Scientists dont have credibility

Only 58% of them can be made to acknowledge that human sex is binary — and this is anonymously! Publicly they almost all lie and say that human sex is actually voodoo magic.

Non-scientists don’t have a problem understanding basic reality. Scientists are uniquely inferior, because science is a unique voodoo mindwarp. Try to reproduce their trash—good luck with that. Science is based on the notion that something is real if a regime newspaper praises your findings, automatically making science that says otherwise an act of hate (wrong by definition).

Frick science. KILL science.

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

A Conspiracy Theorist Is Talking Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >t. can't explain intersex with my assumptions

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      if 0.0001% of humans are born with three arms, and twice that with one arm, would you say that humans are 1-3 armed creatures?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You mean if two arms is not the only possibility would I say two arms is not the only possibility?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          how many arms do human beings have? just answer the question.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It depends on the person, there is no set amount of arms that every single person must have.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Between 0 and 4.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            One.
            t. Fermi

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's a spectrum. Bipedal is an archaic white supremacist word. Humans are a spectropedal species. All species are spectropedal, in fact. And, come to think of it, what even is species? A racist colonialist social construct, that's what.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            see

            Bipedal is related to legs, not arms and not all humans are bipedal, its a tendency, not a hard rule.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            See:

            It's a spectrum. Bipedal is an archaic white supremacist word. Humans are a spectropedal species. All species are spectropedal, in fact. And, come to think of it, what even is species? A racist colonialist social construct, that's what.

            >All species are spectropedal, in fact.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            see

            Bipedal is related to legs, not arms and not all humans are bipedal, its a tendency, not a hard rule.

            >xPedal refers to number of legs, not arms.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Legs and arms are social constructs. Humans can use arms as legs.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then they aren't even bipedal on average in the first place, they are quadrupedal if arms and legs are interchangeable.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You just unironically did a hard science with extreme rigor. The score board says GOOD you are moral and anyone who disagrees with you is SATAN. This is science.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am not against science. I concede

            It's a spectrum. Bipedal is an archaic white supremacist word. Humans are a spectropedal species. All species are spectropedal, in fact. And, come to think of it, what even is species? A racist colonialist social construct, that's what.

            won the thread

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            my fricking sides

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And, come to think of it, what even is species? A racist colonialist social construct, that's what.
            This is unironically the final stage of what's happening right now in biology discourse. Evolution denial in favor of Phylogenetic nihilism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What colour is a car? Just answer the question

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Any colour you want as long as it's black.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Quick question. Do you think it's possible to make general observations about classes of objects at all? Do you see why this might be useful?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's useful when talking about the group as a whole, but you can't necessarily prescribe attributes that are typically true to every individual sample from a set.

            Cars generally have four wheels. That doesn't mean that cars with six wheels or three wheels simply don't exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're asking for something that troons and the commies cannot answer. Same as asking them to define what a woman is.

            Its a fricking joke

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why is it so difficult for people to say that most humans have two arms and that is generally regarded as the norm, though there are some rare exceptions?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because poltards and schizos constantly go around claiming that they're "just asking questions". Nobody is obligated to explain things to you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're asking for something that troons and the commies cannot answer. Same as asking them to define what a woman is.

            Its a fricking joke

            Typically two. That humans typically have two arms doesn't mean that someone with more or fewer is somehow incorrect about their own lived experience.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's useful when talking about the group as a whole, but you can't necessarily prescribe attributes that are typically true to every individual sample from a set.

            Cars generally have four wheels. That doesn't mean that cars with six wheels or three wheels simply don't exist.

            Biological sex isn't about "lived experience," or "self identity," or even "sexual presentation." No matter how much tactical nihilism you introduce, there are only 2 relevant categories of people relating to biological sex.

            The first categorization is whether they are fertile/anatomically normal human beings. If they are infertile, they by definition have no sex. They are removed from the game, and the rest is just presentation, not a meaningful biological classification.

            The second is which biological sex a fertile/phenotypical member of the species belongs to. We are mammals. Anatomically typical and fertile mammals have very clear sex designations based on gamete production (past present or future). There's no ambiguity here and the rest is literally just tactical nihilism because you don't want to accept reality.

            Even with all of the genetic modifications and stem cells in the world,.to make more humans you need to fertilize an ovum with a sperm. That ovum could come be entirely produced from stem cells from one donor, and the sperm could be entirely produced from stem cells from another donor, but it is still female ovum, male sperm.

            That's it. Those are the only choices for human sexual reproduction. Your waffling and tactical nihilism changes nothing about this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The ovum could come entirely from...*

            By the way, we aren't even close to "ovum produced entirely from stem cells" at the moment, regardless of what that earlier anon believed based on misreading and wishful thinking. We have gotten to the point where we can almost reliably produce the precursors to sperm (which still require implantation to fully develop and which still have a very high failure rate due to being unstable and not a perfect replacement for actual PCG cells).

            Some parts of that problem may get better as we become more effective at stem cells research. Anything beyond marginal improvements on "producing cells which act somewhat like the precursors to sperm but still can't develop into sperm" is entirely speculation and shouldn't be confused with science.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Almost entirely irrelevant. My point was that what's generally true of the species isn't necessarily true of any individual. I was born without the ability to produce either ova or sperm. What sex am I?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What sex am I?
            a not functioning one of the two?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So there are characteristics besides what gametes we produce that inform our sex?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Now scientists even deny that animals are sometimes born with birth defects, all in the service of their religion

      (Now they’ll claim this ruleset only applies to humans)

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You still can't explain how that "defect" can even exist if there are only two possibilities.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >humans aren’t a bipedal species

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Bipedal is related to legs, not arms and not all humans are bipedal, its a tendency, not a hard rule.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Humans are aquatic because sometimes women do water birth and the fetus dies before drawing air, living a whole lifetime underwater.

            This is science. Frick science. Smash and destroy it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Humans are amphibious, they can walk on land and swim in the sea.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Intersex isn't an intermediary between sperm and egg. It's a genetic mutation that necessarily produces infertile people who have no biological sex.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Male, Female, and Other still isn't a binary.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          depends how significant "others" is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No it doesn't, if a third option is a possibility that negates the category being exclusively binary.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            brother you could literally invent all sorts of appendiges, doesn't make them real. it's functionally a defect and while today we're not throwing babies with defects to the wolfs, it would be pretty moronic to make categories which are intended for practicality. there are two types of genitals based on how they function together. not three types, or more, two. wiener goes in pussy, baby ensues. that's it. whatever else doesn't fit is a defect, and I get it that it's shitty to have "the defect" but there's a limit to how much we can collectively cater to your defect. like no joke and I'm not trying to be an ass about it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't make them real. it
            Yet there really are people who are neither male nor female and when you introduce NaN to 0 and 1, you are no longer working with a binary, but with a tertiary/ternary number system.

