Comment on OnLy tWo eLemEnTs
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 17 hours agoYou could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem.
Anyway, I stand corrected. It’s not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 17 hours ago
That’s not some random blogger lol. That’s an evolutionary biologist that certainly should be trusted more on the topic than Judith Butler of all people. The link is more to demonstrate why you should evaluate why you’re wrong and how you ended up there (believing Judith Butler is a good starting point). I didn’t directly respond to your points because you didn’t seem to be arguing (“I let you decide on your own.”)
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 hours ago
So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp “hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it’s about soft science”?
I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It’s not wrong, it’s just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn’t stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I’m not saying it’s Wrong. I say it’s misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there.
And I said that you can decide whether or not you’re stupid but “words have different meanings in different contexts” and the context in question isn’t evolutionary biology. If it’s about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it’s about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
When talking about the “sex vs gender” debate, you should 100% trust an evolutionary biologist more than a gender studies scholar on the “sex” part of that debate. I’m not sure why you think that’s unclear.
Thank you, you’re the first person in this thread that I’ve been arguing with to acknowledge that. Sports and whatnot are a different topic that is interesting to talk about, but first we have to get everyone on the same page of acknowledging the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Then we can start talking about how it affects sports.
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
Just for the record: I didn’t say that. I still disagree with you.