cross-posted from: lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/36433949
Gender is different vibrations on a string
Metal Exclusionary Radical Astronomy
Submitted 2 days ago by MarriedCavelady50@lemmy.ml to science_memes@mander.xyz
Comments
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 15 hours ago
nforminvasion@lemmy.world 15 hours ago
That’s the coolest possible shit. Everything is just resonance
Engywuck@lemmy.zip 2 days ago
Waiting for the next Netflix series giving visibility to the rest of the periodic table.
huf@hexbear.net 1 day ago
fucking maniacs shoving the other atoms down my throat (in the form of food and air and stuff)
RunawayFixer@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I wondered if the graph would look entirely different when looking at mass instead of atom count, and not really: Image
Hydrogen and helium make up 99% of all atoms and 98% of all mass.
thethunderwolf@lemmy.dbzer0.com 23 hours ago
oygen
NikkiDimes@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Mmm, I lyove oygen in my lyngs
0E53661CD9E377E9@lemmy.world 13 hours ago
This is bad science.
very_well_lost@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Any good astronomer knows that the real binary is metal/non-metal
gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
any good astronomer knows that the real binary is ordinary matter / dark matter
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
The Coalition for the Respect of the Unique Nature of Isotopes considers this lumping in of isotopes VERY disrespectful. CRUNI prefers this model.
Buddahriffic@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Oh but 3H isn’t hydrogen enough to be on the list?
Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
It’s there. If memory serves, its half-life is 12y, so it is on the list. Just microscopically small font size.
AeonFelis@lemmy.world 14 hours ago
Okay, but “MERA” has a much nicer ring to it than “TERF”.
dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
It’s not bad to be different, but it IS unusual. There is no need to common-wash. Basically every atom in the universe is one or the other and they is still true regardless of allegory.
In 2026 who cares (in states that don’t suck)?
Daft_ish@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Carbon, puh. It just ain’t right.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Posted previously with lengthy discussion. I’ll copy my comment here again:
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.
If you want more of an explanation, see this recent comment of mine showing that even for people who want to redefine sex to not be gamete-based, they still acknowledge the reality of the gamete binary.
ViatorOmnium@piefed.social 1 day ago
Even biological sex is more complicated than just 2 gametes. There are cis-men with XX chromosomes do to a mutation in one of the Xs, there are cis-women with XY due to a myriad of mutations, there are intersex people due to everything from random mutations to chimerism, etc.
T156@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If we put aside humans for a moment, some species of animal have more than binary sexes. Some species of mushroom have thousands, for example.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
That’s confusing how sex is defined with how sex is determined. See the linked thread for a lot of this discussion, but you’re talking about variations within the sex binary. Intersex people aren’t in conflict with the sex binary, because they’re either male or female with Disorders of sex development.
GrammarPolice@lemmy.world 1 day ago
davidagain@lemmy.world 1 day ago
You’re trying to bring facts, knowledge, understanding and the preexisting scientific consensus into a thread started by powerstruggle, an avid anti trans troll who respects trump’s definition of sex above anyone else’s and shows up in any trans-positive post to derail the conversion for hours and days, and suck any happiness out of it. I’ll tell you this now. It won’t work. They won’t listen.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
That chart shows variation within a sex. That’s all how sex is determined, but not how it’s defined
TheLeadenSea@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Gender isn’t biological at all, it is a social or linguistic concept. Biological sex is to do with gametes, chromosomes, sexual organs, hormone levels - it is far from binary, as you can see with the existence of intersex people with chromosomes other than XX or XY, differing organs present, and so on.
lvxferre@mander.xyz 1 day ago
To add to that: that gender you’re talking about is actually two distinct concepts, one social and another grammatical/linguistic. The later is more like a traditional way to refer to noun classes, when they also split humans based on social gender.
Sadly my go-to example for that doesn’t work in English, because of the lack of grammatical gender.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
That’s confusing how sex is defined with how sex is determined. See the linked thread for a lot of this discussion, but you’re talking about variations within the sex binary. Intersex people aren’t in conflict with the sex binary, because they’re either male or female with Disorders of sex development.
oce@jlai.lu 1 day ago
Isn’t gamete also only one aspect of what constitutes the sex? What do you do of the sexual phenotype for example? See this article about a multimodal modelisation of sex. www.biorxiv.org/…/2023.01.26.525769v1.full.pdf
rooroo@feddit.org 1 day ago
But that’s obviously the people trying to redefine sex to not be using the gametes.
Look y’all I know nothing about biology but I’ve heard enough definitions of sex to know that there isn’t a clear consensus on one, binary or not. I do know that if you want to wellactually a binary definition into this you might be part of the problem. (Unless, that is, it’s interesting enough and you phrase it differently idk.)
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
That’s an attempt to redefine sex. Which is all well and good and part of the scientific process. It’s not going to be adopted in the field of biology though, because then talking about sex across the animal kingdom becomes incoherent. Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes addresses that paper directly:
Traits are labeled “male-typical” or “female-typical” only because they correlate with organisms already identified as male or female—an identification that, in anisogamous species, is made ultimately by reference to gametes. Once that reference is removed, the typology loses its interpretive footing.
usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates
That’s not typically the definition people use, but I do admit it’s a way of “solving” the issues of a binary that often arise when using the more common definitions. You’re either a sperm-maker or egg-maker.
So using this definition, there are likely still some intersex people or at the very least people who have an “undefined” sex.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
That’s the definition biologists have always used. It’s just a description of the reality that they found in their field. Lay people have started using it recently because of culture wars, but they’re not incorrect to do so.
There still aren’t “intersex” people as you’re probably thinking. The closest you’ll find in humans is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotestis, but that’s not “fully functioning gonads of both types, producing healthy gametes of both types”. It’s “maybe a functioning gonad of one type, with a bit of non-functional tissue of the other type”. Their sex can still be determined, even if it’s not readily apparent.
MissingInteger@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
An organism that produces both types of gamete is a hermaphrodite.
davidagain@lemmy.world 1 day ago
“Powerstruggle” is an anti trans troll who turns up in any trans-positive thread to pseudoscience their way to distracting everyone from a fun and positive post about gender into an acrimonious debate about why they think there are only two sexes.
powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Yep, and that exists in other species, but not humans. Nobody’s body is organized around the production of both gametes, unlike other species
peteypete420@sh.itjust.works 16 hours ago
No mans sky makes a little more sense to me. Kinda less, but also more.
KoloradoKoolAid75@lemmygrad.ml 1 day ago
“Despite being only 1% of the universe…”
FinjaminPoach@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Thought I was going to learn about radical new astronomy techniques from this post 😒
MERA has me lmaoing though
SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 1 day ago
The non-Hydrogen, non-Helium atoms are a larger proportion of total mass, but that’s just because they’re really fat.
dohpaz42@lemmy.world 1 day ago
We don’t call them fat. They’re BBA: big beautiful atoms. Thicc would suffice too.
SwampYankee@feddit.online 1 day ago
image
very_well_lost@lemmy.world 1 day ago
That’s not true. The “fatness” of metallic atoms doesn’t even come close to overcoming how rare they are. Hydrogen and helium combined still make up ~98% of the total mass fraction. Oxygen, which is next in line, is only about 1% the total mass.
bjorney@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
They said “larger proportion” not majority, and 2% is larger than 1%
/s
cryoistalline@lemmy.ml 1 day ago
its a vocal minority, don’t pay them any attention
Taldan@lemmy.world 23 hours ago
It looks like this chart is based on mass, rather than number. By number hydrogen is >90% by itself
Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Not really