            We haven't needed a wiener or a pussy to make a test tube baby for over a century, your information is incredibly outdated.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you can make a separate classification for sexual apendages beauty or something, and have 1000 cathegories for all of the possible iterations. sure.
            but sexually functional there are only two. there's no example of three different sexes being required to make a baby (which is the natural purpose). only two. sex is not a social construct, it's a biological animal construct.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there's no example of three different sexes being required to make a baby.
            When three people are involved its called a chimera, nature doesn't even need two sexes to reproduce, so its still not a binary by your naturalism fallacy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >so its still not a binary by your naturalism fallacy.
            it is for humans. unless trannies are not humans and don't identify with humans

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, you can still have human chimeras and humans can still come out as neither male nor female, so nothing you are saying makes human sex a binary.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            not sure what the frick you talking about but you only need two sexes to make a baby, a male and a female, that's it. nothing else is required, anything else is non-functional bloat, doesn't do anything, is not required. at most tolerated.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you only need two sexes to make a baby, a male and a female, that's it. nothing else is required
            You can make a baby with more than two, even that is not the binary you are making it out to be also we can turn eggs into sperm and sperm into eggs now so you can do it with 1 parent as well.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            not sure if you are trolling for troony hate or you are an actual idiot. you can't possibly hope anyone will go along with your lunacy kek you have absolutely no argument

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > We can turn eggs into sperm and sperm into eggs

            Can you provide some sort of source for this that isn't just speculative science fiction? As far as I'm aware, the closest we've gotten is creation of partial mice gametes from stem cells. I don't think we are anywhere near the level of biological frickery as you are implying.

            Is this just some sort of coping mechanism for you? Do you need to feel like there is more to mammalian sexual reproduction than male/female to cope with your own personal differences of sexual development or something?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38351448/
            It sounds like you information is based on where they were at in 2013 soon after the human gene sequencing was completed, How old is your awareness?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you want to know how I know you didn't read the study you linked?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because you didn't and all you can do is project your own circumstances?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, it's because you don't seem to know the difference between PCG's (which are not capable of developing into fully mature ovum/sperm without a female/male body to produce them) and the ovum/sperm that are produced when PCG's are produced in a human body.

            If you want to read a study that's not behind a pay wall (as if you read studies) take a look at this one:
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43871-2

            What they are able to do is produce cells which are similar to PCG's via stem-cells. These PCG-like cells mimic the early stages of peri-implantation development. That's pretty neat, and is a marvelous accomplishment in itself.

            It is not "we can turn sperm into eggs and eggs into sperm." It's not even "we can turn stem cells into sperm." It is "we can turn stem cells into cells which mimic the early parts of the process of biological creation of sperm."

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            that's manipulating shit with technology. anything of the sort is artificial and has no meaning to what we are for gorrillion years. our current form has nothing to do with the industrial revolution and technological human-cell manipulation

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            me
            >our current form has nothing to do with the industrial revolution and technological human-cell manipulation
            tho that isn't the case for many trannies today, they are artificially constructed via technologically assembled chemicals

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, that is what that study is about because in the US it is illegal to go further, but that doesn't mean it isn't possible and hasn't been done, this is just absolute proof that it can be.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > This is just absolute proof that it can be

            That what can be? That we can artificially produce the beginning stages of sperm/ovum via stem cells?

            Let's say it was a restriction on the legal side of things and their PCG-like cells were capable of developing into sperm if implanted. They'd still need to be implanted into a male in order to develop into sperm. They'd still require a fertile natal male to go from PCG to gamete.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They'd still need to be implanted into a male in order to develop into sperm. They'd still require a fertile natal male to go from PCG to gamete.
            Not necessarily, it would probably be the simplest way to do it, but it wouldn't be necessary, we don't even have to grow full people, we can just grow organs, so we could just grow the testicles to harbor the sperm, but we wouldn't even need to do that as we could just use a catalyst and trigger it to grow into a full blown sperm.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Binary computers have infinite levels of voltages between the definitions of bits 0 and 1 but they're still binary computers. There's far more support for the computing device you're using being analog rather than digital than there is for humans having more than two sexes and yet, you won't go around telling everyone you have an analog computing device.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >infinite levels of voltages
            No, usually 1 is at about 3.3v and 0 is at 0v for standard microprocessors and 3.3-0 is nowhere near infinity. If you had a third level to represent a third element such as NaN, you would not be using binary logic anymore.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't have to push yourself as using ChatGPT to debate lil bro

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A computer that makes use of different voltage levels between 1 and 0 is not using binary. If it counts with 0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, and 1, it's using base-5, not base-2.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It is if you are concerned with sexual reproduction. Male female are the only sexual reproductive categories for mammals (which you are). Neutering yourself or having been born with a difference of sexual development doesn't change this. There's no way for a human to sexually reproduce except either as a male or female.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Chimeric reproduction proves you wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >sci-fi movies where androids uploads their minds via alien tech proves you wrong
            that's not how it works you fantastic idiot. just because you can manipulate DNA and invent unnecessary bullshit doesn't prove that functionally there's only two sexes, determined by the environment for millions of years of working exactly just wiener in pussy.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Human chimeras are not science fiction, though, calling things you don't understand science fiction isn't an argument.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Human chimeras are also not evidence of reproduction divorced from the sexual binary. They require multiple fertilized ovum via the sexual binary process to be in the same uterus to occur.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            get your head out of your ass anon

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You shouldn't just ignore every bit of evidence that proves you wrong, you will just make yourself look stupid in the long run when you can't refute it and just have to resort to reeeeeeing at your opposition about truths you don't want to consider.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            bro listen instead of you being an idiot and drawing unnecessary hate to trannies who want a normal life, you should just shut the frick up and wait the 20 years or so when you'll be able to perfectly transition at dna level, to one of the two sexes. at that point all this ideological bullshit will become irrelevant anyway.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Chimeric reproduction

            You've learned a new buzzword and now are throwing it at the wall and hoping it will stick? Chimerism in humans happens when there are multiple fertilized zygotes (female ovum fertilized with male sperm) in the same uterus and one partially absorbed the genetic material of the other. This isn't something that is separate from male/female sexual reproduction, and in fact it requires male/female sexual reproduction to occur in the first place.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No it isn't based on a male/female pair, it can be male/male/female, female/female/male, male/female/other, and every other combination.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >male/male/female, female/female/male, male/female/other
            pretty sure there's one in each that is absolute functional bloat and all groups can do without the extra? just because you have a gang bang doesn't mean you must have a gang bang for a baby to pop out. frick's wrong with you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, yes, of course. The famous female/female ovum fertilization and male/male fertilization cases.

            I'd love to hear how it is that two ovum fertilized each other in your view. In principle the male/male/female is possible in the sense that you could have fraternal twins that are actually from two different fathers and then one of the zygotes could absorb the other, however the others you listed are just bizarre. It makes me wonder whether you actually believe your own nonsense or if it's just wish fulfillment.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can you not read or do you just actively refuse to understand that chimeric isn't based on a breeding pair, but on a throuple of genetic donors?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, I understand what chimerism is. It is you that doesn't seem to understand what chimerism is.

            When you have chimerism in humans, you have multiple fertilized ovum in the same uterus which during the process of development, merge into one. Those fertilized ovum may be any combination of male/female in themselves, but they are fertilized ovum (meaning a male sperm fertilized a female ovum).

