Protip, being abrasive makes people not want to talk to you.

Pretty sure Toy Story came out in 93 or 94, meaning Buzz is only 32 or so.

Yeah I looked it up, that’s why I called it a neologism. And it’s clunky as hell.

Never heard cognitohazard before, talk about a clunky neologism. By the way, have you heard of my band, Clunky Neologism? We’re not very good.

She doesn’t regard anyone as anything anymore, we all know why

Seems like a really broad place to start but ok:

Albania

Russia

Still kind of unclear, care to specify?

Idk, Last Airbender is the worst movie I’ve ever paid money to see. I saw Avatar for free and thought it was meh, but it’s still vastly more watchable than that Shyamalanian catastrophe. Like, at least the dialogue doesn’t sound like it was written in crayon.

They actually said the opposite of what you said they said. That’s weird.

And ascorbic acid.

No they don’t

Well we hit the reply limit so I won’t be able to respond to the proper comments and quoting is far too tedious. As such, you’ll just have to use context clues to figure out which parts of your most recent comment I’m referring to.

Obviously there’s no first chicken but they all came out of eggs. And I was only half-trolling about the plant DNA, I’m also pointing out the importance of DNA. You said it didn’t matter what the DNA was, I pointed out the flaw in that reasoning. It has to be the right DNA, estradiol is estradiol no matter where it occurs, it can’t turn anything female.

And sorry if you feel you’ve wasted time, personally that’s the only reason I’m on this platform. 🤷‍♂️

Honestly, I think he’s just that trashy, the whole DC neighborhood has gone downhill since he moved in…

Personally, I have no expectations. Like I said, if we need more accurate language, all else we need is the data for it to describe.

The chicken-egg thing is easy though, the egg came first. All chickens came out of eggs, including the first one. Two non-chickens combined their DNA to make a chicken, which came out of an egg.

Where did the hormones that control DNA expression come from? DNA. DNA is more than 3 billion years older than hormones, DNA can replicate itself without hormones. Hormones can’t combine themselves to make new hormones, and they certainly can’t turn themselves into DNA.

DNA with female hormones develop a female body no matter what DNA they have

Not true. Add human estrogen to sex-undetermined plant DNA, you certainly won’t make a female human and you have no guarantees what sex the plant will be. Add it to asexual organisms, they’re not going to suddenly develop hitherto non-existent sex morphologies. DNA is king, it’s straight-up GOATed. The only way to break it down further is to start categorizing people by their A-T to G-C ratio, and I don’t think that’s an efficient use of time, technology, or resources.

Intersex people have sex chromosomes, idk what you mean that they “break” anything. We even already have a term for them, it’s “intersex”. If we need to add terms when distinctt genetic morphologies are established, we can! That’s the beauty of science, we’re always learning more.

Everything in your body comes from DNA first. The first bits of you that ever existed were chromosomes, everything else comes as a result of how your dad’s DNA combined with your mom’s DNA to make your DNA. You can add all the outside hormones to your body that you want, without DNA telling your body how to respond to them, all you’d have is dead meat filled with chemicals.

To be clear though, hormones don’t define how your body functions, that’d be DNA. You wouldn’t have hormones or the ability to process them into meaningful signals without DNA. Ultimately, “biological sex” is determined by the sex chromosomes, which never change. I’m not arguing whether or not right-wing chuds co-opted the term (I’ve no clue, I don’t listen to right wing chuds), but it does have an objective, scientific, apolitical, societally functional meaning.

Thanks for continuously restating what I originally said!

Exactly what I said, there’s no other kind

You’re thinking of gender, sex is scientifically determinable.

Sure it does, it’s the sex you have biologically. The second thing you’re talking about is called gender-affirming care and is distinct from biological sex. Both “sex” and “gender” are societal concepts, but sex is descriptive whereas gender is prescriptive. You can read that to mean sex is scientifically determinable, whereas gender is meaninglessly abstract. Sex says, “assuming all your bits work, here’s how you would contribute to the reproductive process.” Gender says, “regardless of what bits you were born with but dependent on what bits people think you were born with, here’s how society will treat you and expect you to behave.” “Biological gender” doesn’t exist, just like “sociological sex” doesn’t exist. So I guess in that sense, “biological sex” doesn’t make sense, because there’s no other kind.

Edit: got banned from an entire separate community (an unthemed meme community no less lol) for this discussion because they thought I was transphobic 🤣🤦‍♂️🤷‍♂️ Sorry for the misunderstanding, I’ll just stay out of it next time 👍🤣

Yeah I’m not British but, thanks to Future of the Left, I know Sky News to be a “hysterical gung-ho Technicolor crapfest” lol