▲ 1388 ▼ OnLy tWo eLemEnTs (gregtech.eu) submitted 11 months ago by lena@gregtech.eu to c/science_memes@mander.xyz 221 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -13 points 11 months ago (13 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 11 months ago (12 children) And that's what sex means in the context of sex vs gender. Are you new to the concept that words have different meanings in different contexts? This isn't about evolutionary biology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -12 points 11 months ago (11 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago (3 children) Gender is a social construct. There, I disentangled it from evolutionary biology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (1 child) If no one's arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It's obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 months ago (6 children) This is an "either I'm stupid or everybody else" moment and I let you decide on your own. Words don't have inherent meaning but get meaning by the people who use it in the context they do. It's an collective and context sensitive process. I remember how in one linguistics lecture (typology), we differentiated prepositions from postpositions whereas the syntax prof was like "I don't care if the preposition is before or after". Also: Judith Butler discusses your gamete definition as utterly irrelevant in this context in Who's Afraid Of Gender so it's not that they aren't aware. That's all the hint I give you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -9 points 11 months ago (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 months ago (4 children) You could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem. Anyway, I stand corrected. It's not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -8 points 11 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago (2 children) So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp "hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it's about soft science"? I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It's not wrong, it's just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn't stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I'm not saying it's Wrong. I say it's misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there. And I said that you can decide whether or not you're stupid but "words have different meanings in different contexts" and the context in question isn't evolutionary biology. If it's about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it's about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Just for the record: I didn't say that. I still disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 11 months ago (12 children) And that's what sex means in the context of sex vs gender. Are you new to the concept that words have different meanings in different contexts? This isn't about evolutionary biology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 12 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -12 points 11 months ago (11 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago (3 children) Gender is a social construct. There, I disentangled it from evolutionary biology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (1 child) If no one's arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It's obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 months ago (6 children) This is an "either I'm stupid or everybody else" moment and I let you decide on your own. Words don't have inherent meaning but get meaning by the people who use it in the context they do. It's an collective and context sensitive process. I remember how in one linguistics lecture (typology), we differentiated prepositions from postpositions whereas the syntax prof was like "I don't care if the preposition is before or after". Also: Judith Butler discusses your gamete definition as utterly irrelevant in this context in Who's Afraid Of Gender so it's not that they aren't aware. That's all the hint I give you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -9 points 11 months ago (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 months ago (4 children) You could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem. Anyway, I stand corrected. It's not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -8 points 11 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago (2 children) So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp "hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it's about soft science"? I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It's not wrong, it's just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn't stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I'm not saying it's Wrong. I say it's misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there. And I said that you can decide whether or not you're stupid but "words have different meanings in different contexts" and the context in question isn't evolutionary biology. If it's about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it's about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Just for the record: I didn't say that. I still disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -12 points 11 months ago (11 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago (3 children) Gender is a social construct. There, I disentangled it from evolutionary biology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (1 child) If no one's arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It's obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 months ago (6 children) This is an "either I'm stupid or everybody else" moment and I let you decide on your own. Words don't have inherent meaning but get meaning by the people who use it in the context they do. It's an collective and context sensitive process. I remember how in one linguistics lecture (typology), we differentiated prepositions from postpositions whereas the syntax prof was like "I don't care if the preposition is before or after". Also: Judith Butler discusses your gamete definition as utterly irrelevant in this context in Who's Afraid Of Gender so it's not that they aren't aware. That's all the hint I give you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -9 points 11 months ago (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 months ago (4 children) You could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem. Anyway, I stand corrected. It's not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -8 points 11 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago (2 children) So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp "hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it's about soft science"? I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It's not wrong, it's just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn't stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I'm not saying it's Wrong. I say it's misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there. And I said that you can decide whether or not you're stupid but "words have different meanings in different contexts" and the context in question isn't evolutionary biology. If it's about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it's about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Just for the record: I didn't say that. I still disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 11 points 11 months ago (3 children) Gender is a social construct. There, I disentangled it from evolutionary biology. