Anonymous #1 9w

please google the difference between gender and sex, unless you’re privy to those definitions beforehand and are having a moment of cognitive dualism.

12

Anonymous OP 9w

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-of-biological-sex/

4

Anonymous reallynow 9w

Also give this a read.

4

Anonymous OP 9w

Nah, sticking with “biological women” like your post says.

-1

Anonymous reallynow 9w

First minute on the page and is already giving propaganda on every article lol. I thought this was real at first till they gave a discord link at the bottom

-3

Anonymous #1 9w

Respectfully

-3

Anonymous #1 9w

… oh the post says that doesn’t exist… so you are admitting to “sticking with” something that is complete and utter nonsense. congrats, i think you’ve succumb to your true identity.

12

Anonymous #1 9w

“Everything I disagree with is propaganda.” 😭

10

Anonymous OP 9w

Well if biological women didn’t exist then you’d think it would tell me that right away no? Who hurt you?

-1

Anonymous reallynow 9w

Not saying I disagree, every post just has a tone to it. You’d think “sciencebasedmedicine” would be more neutral, redundant as it is

-3

Anonymous #1 9w

perhaps try your nearest professor of biology, or maybe browse the textbooks required for those courses. honestly, any textbook edition beyond Y2K will probably do just fine. in fact, you could grab high school textbooks to help you build up to collegiate science texts! genuinely, it would be so much more productive to have this conversation (which could potentially become a debate) if you were simply more knowledgeable on the subject rather than being ultracrepidarian.

11

Anonymous reallynow 9w

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07238-8

3

Anonymous #1 9w

Google is notoriously a search engine, not an omnipotent answer-provider. You’d need some prior knowledge in online research to find a source, assess it for reliability, then absorb the information, and compare that info against two or three other resources using the same method. We can try together, if you’d like to discuss further in the DMs! I love learning. I turned them on in this comment btw.

6

Anonymous OP 9w

Whoever hurt you, I hope you feel better soon

2

Anonymous #1 9w

More neutral on an already decided and developed research outcome? Yeah buddy alright.

5

Anonymous #1 9w

Your aversion to self-education (or challenging opposing views) only hurts yourself, kiddo. I’ve got an open hand over here trying to help you keep up so you’re not left behind.

4

Anonymous #1 9w

this is such a strange ad hominem attack, and you *all* do it. why is it that whenever a conservative is disproven on a topic, there’s this tendency for them to attack the credibility of the person who disproved their argument via calling their intellect, mental health, or attitude into question. it’s so much easier (and far more respectable) to just say “I see now that I was not as educated on the topic as I thought I was, and will do further research to reflect on my beliefs)

5

Anonymous #3 9w

I didn’t attack any credibility. You simply refused to engage by saying I need help and suggesting someone hurt me… I didn’t attack your level of education, your responses made it apparent that you did not wish to seek further education on the subject. I genuinely want to engage with you and learn where you are and where you stand. You didn’t even present a proposition here. You just said Google said something else and left it at that. I love to learn & I want all undergraduates to love it too

4

Anonymous OP 9w

oh no, I must clarify: I was talking about #1. I agree with your stance, and disagree with 1’s anti-intellectual transphobia. me bringing up the ad hominem was meant to be a critique of the “who hurt you” dismissals.

4

Anonymous #3 9w

well let’s be clear that it wasn’t an ad hominem, as you didn’t really establish a proposition besides “i don’t like your sources” (proper action would have been find your own source in addition to asserting low credibility, but alas) so there was no debate to be had. granted, i’d love to respectfully exchange some more in the DMs, if you feel prepared to agree to avoid any and all emotional rhetoric in a debate that’s majority of concern to biology and sociology.

3

Anonymous OP 9w

mate with all due respect, I am not who you were talking to… if I incorrectly described 1’s behavior as ad hominem, that’s one thing, but I am not who you have been talking to. I joined the conversation to call out 1’s behavior.

5

Anonymous #3 9w

oh woods! no harm no foul! i was wrong, my apologies 😵‍💫 i mean, all of what i said still stands with #1 so not too useless of replies, but for some reason my brain read your replies as a response to the person who provided the links 😵‍💫🥲😂

8

Anonymous OP 9w

ahhh no worries! I know exactly what you mean, I feel like it’s so much easier to occur here on yikyak than anywhere else too lol I gotta say, you were eating that anti-intellectual up. dude fr thought they could casually run some bullshit propo then dip out after some “who hurt you” line; I appreciate you for combatting their bullshit!

6

Anonymous #3 9w

“You were eating that anti-intellectual up 🤓☝🏼” lmao god yall are goofy.

-1

Anonymous #1 9w

that’s why your cowardly ass refuses to address something when you’re explicitly disproven, right? don’t start talking about goofy after the way you’ve been acting. couldn’t even acknowledge that you are wrong, instead you had to say “who hurt you” to op despite them calmly explaining shit to you, as if you were a 10 year old, the entire convo. i’d say the only person who’s goofy here is you, but then again “coward” is likely more accurate.

7

Anonymous #3 9w

I use this app when I take a shit big dawg, if you’re trying to have an intellectual political conversation on an app that peaked in 2018, idk what to tell you lol Writing stanzas in response is funny as hell

-1

Anonymous #1 9w

you could just say you’re too illiterate to read the responses you’re receiving, “big dawg”

5

Anonymous #3 9w

Says the person that “oh no, I must clarify!” Mate

-1

Anonymous #1 9w

lmfao is that really the best you could come up with? imagine being proud of being less-than-adequate🤢

4

Anonymous #1 9w

buddy if you refuse to self-educate then my all means, make that very apparent… just know that having an opinion on something in which you have no expertise in is called being ultracrepidarian.

6

Anonymous #4 9w

those two prefixes when referring to gender are often applied as categories of women or men. anything regarding biological science is really only applicable to sex, which use the terms male and female. ergo, combining the terms biological to the gender identity isn’t really compatible.

8

Anonymous OP 9w

Exactly, two categories, one meaning biologically male or female, the other meaning they have transitioned from one to the other.

1

Anonymous #4 9w

Yeah saying biological male and female makes sense as scientific phrases. It’s the phrase “biological woman” that’s nonsensical. Plus, the gender categories aren’t perfectly aligned with biological science since it’s a sociological construct. The prefixes trans- and cis- exist outside of biology as well, like organic chemistry for instance.

6

Anonymous OP 9w

Yes I know I’m a biochem major. People say biological woman though because it is often considered disrespectful to refer to women as “females,” so I think you’re just looking too deep into it. Unless they are explicitly using that term to alienate trans people and dehumanize them, there is nothing wrong with referring to someone who was born a woman and is still a woman as a biological woman.

1

Anonymous #4 9w

Yeah that was the whole damn point of the post was in response to a transphobe, particularly those who are trapped under their misconceptions of what they know about biology AND being loud & proud about arguing against something they know nothing about. The anti-intellectualism of the No Child Left Behind act is hard at work.

5

Anonymous #4 9w

Generally I know it’s semantics but people aren’t born men or women, they’re assigned female at birth and usually called boys or girls for a decade or two…

1

Anonymous OP 9w

I don’t know much about NCLB off the top of my head, but yeah in no way do I support the current administration. By what you’re saying though, would you be fine with the term biological boy/girl as opposed to man/woman?

1

Anonymous #1 9w

Staying willfully ignorant is a choice to make, I guess.

6