Did you understand that anyone who actually knows something about it also knows that sex is more complicated than you claim? Did you understand that you're being a complete arse to trans people? Wait, yes, you knew that one. That was the deliberate part.
- Posts
- 5
- Comments
- 981
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 5
- Comments
- 981
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
I was being sarcastic. Secretly I think you're far, far more stupid than you begin to realise, because everyone who tries to explain what science or scientific method or scientific consensus means has wasted their breath because you'd rather cling to and defend daddy trump's pseudoscience than learn amything. It's willful ignorance and maybe the only cure is when trump's goons kidnap someone you actually care about in real life that you might begin to question him in any meaningful way.
You're so clever, repeating stuff like you do while ignoring the truth of what you reply to. I really respect that.
What the fuck are finding hard about "same thing at the top of several of them" that made you think they were disentangled? If I made maps where only one underground line was on each map it would in no way prove that the lines aren't tangled in real life! Are you completely stupid or is it an act for the purpose of trolling more?
Given that we disagree about the meaning of the word sex and your charts use your definition, why on earth would it be meaningful for you to slap the word male and female on ten diargams that appear unconnected in only the most stupid and superficial sense that they're in separate images, and why the fuck do you think I would fall for such a juvenile ruse?
If your (trump-following) "organised around producing" large gametes or small gametes theory that you've been telling everyone about for days and days on end holds water, have one chart, no duplicated nodes, split by gamete size, no tangles, the body is "organised" around the size of the gametes by your own definition, all the primary and secondary sexual characteristics well easily follow the "organisation" you claim is so definitive.
Or admit that your definition is useless.
You're so clever.
You're good at doubling down.
I'll take that as "no you can't disentangle them"
You:
no u
Me:
I bow before your superior intellect and clever debating points.
Love how you have me ten charts with plenty of overlap and claim that they're all separate but when you look even superficially, you find that they overlap a lot like the original chart!
You claim there are two binary sexes then give me TEN and the male and female ones overlap!
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! You can't even tell the difference between two sexes and ten!
Of course you can't complete the task. It's impossible.
If you like, try again. Two sexes. One chart. No criss-crossing. No sneaky putting the same thing on both the male and female sides of the chart, because it's binary, isn't it? Simply split it by what size of gametes the body is "organised around" producing! Your very own (oh, no, sorry, trump's) definition!
I love that you admit that you can't do it and even that the greatest experts mightn't be able to do it but yet still believe it's a useful definition! It's a useless and crap definition! Actually useless! Complete crap!
Chromosomes are testable. Verifyable. Take a blood sample, some time in the lab and it's done! This is why scientists use them to define sex. Your definition is untestable! It's not science. It's pseudoscience. It sounds plausible because it uses technical terms, and stupid people believe it because it sounds clever. But because you believed trump, who is famously very stupid, you have believed a stupid thing, and you can't stop talking about it, in public!
If I found out that trump had duped me into believing some pseudoscience, I would be ASHAMED. You, not so much.
It's funny that you said elsewhere that this has nothing to do with RFK, yet here you are, behaving exactly like him, Dunning-Kruger lived out in absolute full force.
- The chart describes various variations in sex chromosomes and other factors and how they result in different primary and secondary sexual characteristics
- The chart has many criss-crossing lines; it's very tangled.
- You claim that there are exactly two sexes and that it is simply "organised around" producing small gametes vs "organised around" producing small gametes
- Therefore you should be able to split this chart into your two binary separate sides, your "organised around" producing small gametes side and your "organised around" producing large gametes side, and definitely the primary and surely the secondary sexual characteristics too should be part of that "organisation"
- Whether or not you believe in my understanding of the chart, yours is surely deep and sound, and you can surely demonstrate your far superior understanding and the overwhelming explanatory clarity of your simple definition by untangling this chart into your binary male and female halves with all the criss-crossing lines (that everyone else in the thread keeps bringing up and you keep dismissing peicemeal) now neatly packaged into the two "organised around" binary sides, with all this (according to you) unnecessary tangling gone
- Of course I believe no such chart exists and that your "sex is binary, just use trump's size-of-gametes definition" is a bunch of oversimplified crap that's of no use in either science or life, but you believe in all that shit and peddle it anywhere you think someone trans might be having a good day, so you ought to be able to do it if you're right and sex really is as simply binary as you claim
- Feel free to admit that it's actually a bit more complicated than that. OH WAIT, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT, IT WOULD MEAN YOU'RE WASTING YOUR LIFE ARGUING A USELESS PSEUDOSCIENTIFIC DEFINITION JUST TO FUCK WITH TRANS PEOPLE BECAUSE FOR SOME INSANE LOGIC EVEN MORE SCREWY THAN YOUR DEBATING STYLE YOU THINK TRANS PEOPLE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SHIT TO DEAL WITH.
