Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 14,638
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
The absurd bit of pretense was the idiotic picture with that claim about the feet. I was mocking it.
I don't doubt the geometric and biological influences on stances. I doubt the generalization about the effect on the angle of the feet.
My feet are parallel and I have not had to do a thing. The people I know - male and female - whose foot angles do not follow that claim have not altered their natural stance or gait.
This is Emily not understanding yet again that the thing that changes how someone's feet are positioned is the shape of their pelvis not the shape of their genitals, and the comorbidity is just a trap of confounding data.
If your question is "how does someone stand" the answer is "look at their feet while they are standing", not "look at their junk".
If the question is "what junk does someone have", THEN the answer is "look at their junk." Even so, you should ask yourself WHY you are asking that question and whether you will be slapped (or shot) over trying to get answers
And let's be clear, I will slap someone or worse should they try to find out.
You know, this whole toes thing is funny. When I was young a lot of kids noticed that my own toes turn in "an unexpected way" and then made such differences the basis for teasing. And here we are again grown adults making (not even greatly) noticable cosmetic differences the basis for teasing.
This is an absolutely, 100% irrational and ridiculous response. I was LITERALLY talking about pelvis shape.
It's not my fault that you are ignorant of the differences in pelvis that are sex-linked results of a dimorphic species.
The hilarious part was that you were on about it. You bring up "sex linked" as if it matters, and that's why I laugh at everything you stand for.