all 8 comments

[–]IridescentAnaconda 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The concept of sex is not dependent upon morphology (although within broad taxonomic units they are highly correlated). Rather it is dependent upon chromosomal configuration. While abnormal configurations of sex chromosomes can lead to viable offspring in humans (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome XXY) almost all normal humans are XX or XY, and each of these is highly correlated with specific anatomic configurations and adult phenotypic characteristics (mostly driven by the SRY gene on the Y chromosome btw). In other species, sexual dimorphism may vary in specifics, as noted in the article you cite. However, the dimorphism is still present in those species.

It's a fallacy to propose that sexual dimorphism must have universal characteristics. Biology is much more complicated than that (almost nothing is universal, not even metabolic pathways if you consider, e.g. archaea). If you're going to assert that sexual dimorphism doesn't exist because its manifestation is not universal, then by the same logic cellular respiration doesn't exist because the metabolic mechanisms are not universal.

In short, this is a red herring. The wide variation in manifestation of sexual dimorphism has nothing to do with the dependence of human social norms on human sexual dimorphism.

[–]thefirststoneThat's my purse! I don't know you! 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You going to keep deleting and reposting this until you get the response you like?

[–]soundsituation 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

They keep doing this in other subs too: 1, 2, 3, 4

They've been doing it for months under different accounts in the GC and GCdebatesQT subs.

[–]Nombre27 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

[–]soundsituation 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Again and again! (And again and again).

[–]Nombre27 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's super weird behavior.

[–]YORAMRWWhite nationalist, eugenicist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What makes this even weirder is that those accounts all have an organic comment history, all talking about trans-related stuff in those subs. Assuming all of those accounts are just alts from the same person (which they probably are), why on earth would he use all of those accounts to talk about the same topic, instead of just using one (on top of continuing to spam the same post for so long, which on its own is already very weird)?

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

I thought it was just ban evasion (and in the case of s/GenderCritical it is) but you're right, even in subs where none of their accounts have been banned they still post under different names. My guess is that they post to the GC sub first, get banned or have their post removed, and then spam other subs with whatever account they are signed into at the time. Rinse and repeat.

I'm saying they instead of he because they've talked about their vagina in the past, but of course that doesn't mean anything coming from someone like this. I do suspect it's a man.