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (1 child) If no one's arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It's obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (1 child) If no one's arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It's obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] zalgotext@sh.itjust.works 5 points 11 months ago (1 child) If no one's arguing it then why did you bring it up? And no one said anything about sex being a social construct. It's obviously a biological thing, which explains why you seem not to understand it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 11 months ago (6 children) This is an "either I'm stupid or everybody else" moment and I let you decide on your own. Words don't have inherent meaning but get meaning by the people who use it in the context they do. It's an collective and context sensitive process. I remember how in one linguistics lecture (typology), we differentiated prepositions from postpositions whereas the syntax prof was like "I don't care if the preposition is before or after". Also: Judith Butler discusses your gamete definition as utterly irrelevant in this context in Who's Afraid Of Gender so it's not that they aren't aware. That's all the hint I give you. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -9 points 11 months ago (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 months ago (4 children) You could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem. Anyway, I stand corrected. It's not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -8 points 11 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago (2 children) So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp "hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it's about soft science"? I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It's not wrong, it's just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn't stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I'm not saying it's Wrong. I say it's misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there. And I said that you can decide whether or not you're stupid but "words have different meanings in different contexts" and the context in question isn't evolutionary biology. If it's about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it's about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Just for the record: I didn't say that. I still disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -9 points 11 months ago (5 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 months ago (4 children) You could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem. Anyway, I stand corrected. It's not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -8 points 11 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago (2 children) So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp "hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it's about soft science"? I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It's not wrong, it's just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn't stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I'm not saying it's Wrong. I say it's misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there. And I said that you can decide whether or not you're stupid but "words have different meanings in different contexts" and the context in question isn't evolutionary biology. If it's about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it's about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Just for the record: I didn't say that. I still disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 11 months ago (4 children) You could have engaged with my argument but instead you send an article that willfully ignores my argument as well and sprinkles in enough transphobic talking points to speak to the right while still presenting as rational and reasonable. Trans women in prisons commit far less assaults than prison warts but sure, they are the problem. Anyway, I stand corrected. It's not only you but you and some random blogger who are stupid. Enjoy your fruit salad with tomatoes, avocados and pumpkin until you start to consider that not every definition is valid in every context. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -8 points 11 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago (2 children) So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp "hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it's about soft science"? I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It's not wrong, it's just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn't stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I'm not saying it's Wrong. I say it's misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there. And I said that you can decide whether or not you're stupid but "words have different meanings in different contexts" and the context in question isn't evolutionary biology. If it's about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it's about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Just for the record: I didn't say that. I still disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -8 points 11 months ago (3 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago (2 children) So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp "hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it's about soft science"? I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It's not wrong, it's just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn't stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I'm not saying it's Wrong. I say it's misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there. And I said that you can decide whether or not you're stupid but "words have different meanings in different contexts" and the context in question isn't evolutionary biology. If it's about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it's about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Just for the record: I didn't say that. I still disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago (2 children) So an evolutionary biologist should be trusted more on gender issues than a gender studies scholar? Sure? Are you camp "hard science are inherently better than soft science even if it's about soft science"? I mean, sure, you can apply the evolutionary definition to humans. It's not wrong, it's just useless and irrelevant. But the article doesn't stay there. It jumps to sports and prisons and what so ever. What on earth has any of this to do with gametes? I'm not saying it's Wrong. I say it's misleading and your article is a good example for that. Your favorite random evolutionary biologist starts with a clear cut definition and applies it to a messy context. Sure, gametes are a binary but sports is a non-sequitur from there. And I said that you can decide whether or not you're stupid but "words have different meanings in different contexts" and the context in question isn't evolutionary biology. If it's about who can have kids with whom, sure, let the gamete definition shine. If it's about social topics, let social scientists do their job and stop spreading misinformation about social topics and social implications. Do better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Just for the record: I didn't say that. I still disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] powerstruggle@sh.itjust.works -6 points 11 months ago (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Just for the record: I didn't say that. I still disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] lugal@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 11 months ago the scientific consensus here that sex is binary and entirely defined by gamete size. Just for the record: I didn't say that. I still disagree with you. permalink fedilink source parent