            The "chimerism" that occurs in the resultant fetus means the genetic material of multiple fertilized ovum were merged. What it doesn't mean is that these fertilized ovum were not from male/female reproductive pairs. It still took a male/female reproductive pair to create the fertilized ovum which merged together.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That is only one type of chimerism, just like there are multiple processes that result in twins, there is more than one way to make a human chimera.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They'd still need to be implanted into a male in order to develop into sperm. They'd still require a fertile natal male to go from PCG to gamete.
            Not necessarily, it would probably be the simplest way to do it, but it wouldn't be necessary, we don't even have to grow full people, we can just grow organs, so we could just grow the testicles to harbor the sperm, but we wouldn't even need to do that as we could just use a catalyst and trigger it to grow into a full blown sperm.

            You are far too brain poisoned by sci-fi and wishful thinking. Good luck with your wish fulfillment fantasies and hoping that one day your glorious sexless test tube babies will be a thing. They certainly aren't now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Test tube babies are already a thing, dipshit.
            Just because they exist doesn't mean they are "glorious", you aren't glorious just because you conform to normalized ideals, you are average.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm fine with being average. You seem to be the one who needs to pretend you aren't actually just a natal male or natal female (even if you are one that's infertile due to an unfortunate side effect of humans being organisms with imperfect genetic copying).

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I am not pretending anything, I just don't need to pretend like something that exists doesn't exist to make my point about the absoluteness of human biology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Let me know when you find the intermediary between sperm and egg, or chimerism that doesn't require the original genetic sources to be fertilized ovum. Until then, you are confusing the world you want to be the case, with the world as it truly is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >when you find the intermediary between sperm and egg
            I already linked the paper ITT and someone else explained it and added more context.

            https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38351448/
            It sounds like you information is based on where they were at in 2013 soon after the human gene sequencing was completed, How old is your awareness?

            No, it's because you don't seem to know the difference between PCG's (which are not capable of developing into fully mature ovum/sperm without a female/male body to produce them) and the ovum/sperm that are produced when PCG's are produced in a human body.

            If you want to read a study that's not behind a pay wall (as if you read studies) take a look at this one:
            https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43871-2

            What they are able to do is produce cells which are similar to PCG's via stem-cells. These PCG-like cells mimic the early stages of peri-implantation development. That's pretty neat, and is a marvelous accomplishment in itself.

            It is not "we can turn sperm into eggs and eggs into sperm." It's not even "we can turn stem cells into sperm." It is "we can turn stem cells into cells which mimic the early parts of the process of biological creation of sperm."

            >doesn't require the original genetic sources
            It require more than 2 genetic sources because it is not based on your false binary.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You have literally no idea what you're talking about, it's clear that you're not actually a molecular geneticist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you literally must be wrong because it would hurt my feelings too much if I were

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You are wrong because you're misunderstanding a paper and thinking it supports a claim that it doesn't

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You must be misunderstanding because if you are right, it would hurt my feelings too much.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You posted a paper about people attempting to use pluripotent stem cells to make sperm and egg gametes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            stop getting high on your own farts

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            nobody is glorious you weirdo. why tf can't you just act like a normal human being?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >nobody is glorious
            That was my point, moron, you are the one who brought up gloriousness as a distraction so you can try to pretend like people outside of the average don't exist.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            them existing doesn't mean there's a third sex dude. you can't guilt trip people into accepting that, it's not healthy for anyone.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >durr just because third type of sex exist does not mean there is a third type hurr

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Which part of the "three binary numbers" can't you understand?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The part where your "binary" system actually needs a third option to fully represent the spectrum of human sexes making it not actually binary, but tertiary at best, assuming there is only one type of "other" element.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >a third option to fully represent the spectrum of human sexes
            there isn't a 3rd NEEDED human sex.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It does however exist, you don't need arms and legs to be a human either, but we don't go circumcising all the infant's limbs just because you don't understand counting or necessity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >It does however exist
            chill on the guilt tripping dude

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you don't need arms and legs to be a human either
            yeah we do, historically speaking. genetic blueprint kinda makes it obvious. just like "3rd option" would go extinct it not being functional and all. if humans without limbs would have been functional we would have more born natural that way, since it wouldn't matter for their success in the environment.
            you shouldn't post here if you are not an adult.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We can represent it fully with two sexes, like we can represent all numbers in a "decimal" system. Inventing new "sexes" is redefining words for your current political agenda though.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, you sound like moronic physicists who say everything adds up exactly how they say because they account for a dark number anywhere that doesn't add up to their predictions.

            >decimal
            The decimal system isn't a binary and even the decimal system can't account for every number or you wouldn't need pi and e and all the other irrational and trans numbers that can't be completely described using only decimals.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      intersex /ĭn′tər-sĕks″/
      noun
      1. An intersexual individual.
      2. The condition of being intersexual.
      3. Any of a variety of conditions (in a dioecious species) whereby an individual has characteristics of both sexes.
      >both sexes
      >both

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, so its not binary, its a spectrum because there are numerous third options that blend two extremes.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          both /bōth/
          adjective
          1. One and the other; relating to or being two in conjunction.
          "Both guests have arrived. Both the books are torn. Both her fingers are broken."
          2. The one and the other; the two; the pair, without exception of either.
          3. (used with count nouns) two considered together; the two.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes and if you are both sexes, you have combined properties instead of just one or the other you are not one or the other, it is not a simple binary choice, you are a third option that combines various elements of two extremes and there are numerous ways the two extremes can be combined to result in novel other options that don't conform to either one or the other as a binary choice would.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Is the house in this picture red? Or is it white? Or is it a color other than red or white?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, it is all those things, not just one or the other as a binary choice would be.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Would you say that by painting the house this way, we've invented a new color? What's the hex code of this color?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You showed a new color scheme for the house that is neither simply red nor simply white, but a spectrum of several colors that also includes blue, orange, and grey, so it has absolutely nothing to do with any binary.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Okay let's put it another way, I approach you with the request to color my unique fursona with the same color as the house. Post your result.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The house is not made of one color, it is a unique color scheme with numerous different colors, so it would be moronic to paint your fursona only one color as a way to mimic the house's multicolored palette.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Complete the request and post your result.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The request is moronic and nonsensical since the house is not one color, so there is no way to make the picture the same color as the house, if you wanted the nose to be the same color as the door, that would be one thing, but you can't choose the color of the house since the house is several different colors, you could apply a similar palette, but not the same color.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Doesn't matter, the one making the request is a murderous lunatic and your funkopops are at the stake. No ifs or buts. You need to paint it somehow, fast.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I would color it shit brown and derp the eyes to make it match the nature of your shitty moronic request.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The insincerity of your solution pissed the maniac off. Your limited edition Wonder Woman just bit the dust. He insists that while the shit brown appeals to one of his furry fetishes, the house isn't even arguably colored like that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the house isn't even arguably colored like that.
            Its is though, if you mashed all the colors together like combining all the different paints used, the result would be shit brown just like shitty scenario your shit brain shat out.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The maniac is fuming now. He looks ready to decapitate your original series Captain America. He says, "If that is true, then prove it. Post the hex code of the mashed color."

