3 ms·

> You're just here to represent the "I will never accept what you're saying" squad. The question of whether you are a male or not is not dependent on whether I

> You're just here to represent the "I will never accept what you're saying" squad. The question of whether you are a male or not is not dependent on whether I or anyone else accepts what you are saying. It is a material condition. If we want to change words so that "male" is what you are talking about and e.g. "AMAB" is what I am talking about, so be it. The second is not dependent on what anyone believes or "assigns."

KirinDave 9y ago
I'm so relieved there now we're going to bring judeo-christian pseudoscience in this conversation. Finally we're back on familiar territory.
- empthought 9y ago
  Human reproductive function and capacity is not dependent on cultures or beliefs; hope this helps clear things up for you. Ever produced small motile gametes? Then you're a male! Congrats!
  - KirinDave 9y ago
    A classic example of the judeo-christian appeal to misunderstood high school science: you just said if you ever are infertile you're not "male". That's almost certainly not what you meant, which is: "My worldview is that no one is allowed to opt out of my gender foreverwar because of how much I benefit from the status quo." Fertility and reproduction have very little to do with 'gender' except where people attempting societal manipulation try and force it to. From a scientific perspective the correlations are minimal and difficult to measure.
    - empthought 9y ago
      > you just said if you ever are infertile you're not "male". For a computer person, your logic sure is weak. "If you've ever produced small, motile gametes, then you're male." "If you've never produced small, motile gametes, then you're not male." P → Q does not entail ¬P → ¬Q. Literally 100-level propositional logic, here. > Fertility and reproduction have very little to do with 'gender' except where people attempting societal manipulation try and force it to. From a scientific perspective the correlations are minimal and difficult to measure. Who's talking about gender, here? I'm not. I'm talking about sex; specifically, the material basis for reproductive roles and the exploitation of female (sorry, AFAB) reproductive function for the advantage of male (sorry, AMAB) people.
      - KirinDave 9y ago
        You edited your post, so I edited mine. But nice try. In any case, if you're talking about this ill-defined and frequently unverified concept of "sex" then I'm uninterested in talking with you further. You're don't have any interesting insight into the subject. You can barely keep it together explaining logical implication. Please find someone more interested in this level of discourse. I'm bored with it.

KirinDave 9y ago

I'm so relieved there now we're going to bring judeo-christian pseudoscience in this conversation. Finally we're back on familiar territory.

empthought 9y ago
Human reproductive function and capacity is not dependent on cultures or beliefs; hope this helps clear things up for you. Ever produced small motile gametes? Then you're a male! Congrats!
- KirinDave 9y ago
  A classic example of the judeo-christian appeal to misunderstood high school science: you just said if you ever are infertile you're not "male". That's almost certainly not what you meant, which is: "My worldview is that no one is allowed to opt out of my gender foreverwar because of how much I benefit from the status quo." Fertility and reproduction have very little to do with 'gender' except where people attempting societal manipulation try and force it to. From a scientific perspective the correlations are minimal and difficult to measure.
  - empthought 9y ago
    > you just said if you ever are infertile you're not "male". For a computer person, your logic sure is weak. "If you've ever produced small, motile gametes, then you're male." "If you've never produced small, motile gametes, then you're not male." P → Q does not entail ¬P → ¬Q. Literally 100-level propositional logic, here. > Fertility and reproduction have very little to do with 'gender' except where people attempting societal manipulation try and force it to. From a scientific perspective the correlations are minimal and difficult to measure. Who's talking about gender, here? I'm not. I'm talking about sex; specifically, the material basis for reproductive roles and the exploitation of female (sorry, AFAB) reproductive function for the advantage of male (sorry, AMAB) people.
    - KirinDave 9y ago
      You edited your post, so I edited mine. But nice try. In any case, if you're talking about this ill-defined and frequently unverified concept of "sex" then I'm uninterested in talking with you further. You're don't have any interesting insight into the subject. You can barely keep it together explaining logical implication. Please find someone more interested in this level of discourse. I'm bored with it.