Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were saying that since any definition needs to be grounded in the gamete type which is binary, then any definition would necessarily also be binary.
Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks agoSure, but that’s not relevant here
howrar@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
What are you actually proposing? That an entire person exists in a superposition until they produce gametes?
howrar@lemmy.ca 3 weeks ago
I’m saying that a definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
The closest analogy I can think of where this is applicable is that qubits could be compared to an embryo that could be said to not yet have a sex, with a measurement of a qubit being roughly the same as an embryo developing to the point of being sexed. Which sure, it’s an interesting analogy, but doesn’t dispute the sex binary.
davidagain@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Neither is your anti teams ranting.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
If you think science is anti trans, that’s completely on you.
davidagain@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
No, I think that unlike you, science is descriptive, explanatory and neutral and that instead of understanding the consensus you pick out one or two outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.
You’re just the same as people who believe there’s a link between MMR and autism because you found Pons and Fleischman and some nurse you meet swears it’s a cover up by big pharma.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
Well no. You’re not even citing any sources, but if you did, you’d be relying on outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.
Every accusation is a confession, eh?