Oh there we come with the boxes again.
For someone claiming to be tolerant you sure are quick to judge people.
>redefine terms
well, i didnt redefine anyhting, you did. You started defining sex as anything beyond male and female.
That means the burden of proof in that regard is on you.
The sources the other guy posted didnt state that there are any more than two genders.
Its aso funny that I ignore science when i specifically brought up the alterations in chromosomes that appear. If your strawman would be correct, why didnt i just ignore that bit?
And yes.a 5% (and thats a pretty high estamiate of numbers i might at) divergence IS an abnormality by any mathematical method of defining such a thing.
Do a grubbs test or whatever and tell me if its an outlier or not. Pretty sure it is.
Skimming through your source, a hormone plays a role in the development in gonads thats, as thy say, not an on and off switch.
The answer to that riddle is in the sentance, plays a part. the implication here is supposed to be that the involvement of chromosomes and some hormones creates a spectrum of gender. The relaity is that these parts are obviously working together to create a functioning human beeing of a defining gender and that some aberrations can cause things like Intersex people to exist.
which leads us to the next point:
On the definition of an error: thats a matter of debate.
For what we know, the purpose of life appears to be the propergation of information.
One such information packet is the DNA, the DNA appears to have the "intention" of propergating itself. Why? because the DNA appears to build a vessel for itself that propergates itself.
Why is a mutation an error? because if a mutation wasnt an error, there would not be mechanisms within the cell to repair errors in the DNA.
But ok. you could say error sin the DNA are part of the evolutionary process, which they absoluteley are, they are integral to it.
In that case, then im just refering to the use of the term "error" as it is used in "error prone PCR" which is used in accelerated evolution in microorganisms.
Which leads me back to my old post, theres no judgement here, just an observation.
A divergence.
For what we know, it could be that the next evolutionary step in the homo sapiens chan will have three genders. But currently, this doesnt appear to be the case in the vast majority of them and those deviations tend to have medical problems.
We could spin this discusison ad nauseum because what is "normal" and what is "fit for purpose" can only defined by human beeings, simmilary to what does and does not have "significance".
There are no natural metrics for such a thing beyond what does and doesnt propergate its own information.
But thats probably opening a can of worms you dont want to discuss do you now?
>Opression
that was my point.
What was that entire tangent you went on to. I made a point out of beeing a minority meaning nothing at all.
unless your definition of opression is not getting special treatment.
>Media and the rewandan genocide
exactly. Showing them as people.
You know what doesnt help anyone? Beeing annoying.
Why do you think some minorties are more accepted than others? Because they blend and because they are shown as "People".
while those that specifically try to stick out and rub their otherness into peoples faces will only be met with revulsion.
hate me for that statement, but thatd be just shooting the messanger.
>Go woke go broke
the evidence goes both ways if you ask me.
It certainly doenst seem to work with video games (see bioware)
With movies, it seems to be a matter of subject material.
The new star wars movies didnt do great (by their own budget that is), meanwhile the black panther movie did great.
One of them alienated an existing auidence, meanwhile the other catered to a new emerging audience.
i fail to see how this disproves anything ive said.
Or what youve assumed i was going to say.
For what its wroth, its been established in the 90s that Tokenism is insulting, so make of that what you want.
You should listen to your own advice. You can include thigns without beeing intentionally disruptie and people will accept it (unless it goes overboard)
o you can tryto be vocal about it and you will get rejected by your target demographic.
This is getting tiresome.
Ive had this debate already in 2013 and youll not yield. youll go on fighting strawmen and windmills all day long and in the end youll stand in front of a World, fineley constructed from carefull argumentation, that sadly doesnt look like the real world at all.
Last edited by Sordak; 30/03/20 10:48 AM.
