Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

• a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Man, you argued blog posts over the lancet. You keep thinking I owe you something.

  What is your PhD in?

  source

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    So you still have nothing?

    source

    • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      What did you bring. To the table?

      You can’t bring piss and expect the rest of us to care.

      So, you don’t actually have a single credential? I asked pretty directly.

      source

      • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I’m irrelevant. The science is what matters.

        This article that was peer reviewed and cites sources:

        link.springer.com/article/…/s10508-025-03348-3

        Here’s another source that people have linked to, thinking it supports their argument. Sex Redefined

        In fact, the author states:

        In your piece ‘Sex Redefined’ are you making the claim there are more than 2 sexes?

        No, not at all. Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.

        Two papers demonstrating that you’re wrong, and both better than anything you’ve linked to. Note that I linked these already and you apparently didn’t bother reading them, but maybe try again? I’d love it for you if you tried learning.

        source

        • -> View More Comments