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            We don't negotiate with shit terrorists, the maniac will just have to choke on his own shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The maniac goes nuclear and calls you transphobic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The maniac dies of a stroke and you eat the shit out of his ass before eventually dying of blood poisoning as his shit seeps into your herpes sores.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And after you've finished this delicious buffet, one question still lingers in your mind: "What actually was the hex code...?" You sit down with a pencil and a paper and scratch down a six character hexadecimal number. What's the number?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            #7b5804

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You ponder some more about this code and realize that it also averages the grass around the house instead of just the house. "Nah, this can't be it", you mutter to yourself. You try the task again.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, I didn't factor in the color of the grass, the trees, the bushes, the vehicles, the sky or the shed into account, if you think so, prove it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Where did the green 58 come from?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The orange, white, and grey being doped down by the more prevalent red and the blue.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If the white and grey contribute so much, then why is blue only 04

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because there is only a small amount of it on the door much less than the amount of white and grey.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But white and grey also contain blue in the same proportion as the green

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yet they aren't present in the same proportions as the red and orange in the house color palette.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But the red contains neither green nor blue and the orange is maybe a quarter of the picture and also under 58 green on average.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then why are you spending all this time trying to arguing about the thing you said wasn't even arguable?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When I tell you "meet me tomorrow at the red house down the lane and I'll give you the one million dollars", and you're walking down a lane of houses, all of which have the average hex code of 202C44, and then there is one house that has the hex code of 7B5804, which one would you expect to meet me at? Clearly, there is no red house!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            People don't always give perfectly precise directions, wow, what a deep fundamental truth of reality you have stumbled upon.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So then why would you ever go "ackchually the house isn't red since if you take the foundation and different shade of the roof into account it's averages a little bit more like brown but what's a brown color anyway? Just another social construct devised by fascists"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I never said that, it is red and it is orange and it is blue and it is grey because it is not painted based on binary rules, it incorporates a spectrum of colors.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So if I said "meet me at the blue house" instead, and you're walking down a lane of houses, all of which have the average hex code of 202C44, and then there is one house that has the hex code of 7B5804, would you expect to meet me at the house 7B5804 because it has a blue door?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I would call you moronic for describing them that way instead of just giving an address.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it would be moronic and nonsensical to try to put someone that simultaneous has characteristic of both sexes into one box which is why intersex exists in the first place and definitely proves OP's binary hypothesis wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            My autistic friend, please enlighten me, what's the point of a sex?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            To make tradgays like you seethe at the fact your stupid traditions don't actually match reality.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I, a "tradgay", will live to see my 5 children become a new generation of hecking bigoted fascists and transphobes. You will stroke your dick in a dark corner and have a nice day before your 3rd decade after you get your latest HIV results. You sure made me seethe.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, you will have a nice day alone in a retirement home surrounded by ESL nurses who hate you because your cheap troony kids will be too embarrassed to even text you let alone visit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Imagine a children's choir in traditional slavic dresses surrounding your dead body, singing "you will never be a woman" in angelic voices.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Tell it to your sons, that isn't something I have to worry about since I grew up in the 70s with glass bottles and paper bags, you are the one raising kids in the age of widespread microplastic contamination overdosing them on estrogen while they are growing and making them all excessively feminized.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you are the one raising kids in the age of widespread microplastic contamination overdosing them on estrogen while they are growing and making them all excessively feminized.
            So is this something you are proud of? The great troony heritage?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, you are the one obviously proud of it since you are the one bragging about sacrificing a bunch of kids to the troony altar of modernity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >sacrificing a bunch of kids to the troony altar of modernity
            I said the exact opposite of that. Is this the ashkenazi schizophrenia I keep hearing about?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No you didn't, you said you purposely had kids which means you knowingly created new people just to make them suffer modernity and die.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No you didn't, you said you purposely had kids which means you knowingly created new people just to make them suffer modernity and die.
            No, we reject modernity and embrace tradition.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, you totally reject modernity from the comfort of a traditionally degenerate internet forum.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The internet is a smorgasbord, you take what you like and leave what you don't. Some autistic individuals have a hard time understanding this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Sure, so you can go back to posting on social media about how hard you reject modernity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Social media is a tool. I use it because it's convenient for me, not because I let it walk all over me and convince me that 2 plus 2 is 5. Like how you buy a lawnmower to mow your lawn, not to mow down your penis.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I use it
            I know, I already pointed out that you didn't actually reject modernity and you are actively sacrificing children to it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You think that my life depends on this place? No, I'll have a little fun and then drop it like a wet rag. Your idea of sacrificing children is inane and shows your fragility. My children don't just collapse to adversity like some neurotic troony would.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know, but I do know you probably don't even have children and even if you did they would definitely suffer as a result of your obviously social media addiction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Complete the request and post your result.

            There's a maniac in your house that says "if you don't paint my fursona the same color as the house, I'll destroy your funkopop collection". You start to cry and realize that you have no other choice but to comply with his crazy request, although you'll have to figure out how he meant it. After all, maybe he wanted it colored like the two-pixel door hinge...?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's a red house bro

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Houses don't have gametes, you dumb Black person

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You will never be a woman

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >male mutant
      >female mutant
      they explain it pretty well

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Even the Intersex can only produce one kind of Gamete.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I almost wonder if there are any significant regime changes in the next century or two, if they'd call science something different to get away from its tarnished reputation.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      common sense and academia will always be separate and opposite things

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Academia is not science. Even most people within the academic system agree that it doesn't deserve good reputation, majority just aren't ballsy enough to admit that in context of incendiary topics like gender or vaccines or whatever the frick /misc/ is obsessing right now. And almost none are ready to admit that they themselves have benefited from the shittiness at some points in their career.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand what about this is so difficult
    To prove the existence of a third sex, you have to show the existence of a third gamete that isn't sperm or egg, and you have to show that its integral to the fertilization process. That's what would make a third sex.

    • 1 month ago
      bodhi

      >I don't understand
      allow me to explain ole chap ........ israelitery

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No, you just have to prove such a thing exists not that it is integral and it does exist and will be integral to artificial conception.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No, you have to prove it's integral to the fertilization process, and you have to prove that there exists a person with organs that produce these gametes and use them for fertilization.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No, you just have to prove a third option exists to prove there is a third possibility.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, you have to prove it's actually integral to sexual reproduction, as that's what sex is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No its not, sex is not just sexual reproduction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >sex is not just sexual reproduction.
            it is literally just about sexual reproduction. so much so that it had to make you feel real good about doing it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, its also for division of labor, there wouldn't be secondary sex characteristics if it was all only about reproduction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            precisely why we're going to engineer humans to make females large and fecund and males small and athletic

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The way of the ant, they beat you silly monkeys to every other civilization milestone from agriculture to architecture, so why wouldn't you follow their lead when it comes to sexual division.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ants are haplodiploidy so males carry one set of chromosomes while females carry two. However, most mammals have larger females than males including about one-quarter of mammals. The idea that males are bigger is just a lie, males are almost always smaller

            >it doesn't hurt us
            kinda does tho, at societal level we're wasting time attention and resources to entertain insanity. if gender is a social/mind construct then let's transition their brains to match their bodies. surely they'd be better off because they'd be really happy with the bodies they have. incentivizing it the other way around can only create more pain and drama, if it's a mind construct. especially since they can't perfectly transition at DNA level, yet.

