SoundsLike2

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@CishetN @Milo_H4 The U.S doesn’t have any socialist policies not any “commie” democrats lol.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut You don’t know, but you’re doing it because you know it will benefit you if it doesn’t collapse, that’s my point. You can’t bring tech advancements that take hundreds of years to develop that doesn’t benefit anyone in this generation and compare to an investment.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut Okay, how did we develop two legs? Would we still be considered part of the great ape family if we had three legs? Which primate has three or four legs?

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut It depends, is the woman bi, straight or lesvbian?

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut That analogy doesn’t work because hamburger is only called hamburger because it has meat and bread, everything else is an addition, you can’t call it a burger without there being meat and bread in it.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut So you’re saying that the experts are contradicting themselves by saying that sex is binary?

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut Say what you want about them, it’s you who decided it. Doesn’t change the fact that sex is binary whether you agree or not.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut You wouldn’t. But you’re still investing because you know it will benefit you in the long run if the economy doesn’t collapse, how will a technological advancement in a hundred years later benefit you if your six feet under?

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut I can do that. Because if I say that they are sexless, then that would mean that those who have three legsor have profound intellectual disability are also not humans and therefore a difference species.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut Okay, I don’t mind? I don’t care if someone wants to be whoever they want, I never argued that stopping someone from being who they want is immoral nor illogical. If they say they’re sexless, then they are sexless.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut That’s literally how we define a human. If humans weren’t bipedal, we wouldn’t have ancestors that have two legs. There are no primates that currently walk on three legs. If someone has three legs, it doesn’t make them less human.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut How are you not getting my analogy? You keep saying women with swyer syndrome are sexless because of their rare developments but you’re also saying that people who lack what defines a humans are also human? It’s like you’re taking a side that completely contradicts the other.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut I’m not moving from it, sex is binary. That’s what biology said, I’m not taking your side over literal experts my friend. Gametes do define what sex is, rare developments don’t dismiss my argument.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut Because it’s simply dumb to give an example that doesn’t really help you in any way. What I said was also a hypothetical, how would I know if we’d go instinct?

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut A women with swyer syndrome is still a woman, because her anatomy the the female pathway and she developed a rare genetic disorder in which she has an XY chromosome. That doesn’t dismiss my argument, since it’s how the human reproductive system works.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut It’s not me defining them this way, it’s literally said by biology experts. Joan Roughgarden, the one you mentioned, is even agreeing with the statements and sources I pulled out. Just because someone has a rare development, doesn’t make my argument untrue.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut This isn’t something that’s hard to understand. You can’t use rare developments as a gotcha when it’s entirely irrelevant to the argument. If this was the case, then so many human beings wouldn’t be considered humans because of their rare development.

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut I didn’t say that humans only have two legs, I said that humans have two legs because they’re classed as bipedal animals, having three legs is a rare development which dismisses it. Do you see now how this could be said about biological sex as well?

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut Read it carefully. It’s how their bodies are developed. It’s developed along the pathway of the female. You’re right, humans aren’t just defined by their bipedalism, it’s also our intelligence and awareness. Does that strip people of their humanity if they lack it?

[SoundsLike2 @Zsdao1]

@Vaseline_Beaver @Starrkiss070 @wunnaslut No, not really the same. You are expecting something out of it which will benefit you or not. An investment doesn’t last a whole century, it lasts decades where you’re still alive. How does a technological advancement hundreds of years in the future benefit you in any way?