Split Gendered spaces, split from Drag Shows

[Emily Lake]

False dichotomy. Gametes don't have types, they are simply themselves, each chromosome being exactly "what you see is what you get".

You are again reducing bitfields to binaries, declaring a fundamental uniform sameness when such is absent from reality.

What the actual fuck are you smoking?

Gametes do have types. This isn't even something that is in doubt. In sexually reproductive species, there are two approaches to gamete fusing - isogamous and anisogamous. All mammals, birds, and indeed most vertebrates are anisogamous species. We have two - and only two - gametes. We have sperm (small motile gametes) and we have eggs (large sessile gametes). There is no sperg, nor is there some third kind of gamete.

Honestly, bud, at this point you're pretty much a flat earther insisting that the human race is only 6000 years old. You've got no basis in actual reality and science, you have wish-washy Deepak Chopra style misinterpretations of pop science that you've wrapped up in a bunch of belief.

Fucking educate yourself.

What are Sexes?​

 

[Emily Lake]

A: Some people who produce semen will be capable of hosting pregnancies.

No humans who produce semen are capable of gestation.

Your fantasies are not reality.

 

[Emily Lake]

Male and female are not statistical objects.

Yes, they are. They are objects taken from the observation of groups to determine common similarities of clusters within the population.

There is no such thing as a platonic man. There is no such thing as a platonic woman.

There never has been.

There never will be.

Oh for fuck's sake. Nobody is talking about idiotic "platonic ideals". We're talking about actual fucking biological categories within a sexually reproducing species. And within that context, male and female are well defined, are binary, and are NOT statistical objects.

 

[Jarhyn]

A: Some people who produce semen will be capable of hosting pregnancies.

No humans who produce semen are capable of gestation.

Your fantasies are not reality.

You have conflated "semen" with semen.

I defined semen very specifically, and some people who ovulate do sometimes produce such a secretion, and various people who produce sperm can gestate.

All that is required is both of "testicular tissue" and "uterus" in the same individual.

There are plenty of such folks.

 

[Jarhyn]

Male and female are not statistical objects.

Yes, they are. They are objects taken from the observation of groups to determine common similarities of clusters within the population.

There is no such thing as a platonic man. There is no such thing as a platonic woman.

There never has been.

There never will be.

Oh for fuck's sake. Nobody is talking about idiotic "platonic ideals". We're talking about actual fucking biological categories within a sexually reproducing species. And within that context, male and female are well defined, are binary, and are NOT statistical objects.

All categories created from the observation of a group and the observation of subgroups are statistical, IE platonic ideals.

Within the context of biology, "sex" is just a brief way to wrongly, but  mostly correctly capture a big complicated system of different structures.

It does a bad job when you try to make it do any more work than that.

 

[Emily Lake]

A: Some people who produce semen will be capable of hosting pregnancies.

No humans who produce semen are capable of gestation.

Your fantasies are not reality.

You have conflated "semen" with semen.

I defined semen very specifically, and some people who ovulate do sometimes produce such a secretion, and various people who produce sperm can gestate.

All that is required is both of "testicular tissue" and "uterus" in the same individual.

There are plenty of such folks.

You have conflated your imagination with reality.

 

[Jarhyn]

A: Some people who produce semen will be capable of hosting pregnancies.

No humans who produce semen are capable of gestation.

Your fantasies are not reality.

You have conflated "semen" with semen.

I defined semen very specifically, and some people who ovulate do sometimes produce such a secretion, and various people who produce sperm can gestate.

All that is required is both of "testicular tissue" and "uterus" in the same individual.

There are plenty of such folks.

You have conflated your imagination with reality.

We have seen names of such folks posted in threads on these forums, their stories.

You are conflating the darkness you see due to the opaqueness of the inside of your rectum with actual darkness of philosophical ignorance.

 

[bilby]

Claiming that the categories of male and female are imaginary is straight up loony tunes.

ALL categories of anything are imaginary.

Do you imagine that you might stumble across a rich outcrop of natural categories while on a hike? That a category might drop on your head and knock you unconscious? That you might stub your toe on a category?

 

[Tigers!]

A: Some people who produce semen will be capable of hosting pregnancies.

No humans who produce semen are capable of gestation.

Your fantasies are not reality.

You have conflated "semen" with semen.

I defined semen very specifically, and some people who ovulate do sometimes produce such a secretion, and various people who produce sperm can gestate.

All that is required is both of "testicular tissue" and "uterus" in the same individual.

There are plenty of such folks.

Do you have a link talking about such folk?