            I'm not hurt by trans men or trans women having access to hormones. I just don't want them claiming that sex isn't real. I'm a pedant

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Most animals* not mammals. About one-quarter of mammals have larger females than males, about 90% of animals have female-biased SSD

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >The idea that males are bigger is just a lie
            Not when talking about humans since males are usually bigger and that is usually when people are talking about men being bigger than women.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Not for long.
            I'm sorry for my absence, anons

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its true for now, so its true, so its not a lie, your assumption that things will change in a certain way is a much less truthful statement.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he doesn't know

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      720 gametes have already been found though

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nope

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/paris-zoo-blob-1.5325747
          >The 'blob,' an organism with no brain but 720 sexes, debuts at Paris zoo

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            yes it's a fungus. Fungi aren't anisogamous but this has been known for a while, although most fungi are isogamous anyway.
            All plants and animals are anisogamous. You're not a slime mold

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You're not a slime mold
            I'm not, but have you looked around? A lot of people are...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >anyone who disagrees with me is a piece of shit
            gold tier cognitive abilities

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm calling people fat you mongoloid.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            my bad then

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It's just the recent vaxxie who can't admit said vaxx fricked him up (argues in the same very israeli way). Guess he's troon aligned too who knew

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Love the replies proving OP right. Science as a way of understanding reality is just downloading the latest update of regime beliefs
    >but muh soientific method and change over time
    ancient regimes also updated their beliefs over time and had some stated rationale for believing these things (sun eclipse, therefore best available scientific proof grug god is angry ) and promulgated it to their priesthood class

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If that was true science wouldn't have been so helpful in creating technology. The problem isn't the scientific method, it's the way universities have been taken over by ideology and indoctrination.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    trannies are the same kind of shit human like any other human. they ask for as much as they can get and they will become tyrannical just like any other human would, if allowed. getting denied (especially on entertaining your mental disease too much) is healthy for society.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand why this is such a big hill to die on tbh. We can support trans people while understanding that they aren't the other sex. The gender/sex distinction is the one that makes the most sense

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't understand why this is such a big hill to die on tbh.
      well it's science anon. it's not healthy for us to play along their mental illness, too much. I get the acceptance thing and nothing wrong with that. but corrupting science to protect their feefees is not smart, or sane.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes religion is a mental illness, thanks for pointing out we shouldn't pander to them when making biological models based on biology that clearly defies their traditions.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          evolution anon. form shaped by the environment. I get the transhumanist genetic manipulation argument, in the absolute sense sure, transition to a fricking dragon. if you're not a drama queen about it I don't care

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes and the environment is chaotic, so the form it was shaped into is something a bit more versatile than simple binary, just in case.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > A bit more versatile.

            In what way are infertile DSD's and people who experience significant mental anguish at the thought of being their natal sex "more versatile" than typical phenotypic human males/females?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I disagree. Transitioning helps trans people, it doesn't hurt us to allow trans men or women to have access to hormones if it helps them. The problems only start arising when they start claiming that sex isn't real or whatever.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >it doesn't hurt us
          kinda does tho, at societal level we're wasting time attention and resources to entertain insanity. if gender is a social/mind construct then let's transition their brains to match their bodies. surely they'd be better off because they'd be really happy with the bodies they have. incentivizing it the other way around can only create more pain and drama, if it's a mind construct. especially since they can't perfectly transition at DNA level, yet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No by saying there must be a binary, you are forcing them to spend extra resources transitioning when they could just be somewhere in between, exactly who they are, instead of trying to conform to some false duality.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you would not be forcing them to do anything that they aren't forced to do right now, as in take chemicals to support what they wanna be.

            Ants are haplodiploidy so males carry one set of chromosomes while females carry two. However, most mammals have larger females than males including about one-quarter of mammals. The idea that males are bigger is just a lie, males are almost always smaller
            [...]
            I'm not hurt by trans men or trans women having access to hormones. I just don't want them claiming that sex isn't real. I'm a pedant

            I'm in the camp that you do whatever the frick you want to do with your body. just don't make it an issue for me, don't use your drama as an excuse for anything really.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They wouldn't have to take chemicals if you let them be themselves instead of forcing them to conform to some false dualism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            if it's a mind construct what they feel like being is absolutely changeable by definition. plenty of "cmon just try it out see how it feels" bait on basically every form of social media. "cmon just try it see how it feels" well clearly you'll start obeying the chemicals you're taking which support being a certain something. it's like saying if you take cocaine you reach your natural state of happiness. yeah no shit, chemical go to brain make you feel certain way.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They wouldn't have people telling them there are only two sexes and they might be unhappy because they are the wrong sex and they would be happier if they transitioned to the other. Instead they would be told that they need more strength or nurturing and be given chemicals that actually lead to a change in strength or nurturing instead of trying to transition to some fake ideal.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I have no problem with people getting hormones or surgery but the ability to speak the truth is highly valuable to a healthy society and the progress of science. And that includes facts like "Trans people are similar to others of the same birth sex in many (though not literally all) ways)" and "People have reasons to care about the concept of sex as distinct from self-assigned gender" and so on. And ostracizing people who notice and talk about these things disproportionately harms people with aspergers, who are the best at advancing science.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        This cowardly, limp wristed attitude is why things have gotten this bad.
        Anyone involved in the troony industry needs to be executed for crimes against humanity.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I have no problem with people getting hormones or surgery but the ability to speak the truth is highly valuable to a healthy society and the progress of science.
        this. I have zero hate for trannies I literally don't care and I'm happy for them if they're happy, and they're not being dicks about it.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the "there are other chromosome pairs other than XX,XY so there are more than 2 genders" doesn't help trannies at all. It would still make gender immutable, unchangeable and no troony could ever change into a man or woman. What's the point of this argument?

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The only way you get 'other' from the male/female binary is through disorders (hence why we call intersex DSD). Therefore it is not the same type as male or female. We are a biologically sexually dimorphic species, but due to typical biology you can have mutations and other issues which affect the phenotype in a way which is incongruent with our chromosomal blueprint. This however shows that a successfully developed phenotype (no DSD) exists as a binary.
    To equate DSD to successfully developed phenotypes is the pitfall that trans ideology falls into and their only recourse at that point is to resort to post-modern thinking (DSD's don't exist, DNA doesn't have functions, etc) - this shows how they have an ideologically defined conclusion and follow any pathway to reach it which ultimately is not scientific

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >its not technically a binary, but it makes me feel better to assume that it is

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There are no assumptions here, my reasoning is quite clear: it is a binary when you define it in terms of bodily construction, this only changes if you alter how the body is constructed (e.g. DNA doesn't function properly)

        It's probably more fair to say that: a successful development of chromosomal sex results in a binary state. A non-successful development is where 100% of the spectrum stuff occurs. We can separate these off quite cleanly

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I think sex only makes sense insofar as it relates to sexual reproduction, and in that sense we definitely have only two sexes: The one producing small gametes, and the one producing large gametes. Anyone else is essentailly sexless, even though they may share characteristics with either of these groups.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That would be super helpful if other people's reality ran off of your thoughts, but if they did, you wouldn't have to anonymously pawn off your shitty thoughts onto other people, they would simply manifest themselves.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous
          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It's not that reality follows my thoughts, it's that my thoughts follow reality. Biological sex is a useful category because it predicts who can reproduce with who. 'Gender' predicts what? Who'll wear what clothing? Except crossdressers exist already. And why use a word for clothing styles that's already in use for sex? It just reinforces the sexist idea that there should be a connection between them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Possibly yeah, gametes is currently one of the best explanations in terms of being able to point towards physical objects as proof. I do have to think though, gametes themselves are a result of a developmental pathway - I do believe we can go a level higher. Also in my experiences with debating people on the other side, they can point out some 1 in a billion example where a human produced 2 gametes for a small moment in time and they proudly proclaim that this proves sex is a spectrum.

