying to pretend that you know better than the PhD and the PhD must be anti science somehow, instead of wondering if you’re not completely missing the entire discussion. The only way you are going is trying to devaluate science.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments