Yeah, I read that. I still reserve the right to reject your analogy because I don't accept it as relevant or analogue to anything. You can't go "don't say these things that disagree with me" and expect me to shrug my shoulders and go along.
Cool, you're only now even contemplating what I've been talking about for several posts. Ovarian agenesis, Mayer-Rokitansky-Küster-Hauser syndrome, anorchia.
So it's not the size of gametes but some secondary structures vaguely involved in the development of structures that are involved in the production of gametes. Did I get that right?
All I'm hearing is "If my shitty behaviour as a tourist in your country towards people in the service industry makes a person in the service industry feel bad, that's their own fault (also here are some truisms about connection that seem neither here nor there)" and I SERIOUSLY hope that's not what you're saying.
Okay, cool, you did understand me though, yeah? Gonna explain what you meant earlier? The feeling of being scolded for something I said and not knowing what is one up with which it's hard to put.
No that's not what I mean. People can be born without ovaries, uterus, vagina (but have a vulva). People can also be born without testes (but have a scrotum and penis). They do not possess these organs, they are nowhere in their bodies. That's what I was talking about in the very beginning.
Are you then going to answer my question and tell me what size gamete a body without either ovaries, uterus, and vagina, but a vulva, is "organised" around? Or are you going to shift the goalposts further? First it was "size of gametes", now its "organised around a size" and I still don't know what that even means.
Yep, good thing none of us has done that.