Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy
howrar@lemmy.ca 3 days agoThen 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.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 2 days ago
What are you actually proposing? That an entire person exists in a superposition until they produce gametes?
howrar@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
I’m saying that a definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 2 days 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.
howrar@lemmy.ca 2 days ago
It’s not an analogy. It’s a counterexample. One that is irrelevant because I appear to have misunderstood your argument, but you’re not clarifying, so I have nothing new to add here.