            Honestly I think the whole debate is currently a victim of our lack of understanding DNA to a greater level. However as you say with gametes, plus there is no true third sex in terms of a participant in reproduction (there are only 2 gametes in humans), and the natural selection pressures which gave clear 'intent' to our evolutionary preference for a 'male' and 'female' binary types (this reflects broadly across the animal kingdom also), and on top of this the ONLY way for an intersex person to develop is a result of a construction defect. All of these together point very strongly to sex (in terms of DNA) being a binary. I do feel sad that a lot of doctors seem to ignore these important aspects of biology, but on the other hand they are only human and it does probably feel empathic for them to state that it is a spectrum

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If you determine credibility by agreement with you then you have no credibility

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how would a third sex even look like? and how would any of the "first" two sexes be aroused by it? I mean if you were to design it at will, from the ground up, how would you do it and why like that?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Plenty of people are into futa and c**tboys in porn. If I could I'd make fully fertile dickgirls and c**tboys as common as ordinary men and women, hopefully that's make it more obviously stupid to say that wanting a word for people you can reproduce with means thinking they're all really the same gender in whatever sense makes that transphobic. Though maybe it wouldn't help considering how crazy that is already.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Go outside.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Use your imagination.
      There could be a situation where two partners are needed for their gametes but need a third gender to accept gametes and rear the child.
      There could be a sterile third gender that serves a different role within the species aside from reproducing.
      There could be a species where the haploid phase are identical but they produce a short-lived gametophyte offspring that can mate with any other gametophyte phase individual. In this case there would be no real concept of gender.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the issue is you're not a third gender, you're a crossdressing pervert

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      me

      Plenty of people are into futa and c**tboys in porn. If I could I'd make fully fertile dickgirls and c**tboys as common as ordinary men and women, hopefully that's make it more obviously stupid to say that wanting a word for people you can reproduce with means thinking they're all really the same gender in whatever sense makes that transphobic. Though maybe it wouldn't help considering how crazy that is already.

      yeah but that's recycling wiener and c**t. nothing new just swapped.

      Use your imagination.
      There could be a situation where two partners are needed for their gametes but need a third gender to accept gametes and rear the child.
      There could be a sterile third gender that serves a different role within the species aside from reproducing.
      There could be a species where the haploid phase are identical but they produce a short-lived gametophyte offspring that can mate with any other gametophyte phase individual. In this case there would be no real concept of gender.

      >Use your imagination.
      can't really I'm not into tentacle porn and that shit. hence why I was asking you. really curious how someone would design a 3rd on such that it plays well with what exists, but is clearly different. I mean at this point where we could design a 3rd sex reproduction is a moot point, that can be done anyway. 3rd sex is not solving an issue, it's clear hedonism for the sake of sexual pleasure.
      I'm thinking like Pandora type shit from Avatar, that kind of redesign. just adding more sloppy wieners in sloppy c**ts isn't really a 3rd sex

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        For something creative, how about ovipositors? I guess they're a little like wieners but not that much. And if they plant their eggs in female's wombs you get all three sexes playing a role in reproduction.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          dunno. women don't seem to enjoy carrying babies. if we get full control I'd just put some super-sensor thing on one finger and have it trigger intense pleasure and orgasm when you touch fingers with someone else. cleaner and don't have to take my pants off and shit like that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      see

      https://i.imgur.com/uRV02bm.jpg

      intersex /ĭn′tər-sĕks″/
      noun
      1. An intersexual individual.
      2. The condition of being intersexual.
      3. Any of a variety of conditions (in a dioecious species) whereby an individual has characteristics of both sexes.
      >both sexes
      >both

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Non-scientists don’t have a problem understanding basic reality.
    What ?
    Where did you get that ?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The other 42% were probably "environmental" scientists or worse yet, psychologists

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    > article simply calls results majority
    We need to start pressuring journalists to headline the actual numbers in studies rather than just say majority agrees or minority disagrees.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I cannot imagine anyone serious treating it any other than binary, they probably just assume its better to pretend fairy tales exist just to be safe.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It really all depends on how you define the term, as with all things. Usually surveys like these don't define terms, and I tend to think that is often on purpose to leverage the ambiguity of whatever the (meaningless) results are seeking to imply.

      It's just rage bait. It's rage bait and propaganda. It should go in the bin and be ignored like most worthless surveys.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's because you're a white rural moron and you will be dealt with in time.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I cannot imagine anyone serious treating it any other than binary, they probably just assume its better to pretend fairy tales exist just to be safe.

        I'm just trolling and didn't mean to come off so mean

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >you will be dealt with in time.
        Gee, I really want to watch that. Go do it

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >imagine if only 58 percent of physicists would agree that gravity exists

    Isn't there actually a big divide on the existence of gravity as an independent force vs an emergent side effect of other forces?

    Anyway, yes sex is binary but from a long term perspective the "status" of its binary nature from a genetic perspective has been changing over millions of years. So I can understand the hesitation of affirming it as a indisputable fact if you have full knowledge of its hypothetical development.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    turns out they don't want to lose their jobs

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      which is a clear sign we must continue to entertain lunacy. there's no trace of tyrannical tendencies, clearly. science is free to speak its mind without consequences.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Peer pressure is the death of science and has absolutely rotted this world.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The few who are as committed to science as Galileo was end up getting the same treatment he did from the academic crowd.
      How do people who say soiyence isn't a religion explain that?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The guy who told surgeons to wash their hands before surgery was thrown into a mental asylum, where he was later beaten to death.

        The community's response after? "Well maybe if he was nicer to me...".

        Humans suck so much lol.

  18. 1 month ago
    i post on /sci/ i is smart

    what happens when science allows us to freely change our sex to what ever combo we want, you ignorant bigot scum?
    frick off to /misc/
    this board is for enlightened people only

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Then people will be able to actually change sex, instead of bullying and threatening everyone into pretending they've changed sex? I don't see how this was supposed to be a point in your favor.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The human race, as a species, is meant to be moronic.

