and stars are enacting the trans agenda to turn Hydrogen into Helium
OnLy tWo eLemEnTs
Submitted 16 hours ago by lena@gregtech.eu to science_memes@mander.xyz
https://gregtech.eu/pictrs/image/48bd8f9f-d740-4dc5-b9a2-e4ea98a52f26.webp
Comments
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
igneis94@feddit.it 15 hours ago
Everytime I wake up in the morning, it’s because the light of a star has made me woke. Coincidences? I THINK NOT!
ivanafterall@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
That shit is going to blow up in all of our faces before it’s all said and done, you mark my words.
anugeshtu@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Yeah, shining and flaring like the beautiful little stars they are supposed to be!
davidagain@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
Hollywood celebrities pushing the woke mind virus.
theuniqueone@lemmy.dbzer0.com 14 hours ago
We also know elements can’t change to a different element through any kind of reaction or anything that would be absurd. I’m tired of these woke scientists.
MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
Have you tried alchemy?
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Alchemy was just a way to disguise a piss-drinking fetish that got way way out of hand.
33550336@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Oh yes, the statistical mindset. Similarly, one could argue that for large integers, statistically there is no prime numbers.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
It is UNUSUAL for an element to not be either hydrogen or helium. There is nothing wrong with it. It is simultaneously totally OK, an ABSOLUTE MINORITY position, and notably UNUSUAL considering statistical evaluation.
You can ascribe whatever meaning to that you want, but it is not a statistically typical position to be an element that is not hydrogen, not helium, and… Well… It’s also pretty unusual to have extra neutrons or something and be BETWEEN hydrogen and helium.
Again, this is TOTALLY FINE. And it is accurate in other hypothetical contexts which are in no way being referenced here. These group sizes are, of course, in no way the same.
It’s not super uncommon to change from hydrogen to helium, but in other contexts… Yes it is. Still totally fine.
Everybody is just getting along the best he/she/they can, but PEOPLE have rights, we don’t need to argue for rights by common-washing. It ain’t common.
humanspiral@lemmy.ca 5 hours ago
I prefer Hydrogen. While I am not Hydrogen, I say everything else must be.
Furbag@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
I’m just a Helium atom living in a Hydrogen atoms universe.
Frozengyro@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Wow, way to be another Atomist propagating more Hydrogenist lies!
4am@lemmy.zip 12 hours ago
Down with the hydriaechy!
HugeNerd@lemmy.ca 4 hours ago
The universe has low metallicity.
doingthestuff@lemy.lol 8 hours ago
I keep reading about how they don’t have enough helium supply. Is everything fake news?
Kolanaki@pawb.social 7 hours ago
The universe is full of Helium.
It’s just not concentrated here on Earth.
Aljernon@lemmy.today 7 hours ago
I read that if it wasn’t for the US dumping it’s strategic helium supply, the price of a party balloon would be $50. Yes, Helium 3 gets attention for Fusion research but regular Helium is used heavily in imaging equipment like MRI’s. The Large Hadron Collider needs 130 metric tons of the stuff.
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
helium3 is getting low, right? I had heard we’re looking at mining operations on the moon, but I think that would be a very bad idea…
nothing like unchecked capitalism in space.
pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 hours ago
i love breathing “other”!!!
Lemminary@lemmy.world 7 hours ago
Mmm, nitrogen, my love. *passes out*
MeThisGuy@feddit.nl 4 hours ago
shoulda gone with the nitrous oxide… still passes out
kata1yst@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
I think you mean, pure H, He ash, and filthy metals.
shane@feddit.nl 15 hours ago
Helium came first!
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
whats michael jackson's favorite gas
hee helium
krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 14 hours ago
Science is for the birds
And birds aren’t real
Since birds aren’t real they are government spying devices
Since birds are government spying devices the government is spying on all of us
Since the government likes watching us they are voyeurs
Some trans people are also voyeurs
Voyeurism is diagnosed using science
Therefore trans people are birds
MeThisGuy@feddit.nl 4 hours ago
and monitor lizards
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works 11 hours ago
I couldn’t really follow along with your logic maze, but I agree with you’re final point… which I think is,
Public transit is faster than birds.
krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 11 hours ago
A well reasoned and thoroughly salient, and logical, addition to my argument.
