Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

• davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  If, as you falsely claim, sex is determined by rather than defined by chromosomes, then by your own logic, you should find it very easy indeed to draw a line down that pictogram showing which side is male and which is female without crossing any of the other lines. I’ll wait.

  source

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    There isn’t any “detangling” like you’re thinking, because you misunderstand the chart. For example, multiple conditions can lead to infertility. That doesn’t mean the conditions can’t be distinguished from each other, that just means the chart is kind of confusing.

    At any rate, these conditions have a clear sex. For example, “Klinefelter syndrome (KS), also known as 47,XXY, is a chromosome anomaly where a male has an extra X chromosome”. The term mixed gonadal dysgenesis isn’t very specific, but sex can still be determined in each case, e.g. Turner syndrome.

    Are there any examples from the chart you think disprove the sex binary?

    source

    • davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      1. The chart describes various variations in sex chromosomes and other factors and how they result in different primary and secondary sexual characteristics
      2. The chart has many criss-crossing lines; it’s very tangled.
      3. You claim that there are exactly two sexes and that it is simply “organised around” producing small gametes vs “organised around” producing small gametes
      4. 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"
      5. 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
      6. 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
      7. 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.

      source

      • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        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:

        Image

        Image

        Image

        Image

        Image

        (Mixed gondal dysgenesis, as discussed above, this isn’t a single condition, it’s an umbrella term)

        Image

        Image

        Image

        Image

        Image

        Image

        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?

        source

        • -> View More Comments