    This, I believe. One-hundred percent.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm a human but not moronic. Explain that

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You are the outlier in a world of morons.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    God hates scientists

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      at this point it's like dealing with children. why do they even bother in using "God" instead of "me and my friends"? it's silly
      >sure sweetie, "God"...
      >I'm just buying them for a friend, clearly it's not for me

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Well, if there is a God he certainly hates the miserable wretches that make up the progressive LGBTQ space. Have you ever seen a more pathetic and loathesome group of people? They hate themselves because they can't be normal and then project that hatred outward onto the rest of the world rather than trying to actually reflect and understand it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >if there is a sufficiently godlike alien intelligence that for some reason hates same sex interactions
          “God”

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I wasn't saying God hates the same sex interactions. If they exist, they may very well be ambivalent about that.

            They certainly hate gays as people, otherwise they'd be capable of being homosexuals without being miserable homosexuals all the damn time. If there's any evidence that if a deity exists they hate the gays, it's that gay people are generally shit people who are incapable of being normal and well adjusted outside of their sexual proclivities.

            If there were more gay people who were just fricking normal and weren't obviously mentally ill and tortured, you might have more of a point. At the moment, I can't think of a more completely insane and wretched sub-genre of the human experience than the progressive LGBTQ.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >if there is a God he certainly hates
          >They hate themselves
          >and then project that hatred outward onto the rest of the world
          why is it so hard for you to say you hate them? why do you always have to invoke God? why can't you own up to it and use God as a proxy? think that makes you less guilty or something? it's like having a sock-puppet and using it to communicate shit that doesn't make you feel good. it's childish and clearly weird. don't you see it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I do hate them. I don't hate them for their sexual behaviors or identity or any of that. As far as I'm concerned, they could spend all damn day sucking wieners and cutting their own dicks off and it wouldn't matter in the slightest if they could also be a normal human being outside of their sexual behaviors.

            For some reason they are consistently incapable of this. That's what I hate them for, not the sexual activities they get up to (which properly have no bearing on my life). I hate them because they are miserable homosexuals outside of their sexual life. If they could just be normal but with a slight difference in their sexual behaviors or identification it wouldn't matter. They can't, and instead need to make it everyone else's problem when we all just want to mind our own fricking business.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dunno dude, for example I see them as victims.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Victims of their own behavior and lack of introspection?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, more of their own circumstances. Family, friends, culture, society at large, current state of things, neverending stream of bullshit, fricked up future and perspectives, cognitive dissonance with society's values and what is actually happening. Corporations. Religion

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, so everything but their own behavior. Got it. Why do you hold these people so precious that they can't be held accountable for their own actions and expected to at least attempt to maintain control of their mental state (like everyone else is)?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well it's like abusing the frick out of someone and then expecting them to brush it off just because you ask them to. This is where The Church is weaponizing free will.
            >you should free willingly forgive my abuse or I'll abuse you some more
            It always comes down to this dupe.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >abusing the frick out of someone
            nowadays, no one is abusing the frick out of those animals before they open their mouth and force people to celebrate their degeneracy.
            the animals need to be leashed. they're running rampant.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe you and I have been raised in very different circumstances. I did not experience significant religious pressure growing up, and it was fairly common for people to be either openly gay, or very obviously gay by their behavior even if they didn't know it yet themselves.

            Generally the only time these people were treated poorly by other people in our age group were when they were very obnoxious about things. If you just kind of left people alone and didn't make your sexuality the problem of other people, it didn't matter much.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Maybe you and I have been raised in very different circumstances. I did not experience significant religious pressure growing up, and it was fairly common for people to be either openly gay, or very obviously gay by their behavior even if they didn't know it yet themselves.
            I wasn't more than anyone else in a Christian country.
            People do shit based on two factors. Either genetic, either environmental. Pick your poison. There's no gay souls. Or souls.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            best way for them to no longer be victims is to kill themselves.
            those fricking degenerate homosexuals have their heads stuck in their asses for so long their brain is full of shit. they can literally just shut up and do degenerate in their bedroom and no one say anything. but no, the c**ts have to open their mouths for people to know they're stupid narcissist self centered degenerates that deserve to be castrated.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      tsmt

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's kind of funny how we have such a vague definition of scientist but it is used as such a strong word. Why would I listen to a scientist, who cares what a chemist thinks about this. Ask biologist if anything not "scientists"

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I hate troonys homosexuals and they should all either shut up or kill themselves.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    churchBlack folk like the pope are even celebrating those pieces of shit.
    church weaponizing my ass. even non religious people like me hate the troons to the bone. I didn't even care about them until recently.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >celebrating
      his thing is acceptance I think. not celebration. but I think he did call out the gender ideology, recently.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >his thing is acceptance
        I don't care whether it's acceptance or celebration. can't even bother to give two shit to what the pop says more than surface level. the main point is that no one, even the church, is abusing those c**ts. on the contrary, they're abusing everyone by forcing normal people to treat their degeneracy like some golden shit that everyone needs to digest.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          well if there's a few steps in between it doesn't mean it's not because of it. and I'm not specifically calling out the church on this as the pwers that be, society at large, you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I hate troons because they're loud and obnoxious and pushy. they're the cause of all this hatred for them.
            I take full responsibility for my hatred of troons. churchBlack folk have nothing to do with it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            well class clowns were always a sign that something is wrong at home. society clowns signals that something is deeply wrong at society level. it's like a serious signal. acting like it isn't with no clue of why it happens is pretty fake imo.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody is combatting central banking and a major political party runs on increasing taxes and creating gibs for ne'erdowells. Clowns are a symptom.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            truth is to be discovered not assembled.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Those who give money for the research can say whatever agenda they want to push it and scientists will start repeating it, because they were paid enough to shut up

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The problem isn't understanding basic reality. The problem is how you interpret the question. Sex =/= Gender. Spout your opinion all you want, there are only 2, etc, the thing is gender is treated philosophically as a construct. You are male but you can "identify" as an ogre, because both ogres and what you identify as are both concepts of the mind. In an ideal society, you could be whatever you want and no one would attack you for it, simple as.
    Now if you want to talk FACTUAL SEX, then there is male and female. This is important for medical reasons.
    Like the image says
    >imagine if only 58% of physicists would agree gravity exists
    They say that like they're so smart, but you literally *can* call into question the existence of the nature of gravity. Obviously if you drop a pencil it fricking falls but why?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Sex = gender

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That's a cool opinion and I want you to go read the definition of sex and definition of gender.
        You can think gender is equal to sex but you can't think sex is equal to gender. Why? Simple, because gender is a thought construct and sex is a biological function.
        There's a reason they are two separate words.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Sex = gender

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That's a cool opinion and I want you to go read the definition of sex and definition of gender.
      You can think gender is equal to sex but you can't think sex is equal to gender. Why? Simple, because gender is a thought construct and sex is a biological function.
      There's a reason they are two separate words.

      Again, to the average bloke on the side of the road, sex and gender both mean indistinguishable concepts. Synonyms.

      "Um, ackchyually, I think you mean gender, not sex" will be met with "Shut up you pretentious semantic homosexual".

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The average bloke will talk about fitness chicks, trad wifes, emo girls, butches and all kinds of different gender expressions.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Why did you suddenly change gender to gender expression?

