Do the two tails left of M and right of F mean there are males more male than cis males, and similarly with females?
nooo my genderinos
Submitted 14 hours ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://mander.xyz/pictrs/image/7d3a2d0d-03de-4734-b9b5-f9aa4aacd49a.png
Comments
k4gie@lemmy.world 1 hour ago
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 48 minutes ago
Yes, hyperreal genders do exist, but are not stable outside lab conditions.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 27 minutes ago
Well, clearly. If you define a male characteristic as something that’s more common in men than in women and vice-versa, then e.g. being tall would be a “male characteristic”.
Height isn’t a binary thing with men being exactly Xcm tall and women exactly Ycm, so there’s people who have more of said male characteristic and people who have less. And you also have women who have more of this characteristic and some men (e.g. there are some women that are taller than some men).
The same can be done for every characteristic that’s associated with a gender. Genitals are on a spectrum (large clitoris vs micropenis), fat distribution is on a spectrum (e.g. there are men with breasts and women without), body hair is on a spectrum, hormone distribution is on a spectrum and so on and so on.
If you take a lot of characteristics at once it becomes clear in most cases whether the person you are dealing with is a man or a woman (though there are some where that’s more difficult or impossible), but if you take just a single characteristic (e.g. height) it’s impossible to say whether the person you are dealing with is definitively a man or a woman.
Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 1 hour ago
I don’t think it’s an accepted term anymore, but you reminded me that they used to call the triple X chromosome syndrome by the term Super-Female-Syndrome.
Probably not what the author intended though.
jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 hour ago
yes.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 46 minutes ago
Yeah but they decay into sometjing indistinguishable from a cis person in like five seconds outside of extremely exotic lab conditions, so it’s more accurate to say they’re possible than “they exist”.
ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 8 hours ago
I’m a career physicist, and I honestly have no idea what a state of matter is anymore.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 minutes ago
An abstraction used for grouping kinds of things together for the purposes of making thinking about them a lot faster.
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 3 hours ago
Simple, “solid state” means “no moving parts”, like a vacuum tube, for example.
yermaw@sh.itjust.works 1 hour ago
Could there be a spherical object inside that tube? Just for familiarities sake
la508@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Can I offer you a nice smectic B3 liquid crystal in this trying time?
MycelialMass@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
You may not.
axont@hexbear.net 7 hours ago
yeah i have a bachelor’s in chemistry and I remember a professor earnestly saying the phrase “metallic phase nitrogen” and I think I went home and stared at the ceiling for an hour
ch00f@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
When Newton worked out the laws of motion, he figured they had to be correct because they were so simple and elegant.
He had no idea that relativity was going to come in and fuck his shit up.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
And then there was quantum.
elvith@feddit.org 12 hours ago
Do you have any idea how fast you were going?
No officer, but I can tell you exactly where I am!
LodeMike@lemmy.today 12 hours ago
TBF the laws of motion are still correct.
lime@feddit.nu 12 hours ago
it’s not that they are “correct”, it’s that they are a close enough approximation to work well enough at the scale they’re used. it’s not like the universe runs on math.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 hours ago
I mean relativity is elegant enough in its own right; it's just Newton's laws plus the constancy of the speed of light and the equivalence principle. These two additions are enough to make everything an order of magnitude more fucked up, but that's math's fault, not relativity.
ch00f@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
now do quantum
serenissi@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
though the meme is cool, gender isn’t particularly a biology (or ‘advance biology’) thing. biology deals with sexes, their expressions and functionalities. gender is more of a personal and social concept but often related to sex characteristics (cis).
and yes, advanced biology tells sex determination isn’t as easy as XX or XY or even looking at genitals like a creep.
and oh, for giggles consider fungi :)
jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 hour ago
I don’t entirely agree, because gender identity is known to be at least partially biological, e.g. there are correlations between transgenderism, skin elasticity, and hyper-flexibility.
oyfrog@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
Adding to this: XX and XY works for mammals, but not for other vertebrates (fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians). Birds and reptiles have Z and W chromosomes, and unlike in mammals where females are homozygotes, males in these groups are homozygotes. Some reptiles have temperature dependent sex determination, where ambient temperature above some value will produce males or females (depends on species). Some reptiles are composed entirely of females.
Some fish will straight up change sexes depending on age and male-female ratio in a social group.
In other groups it’s not even different chromosomes but simply copy number of specific genes.
Plants can do all sorts of whacky things like produce seeds and pollen in the same individual.
Fungi are an entirely different cluster fuck because they have mating types which are not simple binaries.
Eukaryotic sex determination isn’t a binary and it isn’t even a nicely categorizable spectrum. It’s a grab-bag of whatever doesn’t perma-fuck your genome.
Source: me, I’m a biologist. Though admittedly I work on animals so my understanding of fungi and plant stuff is fuzzy at best.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 24 minutes ago
And bee queen generate full-animal-sized flying sperm, aka drones.
AdrianTheFrog@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
I would say gender is probably centered about around psychology, ranges mostly from sociology to biology, with a just little bit going into chemistry
maybe like
YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 8 hours ago
Slime mold(which is not a mold or fungi) looks around nervously in it’s 13 different sexes.
icelimit@lemmy.ml 10 hours ago
What kind of fungi should I consider for the maximum giggles?
joyjoy@lemmy.zip 9 hours ago
Psychology is technically a branch of advanced biology
Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 hours ago
Rozz@lemmy.sdf.org 6 hours ago
If certain people could almost understand they would be very upset
CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social 14 hours ago
A genderino sounds more like something you’d find in particle physics than biology anyway
gaybriel_fr_br@jlai.lu 52 minutes ago
Right alongside gender fluid.
BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 13 hours ago
Considering the names of the types of quarks, I recommend renaming them genderinos.
KSPAtlas@sopuli.xyz 10 hours ago
finally, we found what genderfluid is made from
Una@europe.pub 13 hours ago
Physicists are freaky, like who was out there going and asking quarks what is their power dynamic in sex?
jimmux@programming.dev 12 hours ago
“I’m a charm in the streets, and a strange in the sheets.”
UnpledgedCatnapTipper@piefed.blahaj.zone 12 hours ago
It also kinda sounds like a Pokémon!
gjoel@programming.dev 13 hours ago
Honestly, people would probably object more to advanced math than advanced biology if they were exposed as much to it. Or basic math. Or elementary math…
fossilesque@mander.xyz 13 hours ago
Math is extremely irrational.
Opisek@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Math is not even real sometimes. Imaginary, even.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 11 hours ago
I can confirm. My wife does math professionally and sometimes she tells me things that are just plain unnatural. And I’m a pretty open-minded person.
undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
So true and it’s a great to remind them of that sort of thing.
You know, you’d think all of the people who say it’s purely down to genetics would be natural allies with, you know, molecular biologists (applied genetics). They’d be all like “it’s a Y chromosome or nothing” and the biologists would be all like “yeah chromosomes!” because we fucking love chromosomes but no. In fact, it’s noticeably absent when you start to think about it.
I wonder why that might be?
The short answer is “because it’s infinitely more complicated than that.”
Just because you carry the genetic code for anything at all, it doesn’t mean you’ll express it. The default setting for our DNA is off. So, if something isn’t telling it to transcribe, it won’t do it. A whole load of reasons could cause that, even before we get to mutations and partial expression or chimeras etc.
Anyway, what i mean is yeah, this meme!
m8052@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Sqrt(-1) is still wrong tho. I’m commuting a sin by writting it. Correct expression is i^2=-1
rudyharrelson@lemmy.radio 13 hours ago
Wolfram tells me
sqrt(-1) = iand it hasn’t lied to me yet.In what meaningful way is
i^2 = -1different fromsqrt(-1) = i?lvxferre@mander.xyz 12 hours ago
sqrt(-1) = ±i. The negative answer is also valid.
m8052@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Square root definition does not allow a negative number as an input. Only positives and zero. Although it is possible to expand the definition to negative numbers, complex numbers, matrices… So unless you followed a course where you thoroughly defined your expansion of sqrt, it only applies to real, positives number and zero. Its the thing with math, you have to define what you work with.
Khanzarate@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Wouldn’t the square root just give plus/minus i? Seems correct enough.
Opisek@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
No. The symbol √ signifies the principal square root of a number. Therefore, √x is always positive. The two roots of x, however, are ±√x. If you therefore have y²=x and you want to find x, you mustn’t write y=√x, but rather y=±√x to be formally correct.
msfroh@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
But (-i)^2=-1 as well. So we still need a convention to distinguish i from -i.
excral@feddit.org 21 minutes ago
That’s fairly simple: we restrict the complex phase to the range (-pi, pi] and the principal square root halves the complex phase. -1 has the phase value pi, so the principal square root has the the complex phase pi/2, so it’s i, while -i has a phase of -pi/2
moobythegoldensock@infosec.pub 13 hours ago
They’re the same thing. You just take the square root of both sides to get i = sqrt(-1).
Ethanol@pawb.social 10 hours ago
Indeed, usually you would want to avoid a notation of
sqrt(-1)or(-1)^(1/2). You would usee^(1/2 log(-1))instead because mathematicians have already decided on a “natural” way to define the logarithm of complex numbers. The problem here lies with choosing a branch of the logarithm ase^z = xhas infinitely many complex solutionsz. Mathematicians have already decided on a default branch of the logarithm you would usually use. This matters because depending on the branch you choosesqrt(-1)either givesior-i. A square-root is usually defined to only give the positive solution (if it had multiple values it wouldn’t fit the definition of a function anymore) but on the complex plane there isn’t really a “positive” direction. You would have to choose that first to make suresqrtis defined as a function and you do that via the logarithm branch.
So, just writingsqrt(-1)leaves ambiguity as you could either define it to giveior-ibut writinge^(1/2 log(-1))then everyone would just assume you use the default logarithm branch and the solution isi.NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 12 hours ago
Nah, sqrt(x) is the principal branch (the one with a positive real part) of x^½, and you can do (-1)^½ because it's just exponentiation.
silasmariner@programming.dev 12 hours ago
Simply define it as i = e^(iπ/2) 🤣
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
The problem is those morons haven’t taken any of the advanced classes and probably got D’s in the basic ones.
Bronstein_Tardigrade@lemmygrad.ml 10 hours ago
Always wear your glasses. Sans glasses, I read the Advanced Math panel saying the square root of -1=1, and thought, “that’s doesn’t sound right.”
affiliate@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
i think that if more people were exposed to advanced math there would be a reactionary trend of people going around and asking mathematicians “what is a number?”