Yeah you can just ask "How many fingers do people have?" and if they say 5 you can just respond "Wow that's really discriminatory against people with polydactyly!"
Then ask them again "How many fingers do people have?" to see if they changed their answer, and make sure they are not allowed to say things like "high five" anymore.
I got in trouble at work for saying in a meeting "a human with 9 fingers isn't normal". Someone claimed* their kid lost a finger in an accident took offense.
*I'm not sure I believe it, because the person who complained has one of those faces that looks like she's looking for trouble.
"So I assumed you didn't take them to a hospital, to a clinic? After all, if it is normal, there would be no reason to treat that. So which is it, are they normal and you're an abusive parent who I should IMMEDIATELY call child services on, or is it an abnormal condition and you're actually somewhat human?"
That might have worked had they confronted me directly. Instead like a chickenshit they went to my boss, because in modern corporate America actually confronting the person you take issue with and hashing it out one-on-one is frowned upon.
It's all Mean Girls bullshit I won't miss when I don't have to put up with it anymore.
Even if true hermaphrodites existed among humans, that's still two genders.
If you flip a coin, it comes up Heads, or Tails.
If you flip two coins, they come up Heads, or Tails. You can have two Heads, two Tails, or one Heads and one Tails (hermaphrodite), but you don't get one Potbelly, it's still two results: heads or tails. The act of having both heads and tails does not create a THIRD, unique result, just a combination of the existing two.
There aren't really intersex people. XXY is male. XXYY is male. XXXX is female. XXX is female. If you have a Y you are male. Then there is 46XY DSD but 46XY DSD is a male with a birth defect and they will present male at puberty if not given hormone replacement.
When you have a case rare enough that you can only find one example for a paper, that is the very definition of an exception to the rule.
While cartoonericroberts' point was not perfect in the making, it is sound in principle. One exception is not enough to justify re-writing the rules, or doing away with them entirely.
It's not a rejection of the rules, it's a recognition of a boundary conditions. If you don't accept that boundary conditions exist, your system just simply stops applying outside the basic points, and can't be used to explain anything out on the edges of it's analysis.
All models have boundary conditions and you do have to recognize them and deal with them. That's why you create small abstract categories for the extremes.
Some people with the Y chromosome lose the part of it that makes your sex male. So while they have a Y chromosome, it most certainly is not a functioning Y chromosome.
Yeah you can just ask "How many fingers do people have?" and if they say 5 you can just respond "Wow that's really discriminatory against people with polydactyly!"
Then ask them again "How many fingers do people have?" to see if they changed their answer, and make sure they are not allowed to say things like "high five" anymore.
I got in trouble at work for saying in a meeting "a human with 9 fingers isn't normal". Someone claimed* their kid lost a finger in an accident took offense.
*I'm not sure I believe it, because the person who complained has one of those faces that looks like she's looking for trouble.
How dare you be so racist as to imply it's abnormal for kids to get their fingers chopped off in knife fights.
Why yes it was a "knife fight American"; how did you know?
"So I assumed you didn't take them to a hospital, to a clinic? After all, if it is normal, there would be no reason to treat that. So which is it, are they normal and you're an abusive parent who I should IMMEDIATELY call child services on, or is it an abnormal condition and you're actually somewhat human?"
That might have worked had they confronted me directly. Instead like a chickenshit they went to my boss, because in modern corporate America actually confronting the person you take issue with and hashing it out one-on-one is frowned upon.
It's all Mean Girls bullshit I won't miss when I don't have to put up with it anymore.
Even if true hermaphrodites existed among humans, that's still two genders.
If you flip a coin, it comes up Heads, or Tails.
If you flip two coins, they come up Heads, or Tails. You can have two Heads, two Tails, or one Heads and one Tails (hermaphrodite), but you don't get one Potbelly, it's still two results: heads or tails. The act of having both heads and tails does not create a THIRD, unique result, just a combination of the existing two.
idk i get potbelly from thanksgiving...
There aren't really intersex people. XXY is male. XXYY is male. XXXX is female. XXX is female. If you have a Y you are male. Then there is 46XY DSD but 46XY DSD is a male with a birth defect and they will present male at puberty if not given hormone replacement.
Yeah, and everyone has either male or female structures, even if they aren't fully developed/readily apparent.
When you have a case rare enough that you can only find one example for a paper, that is the very definition of an exception to the rule.
While cartoonericroberts' point was not perfect in the making, it is sound in principle. One exception is not enough to justify re-writing the rules, or doing away with them entirely.
It's not a rejection of the rules, it's a recognition of a boundary conditions. If you don't accept that boundary conditions exist, your system just simply stops applying outside the basic points, and can't be used to explain anything out on the edges of it's analysis.
All models have boundary conditions and you do have to recognize them and deal with them. That's why you create small abstract categories for the extremes.
Some people with the Y chromosome lose the part of it that makes your sex male. So while they have a Y chromosome, it most certainly is not a functioning Y chromosome.
tRuSt ThE sCiEnCe!!!!
No, not that science.
No, not that science.
No, not that science.
Here we go, we fished up this science from the dumpster back there, this is what you need to trust, bigot.