PRONOUNSThings can change, it’s called progress

submitted by GrilledTofuIdentifying as a block of tofu from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ClassroomPast6178 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Farts=Bose-Einstein Condensate

Hehe

For people without even the philosophical underpinning of the scientific method, the natural philosophers and alchemists did enough that their descendants could incrementally improve on what they left behind.

The willingness to change theories as evidence is uncovered is the key and it’s why the Critical Studies fields can largely be ignored, they’re based on assertions and ignore evidence. They’ve entirely given up on falsifiability, and handwave away inconsistencies and contradictions.

[–]OuroborosTheory 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

oddly I just remembered a 60s physics comic:

a man standing in a blank panel: "in 1900 humanity has no idea of the universe it inhabited" "then he discovered the triangle" (panel's split up) "then in 1932 he discovered the antitriangle" (the splits are mirrored below the man in the panel) "in 1964 he discovered the rhombus, the serration, the trapezoid, etc." (man's surrounded by lots of odd new shapes) "in the future he will discover the hemidemitriangle" (man's surrounded by smaller triangles) "and by the year 2000, humanity has no idea of the universe it inhabited," surrounded by a uniform mess of tiny triangles

(and even in social sciences you have to at least show your shit; even the silliest conceptual performance art makes you ... perform art, you can't just say "I've talked to other people I know and they agree with my vibe": the "studies" are just op-ed pages with tenure)

[–]Alienhunter糞大名 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep it all comes down in the end to how things are defined and whether or not your model is testable and repeatable.

Technically speaking in the world, there are more than two sexes and variations within that. But we are then talking about the reproductive systems of other non-human species. I don't think anyone is arguing the point that all sex is identical to human sex.

But then we get to the humans and their sex, and it's very clear that humans like all mammals have very clear sexual divergence as it pertains to reproduction, where one individual produces male gametes and another produces female gametes. There are no zemale gametes. It is a binary.

Now if we want to talk about gender "expression" or gender as a kind synonym for personality. I'll concede that there is an infinite number of ways humans can choose to express themselves and you can go about categorizing them however you wish. But it's hardly scientific. And it has little bearing on the physical capacity for reproduction, though I will also concede that there is certainly a strong negative correlation between actual fertility and identifying as a non-binary gender type.