SanicHegehog@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
trans people are birds birds aren’t real
Trans people aren’t real. Checkmate liberals. /s
krooklochurm@lemmy.ca 10 hours ago
If you follow the very perfect logic even further you’ll realize that trans people are actually government spying devicez
RandomStickman@fedia.io 16 hours ago
Astronomers: correct
yogurtwrong@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
hydrogen, helium, metal
stray@pawb.social 12 hours ago
I have a question for kind of the whole thread in general, regarding the gametes discussion. Isn’t it the case that a human is born with all the eggs they’ll ever have? So like if you aren’t both with any, you’ll never make any later? And if so, isn’t the only way to produce eggs to become pregnant with a child and make their eggs for them?
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
The word “make” does a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to pregnancy. A word like “nurture” might fit better. Once the sperm and egg combine, it starts doing its own thing, the mother’s body just provides resources for it to continue growing and a safe place to do so for the first 9 months give or take.
So the way to make human egg cells would be to either be conceived as a female and have everything go well enough to grow those eggs, or probably some other methods involving introducing various chemicals to unspecialized cells to trick them into behaving as if that was happening.
stray@pawb.social 9 hours ago
Okay, thank you.
When you say other methods, do you mean like in a lab somewhere? I was restricting my idea of egg production to what’s naturally capable by a human body (which I feel is in the spirit of powerstruggle’s definition of a sexual binary), but I figure probably anyone can produce any gametes they like through the magic of science.
Soup@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
If you’re trying to define being a woman as being a female by “asking questions” which, in this context, are stupid ones then sure. Unfortunately for that line of thinking it’s only possible if you’re aggressively ignorant so I’m hoping that I’m misunderstanding something.
stray@pawb.social 8 hours ago
You are misunderstanding, but I don’t blame you in the slightest. I don’t seem to have communicated very clearly. Someone else in this post has a comment making the argument that there are two sexes and that all humans either produce one of two gametes or have the potential to based on their body’s design, and at the time I thought it would be very obvious what I was referring to and why I would make a separate post instead of replying in that chain. I’m sorry for the confusion and any offense.
What I’m thinking about with my question is whether any humans can truly be considered as capable of producing eggs if they must be present at birth, if even people who already have eggs can’t make more.
WoodScientist@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Are you asking leading questions?
stray@pawb.social 10 hours ago
There’s a comment chain in this thread focused on the definition of sex as producing one of two gametes, which leads to pointing out that some people produce no gametes, which is countered by saying they could potentially produce them in the future or if they didn’t have a particular condition, etc. Normally I would post this kind of question directly to someone, but the same stuff is being said so many times that I’m not sure which one to reply to, hence creating a new comment chain.
Basically I’m thinking that defining the female sex by ability (or potential ability) to produce eggs might be faulty on the grounds that no one produces eggs. Or that only a person pregnant with a child who will be born with eggs can be said to have achieved femaleness by this definition. Or maybe the baby is the one making the eggs, so the only way to be female is to have produced eggs prior to birth. I’m not really sure of the details regarding when the eggs develop or who’s really responsible for them, I’m just pretty sure they’re there at birth and it’s interesting to think about.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
That’s the point of differentiating between sex and gender. Sex is indeed binary, there are exactly two gamete sizes. Gender is what captures everything on top of that base.
goldenbug@fedia.io 16 hours ago
If I remember correctly, not even sex is binary in humans.
Entheon@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
There are a decent number of combinations of the X and Y chromosomes, not just XX and XY. If I remember correctly there are about 6 more common combos
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
You’re probably thinking of variations within a sex, such as XXY. They still have bodies organized around producing one of two gamete sizes. Nobody produces a third size of gamete
FoxyFerengi@startrek.website 16 hours ago
XO, XX, XY, XXY, XYY, XXX, XXXX, XXXY, XXYY, and others have been recorded in humans. In addition there is Swyer syndrome, Chappell syndrome, and mosaicism in which the gonadal phenotype doesn’t match the genotype. There are also events during fertilization which can cause an XX zygote to gain the SRY gene from the father. The SRY gene is what initiates male gonad development.
Sex is not binary just because there are two types of sex chromosomes. They can occur in multiple combinations and result in a spectrum of characteristics.
