Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

• 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

      • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        I’m honestly not reading any more. You havent demonstrated real knowledge or ability to cite anything worthwhile, but have a far higher standard of evidence for everyone else. Again, you consider WordPress to be a real source.

        Do you have real credentials?

        source

        • -> View More Comments