sex exists regardless of my ability to discern it
- Yes, your abject uselessness at that shines through most things you say. At last something we can agree on.
- So having complained about me calling it unknowable, you admit that it's undiscernable (which is of course completely different /s), we come back to the irrelevance of everything you said to everyday life.
No, I think that unlike you, science is descriptive, explanatory and neutral and that instead of understanding the consensus you pick out one or two outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.
You're just the same as people who believe there's a link between MMR and autism because you found Pons and Fleischman and some nurse you meet swears it's a cover up by big pharma.
- JumpRemoved
There was no other way!
elm is easily the loveliest programming language of any paradigm I've ever come across. Imagine if you enjoyed maintaining an old codebase, or that five years later adding a new feature wouldn't take you half a day to get your had round the insane tangled spaghetti of your project, because the spaghetti and the meatballs and the sauce were always kept separate until cooked and served on the dish by the compiler. You find the spaghetti straight and in bundles because that's how you like them laid out and no one tried to get you to soften them in the warm sauce and thread them through the raw meatballs. Imagine if the compiler did your whole project in about three to five seconds, and was genuinely helpful when something is going to bite you later.
Get your monad burritos here: https://byorgey.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/abstraction-intuition-and-the-monad-tutorial-fallacy/
- JumpRemoved
There was no other way!
I've been through phases when I could explain it, and in far simpler terms, less jargony, than endofunctors
A monad is when you can do shit and return stuff. There are two things you can do in absolutely every doShitAndReturnStuff:
andThen, also known as;in less flexible languages and>>=in more esoteric languages.- And
returnalso known asfunction ret(const a){ ret = a}in other languages.
There are two rules:
(a then b) then c=a then (b then c), which sounds obvious, but I skipped a couple of values being passed (I'm using the kleisli category), and it can actually go wrong, which means that if you don't have a monad but behave like you do, all sorts of subtle and very hard indeed to debug errors can sneak in. See "software complexity problem" for details.ret then somethingrother=somethingorother=somethingorother then ret, which would seem obvious to you if you spotted that ret does nothing, but for fun, it turns out that in a language with a sufficiently advanced/flexible/accurate type system (eg Hindley-Milner stuff), of you manage 2 you get 1 for free, which is totally awesome.
"But what's the point?" I hear all the Python devs say "We already got rid of the curly brackets. What more do you want?" (Which starts a flame war with the C syntax folk while the elm programmers shake their head and wonder why anyone is manually formatting their code whether it's with curly braces or not in 2026).
Well, the point, my dear internet Lunatics that have persisted with this fairly unhelpful and daft re-expression of monads, the point is: what if you could redefine
;locally to totally rewire your programming language and everyone was used to that and understood what you were doing from context? Yesterday it was making database requests, but today it's answering queries on a server. Or authenticating users from the other side of the globe. Maybe now it's a recursive descent parser or a non-deterministic, expanding list of possible future moves in a game.It's totally awesome and powerful and you just don't know that you're missing it because you have no idea unless you already know, but that's not really helping anyone that doesn't already understand monads, sorry. Not that this was a plausible attempt at that. It's more just a bit of humour if you already came across monads. Famously a monad is like a burrito more than anything else.
But unfortunately there are also monad transformer stacks. And... ..operator soup for lenses and prisms. And trust me, you don't want to go there, you really, really don't. Just don't go there, I'm telling you, don't. DID YOU LIKE BEING SANE? I WARNED YOU, REMEMBER.
I think I explained that one pretty well.