Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 4 days agoI’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.
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?
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
Any more‽ You didn’t start!
I just cited two worthwhile papers (and also cited them at the start, you’ve had this whole time to read them, don’t give me any bullshit about reading more).
By wordpress, do you mean projectnettie.wordpress.com? Jesus, are you really that dense? Did you not even bother to read one word from it? I’m citing the project spearheaded by someone with a PhD in Developmental Biology, collecting signatures from other scientists affirming a statement about the sex binary. You can go look at their credentials. Where the list is published is irrelevant, it’s the fact that a) the statement is clear about the sex binary, b) the project was started by an expert in the field, and c) it has many signatories with relevant credentials. Are you sure your degree isn’t just “i r smrt” written in crayon? I mean, come on.
Look, you’re a lost cause, but for anyone else curious:
I guess I’ll go edit my previous comment to add that bit in. I didn’t think it was necessary, but, some people.
I don’t think you’re capable of engaging in good faith. For anyone that’s bothered to read down this far, feel free to ignore this user. The thread speaks for itself (“masses of articles” lol get the fuck outta here).
a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 4 days ago
I’m not reading that because I was looking for something worth reading. much earlier on.
You seem pissed, but not at all convincing.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
You got things worth reading in my original comment. Stop bullshitting.