to learn how to create multi-part replies. Don't cry if someone replies to a message before you finish a second part because they don't want to wait for you to finish your diatribe.
Posts by Alyssa Nguyen
come up with a clear, concise definition of sex, or even male and female.
Also, you really need
"at no time before the appearance of trans ideology did we consider a man to be a woman if he felt like it"
1. There's no such thing as "transgender ideology."
2. Men are still not women. That hasn't changed.
3. Gender is not based on sex, let alone inseparable from it.
4. You still have yet to
Actually, I don't. All I see is you making a claim out of nowhere.
What changes do you think are being "forced"?
No worries. Just givin' you a hard time with the 😒.
It's Vietnamese. With the accent marks, it's Nguyễn.
@katymontgomerie.com showed me a video and asked me if it was right, and I was like, "She does it better than I do. 😅" I can't find the link though. >_<
That's all from your imagination.
Which still means you're conflating topics.
When I find the time and money to head your way. :3
So you're arguing that "sex in mammals" is a category, and that there are exactly two categories?
Still incorrect.
Or maybe it's another thing you're wrong about. What expectations do you think exist?
They're not the same thing. Limitations can be specific. They can be defined. They're not arbitrary. Your exceptions very much are.
The study cited predates the actual policy document.
Of all of the ways I've heard people attempt to pronounce my last name, @seanferrick.bsky.social's approach was… different. 😒
That's not defining cats the way you claim. That's defining "cat" as a category that includes large predators, not "cat" as an individual animal.
Do you have trouble understanding what you read?
Also, the fact that the definition is numbered means there are other definitions. What are they?
So an arbitrary restriction on the research you'll accept. 🙄
Changing the subject because you can't defend your position?
Those aren't exceptions. Those are limitations. As in, "these rules apply in these situations". Framing them as exceptions is just your attempt to justify your irrational beliefs.
The number of women you're not listening to is far greater.
bsky.app/profile/nion...
Definitions don't have exceptions.
Nobody mentioned the subject at all besides you.
You ever wonder if maybe, just maybe, all the patriotic language is an op—a front for something else?
“According to our observations over the past 24 hours, the vast majority of species on earth have pretty much just been holding steady and staying the course, gene-wise,” said biologist Clarice Abernathy
They discussed using AI to reproduce actual living people before anyone else talked about it.
memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Hollow_...
For one thing, that's actually changing phyla, so you'd be changing a lot more than just species.
Species designations do change from time to time.
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/phylum
ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2024/06/04/c...
"a creep who pretended to be trans to gain access to female spaces"
Again, try it and find out.
x.com/AriDrennen/s...
"Then your definition of gender is completely arbitrary"
You're the one whose definition won't work without exceptions.
"But we know that there are dishonest people and that absolutely everything gets abused, it's naive not to see this."
So again, you're assuming malice. You would rather hurt a small group of people in order to stop an even smaller group of people from "abusing" policies designed to help that group.