 

[Jarhyn]

A: Some people who produce semen will be capable of hosting pregnancies.

No humans who produce semen are capable of gestation.

Your fantasies are not reality.

You have conflated "semen" with semen.

I defined semen very specifically, and some people who ovulate do sometimes produce such a secretion, and various people who produce sperm can gestate.

All that is required is both of "testicular tissue" and "uterus" in the same individual.

There are plenty of such folks.

Do you have a link talking about such folk?

Seriously? I'm going to give you one opportunity to Google it before I post the wiki link. Then I would like you to come back and apologise for saying something dumb.

 

[Jarhyn]

Claiming that the categories of male and female are imaginary is straight up loony tunes.

ALL categories of anything are imaginary.

Do you imagine that you might stumble across a rich outcrop of natural categories while on a hike? That a category might drop on your head and knock you unconscious? That you might stub your toe on a category?

Not quite. Chemical categories, for example, are real, actual identifiable consistent functions of the universe that happen in observable, consistent ways on the basis of fixed process.

Hydrogen isn't imaginary, it's a function of the universe!

So is oxygen. These live in nice, clean consise categories, even if they are actually state families rather than exact states.

This is different from how biology happens, insofar as biology is WYSIWYG, no gods, no masters, no kings, no reason other than 'chemical go brrrr'.

If the chemical isn't there it doesn't matter what you call it the reaction doesn't happen.

So while you might just stub your toe on some natural category, that still doesn't get you a platonic organism.

Any time you are referring to categories of stuff that may be arbitrarily organized rather than which only organizes in limited, fixed ways, that's when categories get mushy.

 

[Emily Lake]

We have seen names of such folks posted in threads on these forums, their stories.

Horseshit.

I mean, I suppose it's possible that someone wrote some fanfiction that involved an imaginary person who simultaneously produced sperm and gestated a pregnancy, but aside from that... it's not reality.

 

[Emily Lake]

Claiming that the categories of male and female are imaginary is straight up loony tunes.

ALL categories of anything are imaginary.

Do you imagine that you might stumble across a rich outcrop of natural categories while on a hike? That a category might drop on your head and knock you unconscious? That you might stub your toe on a category?

Oh stop playing idiotic solipsistic games. You're half a step away from saying that you can click your heels together and whisk yourself to the omicrom nebula because physics is all just imaginary.

Don't play dumb games.

 

[Emily Lake]

A: Some people who produce semen will be capable of hosting pregnancies.

No humans who produce semen are capable of gestation.

Your fantasies are not reality.

You have conflated "semen" with semen.

I defined semen very specifically, and some people who ovulate do sometimes produce such a secretion, and various people who produce sperm can gestate.

All that is required is both of "testicular tissue" and "uterus" in the same individual.

There are plenty of such folks.

Do you have a link talking about such folk?

Seriously? I'm going to give you one opportunity to Google it before I post the wiki link. Then I would like you to come back and apologise for saying something dumb.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Emily Lake]

Claiming that the categories of male and female are imaginary is straight up loony tunes.

ALL categories of anything are imaginary.

Do you imagine that you might stumble across a rich outcrop of natural categories while on a hike? That a category might drop on your head and knock you unconscious? That you might stub your toe on a category?

Not quite. Chemical categories, for example, are real, actual identifiable consistent functions of the universe that happen in observable, consistent ways on the basis of fixed process.

Hydrogen isn't imaginary, it's a function of the universe!

So is oxygen. These live in nice, clean consise categories, even if they are actually state families rather than exact states.

This is different from how biology happens, insofar as biology is WYSIWYG, no gods, no masters, no kings, no reason other than 'chemical go brrrr'.

If the chemical isn't there it doesn't matter what you call it the reaction doesn't happen.

So while you might just stub your toe on some natural category, that still doesn't get you a platonic organism.

Any time you are referring to categories of stuff that may be arbitrarily organized rather than which only organizes in limited, fixed ways, that's when categories get mushy.

So... it's special pleading for biology because the actual science doesn't support your notion of a special gender soul then?

 

[bilby]

Not quite. Chemical categories, for example, are real, actual identifiable consistent functions of the universe that happen in observable, consistent ways on the basis of fixed process.

Hydrogen isn't imaginary, it's a function of the universe!

Are you sure?

Is a proton hydrogen, or does it need an electron in order to be hydrogen?

If it doesn't need an electron, then how do protons in a helium nucleus stop also being hydrogen atoms?

If it does need an electron, then what is metallic hydrogen doing? And how come a hydrogen ion isn't hydrogen, but a sodium ion is still sodium? Or is it?

