Alyssa Nguyen
@alyssa3467.bsky.social
Now with 20% more Emotional Damage™
Still not seeing any evidence from you…
November 16, 2025 at 2:20 AM
Still not seeing any evidence from you…
You're the one claiming something happens "in practice" without being able to provide evidence of it happening.
November 16, 2025 at 2:16 AM
You're the one claiming something happens "in practice" without being able to provide evidence of it happening.
Sounds like creationist logic to me.
November 15, 2025 at 7:14 PM
Sounds like creationist logic to me.
The teleological argument…
November 15, 2025 at 7:05 PM
The teleological argument…
No. That's not specific. "Organized to" or "organized around" is just hand waving.
If it was specific, you wouldn't have people using different arguments to show that someone with a condition like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is male *and* female, each insisting they're right.
If it was specific, you wouldn't have people using different arguments to show that someone with a condition like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is male *and* female, each insisting they're right.
November 15, 2025 at 6:58 PM
No. That's not specific. "Organized to" or "organized around" is just hand waving.
If it was specific, you wouldn't have people using different arguments to show that someone with a condition like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is male *and* female, each insisting they're right.
If it was specific, you wouldn't have people using different arguments to show that someone with a condition like Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome is male *and* female, each insisting they're right.
You have no rebuttal then. All you have is just that excuse.
November 15, 2025 at 6:56 PM
You have no rebuttal then. All you have is just that excuse.
You say so. That doesn't make it true. "Not capable of change" includes hypothetical or theoretical scenarios. There is no way, not even theoretically, to change the value of π or the speed of light.
November 15, 2025 at 6:51 PM
You say so. That doesn't make it true. "Not capable of change" includes hypothetical or theoretical scenarios. There is no way, not even theoretically, to change the value of π or the speed of light.
That's not a deflection. That's showing the deceptive nature of your questioning. If you really were acting in good faith, you'd have a clear standard for what would meet your criteria. Otherwise, you have an unfalsifiable claim.
November 15, 2025 at 6:48 PM
That's not a deflection. That's showing the deceptive nature of your questioning. If you really were acting in good faith, you'd have a clear standard for what would meet your criteria. Otherwise, you have an unfalsifiable claim.
What would meet your criteria for "being neither male or female" then?
November 15, 2025 at 6:38 PM
What would meet your criteria for "being neither male or female" then?
Again, I'm not doing your homework for you. There are two separate definitions. They are two different parts of speech. That means there are two different meanings.
Don't pretend you don't understand. You wouldn't say that one is dehumanizing if you really didn't.
Don't pretend you don't understand. You wouldn't say that one is dehumanizing if you really didn't.
November 15, 2025 at 6:35 PM
Again, I'm not doing your homework for you. There are two separate definitions. They are two different parts of speech. That means there are two different meanings.
Don't pretend you don't understand. You wouldn't say that one is dehumanizing if you really didn't.
Don't pretend you don't understand. You wouldn't say that one is dehumanizing if you really didn't.
You would only try to find an excuse to say that they're one or the other. You do it every time, just like with that post I replied to. You say that "male" or "female" is based on gamete production, and then turn around and say gamete production doesn't matter, just some "potential" or "pathway."
November 15, 2025 at 6:32 PM
You would only try to find an excuse to say that they're one or the other. You do it every time, just like with that post I replied to. You say that "male" or "female" is based on gamete production, and then turn around and say gamete production doesn't matter, just some "potential" or "pathway."
You're obviously not acting in good faith. It takes an ideologue to say that two different things are actually the same.
November 15, 2025 at 6:24 PM
You're obviously not acting in good faith. It takes an ideologue to say that two different things are actually the same.
November 15, 2025 at 6:24 PM
You're obviously not acting in good faith. It takes an ideologue to say that two different things are actually the same.
So you're not going to reply to that? You don't deny that you were cherry-picking and looking for an excuse to classify that condition as "male"?
November 15, 2025 at 6:18 PM
So you're not going to reply to that? You don't deny that you were cherry-picking and looking for an excuse to classify that condition as "male"?
So you *don't* understand the definitions, or else you'd see that they are different.
November 15, 2025 at 6:17 PM
So you *don't* understand the definitions, or else you'd see that they are different.
There are two different dictionary definitions. Are you saying you don't understand those definitions?
November 15, 2025 at 6:04 PM
There are two different dictionary definitions. Are you saying you don't understand those definitions?
Look it up. I'm not doing your homework for you.
November 15, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Look it up. I'm not doing your homework for you.
"A small number of affected people have external genitalia that do not look clearly male or clearly female."
You're just grasping at arbitrary straws that you think support your point. You have to formulate all kinds of excuses to justify your position.
You're just grasping at arbitrary straws that you think support your point. You have to formulate all kinds of excuses to justify your position.
November 15, 2025 at 5:59 PM
See, that's an obvious sign that you are *not* acting in good faith.
November 15, 2025 at 5:57 PM
See, that's an obvious sign that you are *not* acting in good faith.
Look it up in a dictionary. There are separate listings for adjectives and nouns. You have *nothing* to suggest that there is no difference.
November 15, 2025 at 5:56 PM
Look it up in a dictionary. There are separate listings for adjectives and nouns. You have *nothing* to suggest that there is no difference.
You are worried about *me* engaging in good faith? That's laughable. YOU are the one claiming to be respectful to intersex people and about intersex conditions when you clearly aren't listening to what they say.
November 15, 2025 at 5:55 PM
You are worried about *me* engaging in good faith? That's laughable. YOU are the one claiming to be respectful to intersex people and about intersex conditions when you clearly aren't listening to what they say.
Are you saying there is no difference between "this pie is American" and "this pie is an American"?
November 15, 2025 at 5:48 PM
Are you saying there is no difference between "this pie is American" and "this pie is an American"?