Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

• davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  “Powerstruggle” is an anti trans troll who turns up in any trans-positive thread to pseudoscience their way to distracting everyone from a fun and positive post about gender into an acrimonious debate about why they think there are only two sexes.

  source

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    You’re weirdly obsessed with the idea that anybody that disagrees with you is trolling. You’re free to provide any evidence to support your position, but you’re better suited to simply insult people that try to tell you facts.

    You’re repeatedly insulting people trying to show you the truth and refusing to demonstrate anything that supports your position.

    You’re a troll.

    source

    • davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I think anyone looking at your post history will see who the troll is! You’re obsessive and relentlessly obnoxious about this one issue and you derail every trans positive post you come across.

      source

      • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I correct misinformation, which is a small number of trans related posts. Why are you lying, troll?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Yep, and that exists in other species, but not humans. Nobody’s body is organized around the production of both gametes, unlike other species

  source

  • MissingInteger@lemmy.zip ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    A human with both gametes or no gametes at all is possible.

    ---

    All of this has been better argued in the previous thread where you displayed an, in my opinion, astounding lack of reading comprehension. @Carnelian@lemmy.world argued eloquently with you quite a while.

    source

    • Carnelian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Oh the self proclaimed ambassador for the field of biology is back at it again, what a surprise. Has he revealed yet that his smoking gun ‘study’ that defines sex and ‘represents literally all of biology’ is actually just a rant from a discredited nut job podcaster who has dozens of posts whining about how he’s been totally ostracized by all other biologists?

      source

      • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Separately from my other comment demonstrating the other biologists telling you that you’re wrong, so it doesn’t get lost:

        There’s nothing to “reveal” and there’s no “smoking gun”. It’s simply an easy to read paper, even if you have trouble reading. It’s true, regardless of the author.

        You’re trying to say “Look at this one paper, it has an author I don’t like, so I’ll obsess about that guy and ignore everything else!”

        If you really want, ignore that paper and read the many others telling you exactly how wrong you are. Please make sure to actually read them though. It was a waste of everyone’s time to correct your failed understanding of your own link.

        source
      • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        You’re very focused on that one person and apparently refusing to read the citations from the paper. Feel free to peruse the list of scientists that signed a statement affirming the same:

        projectnettie.wordpress.com

        Or the author of Sex Redefined, which people have linked without reading:

        xcancel.com/ClaireAinsworth/…/888365994577735680

        Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.

        Or another top biologist:

        I like to summarize this by saying that the biological sex definition/concept is both universal and explanatory. No other concept of sex, for example, can explain sexual selection and the differences in behavior and phenotype that appear in animals.

        It’s important to recognize that the recent reframing of the two sexes as needing revision did not result from any new discoveries about biology […]

        It is not transphobic to recognize the two sexes that biologists have known for decades, but, unfortunately, we are dealing with ideologues who are largely impervious to both facts and reason, and so the five points above are aimed largely at those who don’t know a lot about the way biologists conceive of sex.

        That’s you. You are the ideologue that is largely impervious to facts and reason. You demonstrated this by linking a paper and completely misunderstanding it to the point that you thought gametes are a spectrum, when it flatly contradicts you:

        (A) A strict binary, for which all individuals are unambiguously grouped into one of two categories. Whereas some traits, such as gamete size, operate this way, […]

        Or here’s yet another person with plenty of credentials telling you directly you’re wrong:

        nas.org/…/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable

        This article says nothing novel. It discusses a fact as well-established as the billions of years of evolution that shaped our species. We live in a world, however, that increasingly ignores such truths, and in which the combination of awareness and courage to set the record straight appears rare.

        This isn’t even a debate. You’re just wrong. Would you like more citations to that effect?

        source
    • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Man, really? The person that thinks there’s 3 gamete types because they couldn’t even understand the paper they linked? Them?

      I have to say that I’m disappointed that you found that eloquent, but to each their own. I hope that you some day find truth more eloquent.

      At any rate, just in case you’re confused (since it’s not clear from your comment if you understand this), sex is defined by the gamete types your body is organized around producing. Someone born without the ability to create gametes isn’t a counter to the sex binary, their body is still organized around the production of sperm or ova, even if faulty. Nobody is born with a body organized around the production of both sperm and ova, not even in the case of ovotestis. See other comments for explanation.

      source