Chemical elements are categories, and as such are an imaginary human construct, that we use to impose order on our thoughts about our world. They map fairly closely with a bunch of stuff that's apparently real, but that's not proof that (or even evidence that) they aren't imaginary, and even with an example like this, where the mapping between our imaginings and our reality is very close indeed, we can find discrepancies - places where the categorisation is not particularly helpful as a description of anything real.

 

[Jarhyn]

Claiming that the categories of male and female are imaginary is straight up loony tunes.

ALL categories of anything are imaginary.

Do you imagine that you might stumble across a rich outcrop of natural categories while on a hike? That a category might drop on your head and knock you unconscious? That you might stub your toe on a category?

Not quite. Chemical categories, for example, are real, actual identifiable consistent functions of the universe that happen in observable, consistent ways on the basis of fixed process.

Hydrogen isn't imaginary, it's a function of the universe!

So is oxygen. These live in nice, clean consise categories, even if they are actually state families rather than exact states.

This is different from how biology happens, insofar as biology is WYSIWYG, no gods, no masters, no kings, no reason other than 'chemical go brrrr'.

If the chemical isn't there it doesn't matter what you call it the reaction doesn't happen.

So while you might just stub your toe on some natural category, that still doesn't get you a platonic organism.

Any time you are referring to categories of stuff that may be arbitrarily organized rather than which only organizes in limited, fixed ways, that's when categories get mushy.

So... it's special pleading for biology because the actual science doesn't support your notion of a special gender soul then?

It've already discussed why your definition using gametes is insufficient to address any of your social demands.

Gametes won't even keep out a penis. Some folks have something you would demand be recognized as a penis, and a big old scrotum full of ovaries.

 

[Jarhyn]

Not quite. Chemical categories, for example, are real, actual identifiable consistent functions of the universe that happen in observable, consistent ways on the basis of fixed process.

Hydrogen isn't imaginary, it's a function of the universe!

Are you sure?

Is a proton hydrogen, or does it need an electron in order to be hydrogen?

If it doesn't need an electron, then how do protons in a helium nucleus stop also being hydrogen atoms?

If it does need an electron, then what is metallic hydrogen doing? And how come a hydrogen ion isn't hydrogen, but a sodium ion is still sodium? Or is it?

Chemical elements are categories, and as such are an imaginary human construct, that we use to impose order on our thoughts about our world. They map fairly closely with a bunch of stuff that's apparently real, but that's not proof that (or even evidence that) they aren't imaginary, and even with an example like this, where the mapping between our imaginings and our reality is very close indeed, we can find discrepancies - places where the categorisation is not particularly helpful as a description of anything real.

I stand corrected.

 

[bilby]

Claiming that the categories of male and female are imaginary is straight up loony tunes.

ALL categories of anything are imaginary.

Do you imagine that you might stumble across a rich outcrop of natural categories while on a hike? That a category might drop on your head and knock you unconscious? That you might stub your toe on a category?

Oh stop playing idiotic solipsistic games. You're half a step away from saying that you can click your heels together and whisk yourself to the omicrom nebula because physics is all just imaginary.

Don't play dumb games.

If by "don't play dumb games" you mean "stop making arguments I don't have answers for", then I must respectfully decline.

If, on the other hand, you do have answers, then please stop accusing me of playing games, and just demonstrate my failings by providing those answers.

Perhaps you could attempt to provide an example of a non-imaginary category? Jarhyn did, and I defended my position; If you have a more substantial and effective challenge than his, I would like to hear it.

Mostly (I must admit) because I am smugly confident that I can defend my position against any such challenge; But partly because I would have the opportunity to learn something useful and important if my current position turns out to be wrong.

I'm learning nothing by reading your fantasies about my nonexistent belief that physics is all imaginary; But I might learn something if you were to provide a valid counter-example that demonstrates my position to be mistaken.

 

[Tigers!]

A: Some people who produce semen will be capable of hosting pregnancies.

No humans who produce semen are capable of gestation.

Your fantasies are not reality.

You have conflated "semen" with semen.

I defined semen very specifically, and some people who ovulate do sometimes produce such a secretion, and various people who produce sperm can gestate.

All that is required is both of "testicular tissue" and "uterus" in the same individual.

There are plenty of such folks.

Do you have a link talking about such folk?

Seriously? I'm going to give you one opportunity to Google it before I post the wiki link. Then I would like you to come back and apologise for saying something dumb.

It is nice to provide some information for others if you make claims.