HumanOnEarth@lemmy.ca 16 hours ago
I prefer a simpler view… leave people the fuck alone as long as they aren’t harming anybody.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
Sex is binary, because there are two sizes of gametes. Sex is determined in humans by chromosomes (and is rather messy, as you note). Sex is defined by gamete size, because it’s the only common factor across so many different species. Some animals have their sex determined by the temperature while they’re developing instead of chromosomes, but we can still differentiate between males and females by gamete size.
Nima@leminal.space 15 hours ago
but aren’t those fairly uncommon? I don’t think he means mutations or syndromes. I think he means the majority of humans.
HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
sex absolutely isn’t binary.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
I think you’re misunderstanding how sex is defined. It’s very much a binary, but that doesn’t include gender, and doesn’t include sex phenotypes.
Slovene@feddit.nl 16 hours ago
In my case sex is imaginary. 😕
abfarid@startrek.website 15 hours ago
Pro tip: square it to have real sex. But keep in mind that you might get negative sex.
Lumidaub@feddit.org 16 hours ago
You mean well but even in humans it’s not that simple (not to mention non-humans who might produce both sizes or switch). People who are identified as female at birth because they have a vulva may lack ovaries (or even the entire reproductive tract). They don’t have any gametes but because of their outer appearance they’re usually socialised as girls and only notice when they don’t start menstruating at some point. I assume it’s similarly possible to be born with a scrotum (and penis) but no testicles.
davidagain@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
powerstruggle does not mean well and is trolling up and down the whole thread.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
Not producing any gametes doesn’t confuse things. Even if you don’t produce any gametes, your body is organized around producing one or the other of two sizes.
Things get more interesting in other animals, though anything anywhere near us is still either male, female, or hermaphroditic. When you get down into fungi, you get gametes that are the same size and instead of sex you have mating types, where a single species can have tens of thousands of options.
fossilesque@mander.xyz 16 hours ago
Careful. The longer you stare down the looking glass at life, the more of a kaleidoscopic fractal it all becomes. Even “species” are loose, funny things.
MathiasTCK@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
Exactly. Ring Species are a good example
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighbouring populations, each of which interbreeds with closely sited related populations, but for which there exist at least two end populations in the series which are too distantly related to interbreed, though there is a potential gene flow between linked neighbouring populations.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
What’s interesting about sex being binary is that biology is really messy and hard, and it’s kind of amazing that we found such a universal definition.
feannag@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
Sex in humans really isn’t that binary. XXX and XXY exist for instance.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
XXX and XXY are variations within a sex. They still have bodies organized around producing either one of exactly two gamete sizes
Skarklette@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
No biologist defines sex based on gametes alone, there are many characteristics that make up sex. Why would you define it that way? Because you started with your answer, that sex MUST be binary, and worked backwards from there.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
Unfortunately that’s backwards. Sex is defined by gamete size because it’s the only coherent definition across so much of the animal kingdom. As an example, did you know that male seahorses give birth? It’s true, but how do we know that they’re male? Because they make the smaller of the two gamete sizes. Same thing with female hyenas. They have a pseudo-penis, so why don’t we consider them male? Because they produce the larger of two gamete sizes
Fedizen@lemmy.world 12 hours ago
Well I think we should caveat this as “in humans there is a tendency for sex to fall under two large umbrellas of typical characteristics” as there’s millions of small caveats for many mammals (its speculated parthenogenesis could naturally occur in humans under certain conditions).
Because of how early some features tend to develop in mammals there’s less variation than in other types of animals.
Outside mammals: Amphibians, Reptiles and Birds have many species that can change sex.
Outside animals: Plants and fungi are an absolute mess.
Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
Gametes are haploid, they’re not even potentially human by themselves.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
I think you’re confused about the point of contention here
zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 12 hours ago
There’s at least a third gamete size of 0, as in, no gametes, so there goes that binary
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 10 hours ago
Their bodies are still organized around the production of one or the other of two gamete sizes, even if they don’t produce any
Squirrelsdrivemenuts@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
There are also people born that do not fit in the biological definition of male or female. Same image applies to them.
OrganicMustard@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Lol, the sex prescriptivist
lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 hours ago
Sex encompasses everything about the body including external and internal organs, hormones, (facial) hair, voice (level), body height, … none of which are binary. Reducing it to gamete size makes it meaningless
rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 15 hours ago
This pie chart is also a clock
DarkSideOfTheMoon@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
The people that need to understand this, will not understand this.
87Six@lemmy.zip 12 minutes ago
They won’t even notice the “others” part because they refuse to wear their glasses