Comment on Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy

• davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I’ll take that as “no you can’t disentangle them”

  source

  • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    They’re disentangled already, but before clarifying how you’re wrong, let’s make sure you understand. Can you affirm you understand that those don’t each represent a different sex?

    source

    • davidagain@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      What the fuck are finding hard about “same thing at the top of several of them” that made you think they were disentangled? If I made maps where only one underground line was on each map it would in no way prove that the lines aren’t tangled in real life! Are you completely stupid or is it an act for the purpose of trolling more?

      Given that we disagree about the meaning of the word sex and your charts use your definition, why on earth would it be meaningful for you to slap the word male and female on ten diargams that appear unconnected in only the most stupid and superficial sense that they’re in separate images, and why the fuck do you think I would fall for such a juvenile ruse?

      If your (trump-following) “organised around producing” large gametes or small gametes theory that you’ve been telling everyone about for days and days on end holds water, have one chart, no duplicated nodes, split by gamete size, no tangles, the body is “organised” around the size of the gametes by your own definition, all the primary and secondary sexual characteristics well easily follow the “organisation” you claim is so definitive.

      Or admit that your definition is useless.

      source

      • powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I didn’t slap anything on anything. Do you understand that those charts don’t each represent a different sex?

        source

        • -> View More Comments