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Image if you could survey all certified scientists, I would what the number would be

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine if you were an electrician. Now lets say a movement arises that states that electrons can carry a positive OR a negative electric charge. Of course a few sparkies stand up and say that's wrong, that electrons only have a negative charge. This is so obvious to you that you have been ignoring all this nonsense. But then you hear those sparkies who spoke out have all been fired from their jobs.They cant get another job, at least not one near the earning potential of their old ones. They begin to default on their mortgages, and so many lose their homes. Some lose their families too. Of course there are still a few brave sparkies left. Some of them even make public appearances, go on social media and complain about this state of affairs. Some even appear on TV interviews. Surely sense will prevail. But they get fired and lose their jobs too. The comfortable security they once enjoyed after years of training and building up their skills and experience is gone. Since these guys have now appeared in public they also get physically assaulted, spat upon, and have screaming mobs rail against them on the street. They are compared to Nazis.

    To your utter amazement the general public doesn't come out in full support of the electricians. Maybe they were all too bored in school to pay much attention to the science lessons on electricity. They are apathetic. Maybe some of the public are pissed off because the Sparkies charge ridiculous call out fees and bill for a full hour for a 15 minute job. "Wish we got paid to travel to work at the factory every day. Would be nice to clock out 45 minutes early and still get paid for the full hour."

    So all this goes down and then one day someone comes to your door and asks your views on the electric charges carried by electrons. You look out at your comfortable middle class existence before answering. Wife has dinner cooking inside. Your kids bikes are lying on your well maintained front lawn. How do you respond, b***h?

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are two types of gametes. That makes it binary. Human hermaphrodites don't exist; both gametes have never been observed together in the same individual.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Also, even if some humans are subject to damage so that they cannot produce gametes, it doesn't magically turn them into a third sex, because there is no third gamete. It doesn't matter when this damage occurs; a man who's in an accident and loses his testicles is just a man who was in an accident, not a third gender. When or how doesn't make a difference, so it doesn't matter if the damage is done to the male while he's still in the womb.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Queer theory is obviously a degeneracy taken too seriously. The important questions are about who earns with it and what else they're getting away with because of it.
    >inb4 the germans

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Your logic won't be acceptable on a board titled "science and math" because of the "math" part.

    Most scientists are also at least casual mathematicians. So they subscribe to the idea that if even ONE counterexample to a conjecture is found, it is considered disproven.
    Once that happens, it can be at best "almost true, but...". You can no longer say it's "absolutely indisputable" since the disputing proof literally exists, in basic reality.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Where's the counter example? Have you found an intermediary between sperm and egg or a third option for sexual gametes?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        A hilarious counter example is propecia, a common drug for male pattern baldness. So many men want this gender-affirming drug but the history behind it is not popularized lest the backlash.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finasteride#History

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't understand how a drug that was develop for treatment of children with a disorder of sexual development is indication that there is a counter example to the claim "All human reproduction requires at minimum an ovum and a sperm."

          You appear to be confusing sexual presentation (i.e., secondary sex characteristics) for sex. Someone having a disorder of sexual development which makes them infertile or have ambiguous presentation of sexual characteristics is not a third option for sexual reproduction that is neither sperm nor ovum.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Have you found an intermediary between sperm and egg or a third option for sexual gametes?
        Please clarify: are you saying that one's sex is determined by the gametes that one possesses? i.e. A boy possesses sperm? Or are you saying that it's the sperm themselves are male? Explain yourself.

        Holy shit anon, really cool picrel btw. What is this phenomenon called? Is there a scientific/medical term for this?

        It's called the "flashed face distortion effect."
        Just a fun thing to post whenever someone starts bragging about how they can "see reality as it obviously is" and the like.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you do produce sperm, will produce sperm, or have produced sperm, you are male. If you were born with ovum such that you can menstruate, will menstruate, or have menstruated, you are female.

          If you do not fit into either of these categories due to some difference of sexual development, you are not some third sex. You are sexless. You have no reproductive capacity.

          This is how sexual classifications in mammals (including humans) work.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you are not some third sex. You are sexless.
            contradiction
            "binary" implies exactly 2 classifications
            if you are neither the first classification nor the second classification, you are a third classification (sexless)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You don't understand how classification works.

            You can absolutely have a "neither" answer for a binary hypothesis test. It's not a contradiction to have a classification which has H_0 = "No sex/infertile" and H_1 = {"Male", "Female"}.

            It's just called a composite class. Most classification decisions are composite hypothesis tests with a reject option for "neither."

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then you have nested classifications.
            H_0 is "has no sex" and H_1 is "has a sex" which in turn has two sub-classifications.
            You are merely playing with words at this point.
            If you want to redefine "binary" to mean "two, except for this third thing that doesn't count when I say it doesn't" that's fine, you can mentally jack off all you want, but don't expect anyone with a brain to agree with you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's literally how all classifications work.

            It's the same way that you'd have a classification based on sex for a particular species which is conditioned on the classification of whether or not they even are the correct species.

            This is literally how nested taxa function you dolt. Yes, of the human beings which can be meaningfully classified as organisms capable of sexual reproduction (either currently, in the past or in the future) they are entirely characterized by "male" or "female."

            A "third sex" would mean that there is a third option for the category of organisms "human beings which are capable of sexual reproduction" to have. That's how taxonomy functions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            that's just a pile of circular logic.
            if i decide that a human without reproductive capability is still a human, then i need at least one more class to describe that human, don't i?

            >literally how all classifications work
            >that's how taxonomy functions
            so in your opinion, those in the field should argue that, say, a hinny has no sexual classification?
            that is: not "sexless", not "neuter", or whatever, but that "no classification, defined or undefined, exists"?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Holy shit anon, really cool picrel btw. What is this phenomenon called? Is there a scientific/medical term for this?

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >human sex is binary
    This is a loaded statement. If you ask the average person if they agree, they probably would, but if you asked a scientist who works with intersex people, they would probably not agree.

    You could argue that intersex conditions shouldn’t be counted because they’re an exception to the rule, but how far could you logically take that argument.

    >which hand do humans use to write?

    Should we not say both because left handed people are exceptions to the rule? The answer is that this question is loaded like the original question. A better question would be:

    >on average, is sex binary
    Or
    >on average, which hand do humans use to write

    Look past semantics, you’ll save yourself a lot of headache.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If you are making the claim that sex is bimodal rather than binary, answer this simple question.

      What is the x axis of the bimodal distribution?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I’m not making any claim about sex. I just had a relevant meme so I posted it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It is implied with your statement "on the average sex is binary."

          If sex is not binary in total, and is only binary on the average, there must be some variation or intermediary which allows for this binary to exist in the average but not in all realizations.

          This is true for certain secondary sex characteristics, but these are indicators of sexual presentation, not sex itself. A male, for example, could have more breast tissue than a particular female. This secondary sex characteristic is bimodal in this way.

          What is not, however, is their fundamental sex. The female produces large gametes, the male produces small gametes. The only possible form of human reproduction (natural or in a test tube) is fertilization of a large gamete with a small gamete. This means that humans (as are all mammals) are binary in sex.

          Presentation is entirely separate.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >some mutant babies in an indian shithole are born with tentacles instead of a normal limbs, that means humans are a tentacled species
    lol
    lmao, even

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    the other 42% were scientists in the fields of humanities

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *