me
@marcuspope.com
I think I prefer it when people judge me by my avatar, it’s both hilarious and tells me more about those I interact with here on BlueSky than I could usually gleam otherwise. 🤷♂️
As of 2024, 37% of Americans think God created humans in their current form within the last 10,000 years.
news.gallup.com/poll/647594/...
news.gallup.com/poll/647594/...
August 29, 2025 at 3:37 PM
As of 2024, 37% of Americans think God created humans in their current form within the last 10,000 years.
news.gallup.com/poll/647594/...
news.gallup.com/poll/647594/...
Yes, see the links I’ve been adding to my posts take you to websites on something we call “the internet”. And the internet has documents, in this case from scientifically peer-reviewed medical journals. And the link I sent, confirms there are people who produce both.
August 10, 2025 at 1:15 PM
Yes, see the links I’ve been adding to my posts take you to websites on something we call “the internet”. And the internet has documents, in this case from scientifically peer-reviewed medical journals. And the link I sent, confirms there are people who produce both.
Or perhaps peer-reviewed medical journals meet the litmus of credibility you need to acknowledge reality.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
August 10, 2025 at 12:39 PM
Or perhaps peer-reviewed medical journals meet the litmus of credibility you need to acknowledge reality.
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC...
August 10, 2025 at 12:39 PM
You are astoundingly ignorant.
August 9, 2025 at 10:23 PM
You are astoundingly ignorant.
This you???
I didn’t ask how they define it, I asked how do they determine it, because YOU said they determine sex.
But by all means, flounder around with the obvious fact that you can’t explain it. 🤣
I didn’t ask how they define it, I asked how do they determine it, because YOU said they determine sex.
But by all means, flounder around with the obvious fact that you can’t explain it. 🤣
August 9, 2025 at 12:35 AM
This you???
I didn’t ask how they define it, I asked how do they determine it, because YOU said they determine sex.
But by all means, flounder around with the obvious fact that you can’t explain it. 🤣
I didn’t ask how they define it, I asked how do they determine it, because YOU said they determine sex.
But by all means, flounder around with the obvious fact that you can’t explain it. 🤣
I don’t know how to explain to someone who lacks a formal education in biology how wrong your statement is 😬🤷♂️
Like, it makes you look so incredibly dumb that I feel bad for your lack of awareness on the discussion at this point.
It’s a third category, just acknowledge it, this is getting sad.
Like, it makes you look so incredibly dumb that I feel bad for your lack of awareness on the discussion at this point.
It’s a third category, just acknowledge it, this is getting sad.
August 9, 2025 at 12:21 AM
I don’t know how to explain to someone who lacks a formal education in biology how wrong your statement is 😬🤷♂️
Like, it makes you look so incredibly dumb that I feel bad for your lack of awareness on the discussion at this point.
It’s a third category, just acknowledge it, this is getting sad.
Like, it makes you look so incredibly dumb that I feel bad for your lack of awareness on the discussion at this point.
It’s a third category, just acknowledge it, this is getting sad.
Sure it does, it means evolutionarily binary is not a requirement of sex. And definitionally, hermaphrodite is the appropriate classification for the trait in species that naturally develop both sexes and for the trait in individuals who develop both abnormally.
You couldn’t be more wrong. 🤷♂️
You couldn’t be more wrong. 🤷♂️
August 9, 2025 at 12:16 AM
Sure it does, it means evolutionarily binary is not a requirement of sex. And definitionally, hermaphrodite is the appropriate classification for the trait in species that naturally develop both sexes and for the trait in individuals who develop both abnormally.
You couldn’t be more wrong. 🤷♂️
You couldn’t be more wrong. 🤷♂️
Huh, so when you said this (screenshot) it was... wrong.
Also crazy for you to say that what makes a woman, a woman, is only her reproductive system. Sucks for those women who lack a reproductive system. I guess, maybe, if they have a uterus but no ovaries - well they're just half a woman... 🤯🙄😒
Also crazy for you to say that what makes a woman, a woman, is only her reproductive system. Sucks for those women who lack a reproductive system. I guess, maybe, if they have a uterus but no ovaries - well they're just half a woman... 🤯🙄😒
August 7, 2025 at 11:43 PM
Huh, so when you said this (screenshot) it was... wrong.
Also crazy for you to say that what makes a woman, a woman, is only her reproductive system. Sucks for those women who lack a reproductive system. I guess, maybe, if they have a uterus but no ovaries - well they're just half a woman... 🤯🙄😒
Also crazy for you to say that what makes a woman, a woman, is only her reproductive system. Sucks for those women who lack a reproductive system. I guess, maybe, if they have a uterus but no ovaries - well they're just half a woman... 🤯🙄😒
Yeah, most, meaning the median or common distribution.
That's why I linked to an example where the range was 9 - 16:
> We confirmed the high levels of T (9-16 ng/ml...
> there was no evidence for ovary tumor in either ovary.
Reading comprehension problems (noticing the trend yet?)
That's why I linked to an example where the range was 9 - 16:
> We confirmed the high levels of T (9-16 ng/ml...
> there was no evidence for ovary tumor in either ovary.
Reading comprehension problems (noticing the trend yet?)
August 7, 2025 at 12:18 AM
Yeah, most, meaning the median or common distribution.
That's why I linked to an example where the range was 9 - 16:
> We confirmed the high levels of T (9-16 ng/ml...
> there was no evidence for ovary tumor in either ovary.
Reading comprehension problems (noticing the trend yet?)
That's why I linked to an example where the range was 9 - 16:
> We confirmed the high levels of T (9-16 ng/ml...
> there was no evidence for ovary tumor in either ovary.
Reading comprehension problems (noticing the trend yet?)
According to Wikipedia... 😅
August 6, 2025 at 11:59 PM
According to Wikipedia... 😅
Because you have reading comprehension problems. Yes, chimeras have mosaicism, but people with mosaicism are not necessarily chimeric. The person in the study I linked to was NOT chimeric. Your Wikipedia article is not an authoritative source, and the citations explain the confusion _some_ have.
August 6, 2025 at 11:55 PM
Because you have reading comprehension problems. Yes, chimeras have mosaicism, but people with mosaicism are not necessarily chimeric. The person in the study I linked to was NOT chimeric. Your Wikipedia article is not an authoritative source, and the citations explain the confusion _some_ have.
It's almost like you have a complete lack of the necessary education to make claims about any of this - remember when I said your default position should be acknowledging that you are just wrong?
You make this just _too_ easy. 🤣
You make this just _too_ easy. 🤣
August 6, 2025 at 10:15 PM
It's almost like you have a complete lack of the necessary education to make claims about any of this - remember when I said your default position should be acknowledging that you are just wrong?
You make this just _too_ easy. 🤣
You make this just _too_ easy. 🤣
Do **you** what a chimera is?? Because that person had a 93XY/6X mosaicism in her ovaries - not chimerism.
But again, flex those reading comprehension skills and highlight the passage where it said they had chimerism 🤣
It proves XY females can have functioning reproduction - directly refutes this:
But again, flex those reading comprehension skills and highlight the passage where it said they had chimerism 🤣
It proves XY females can have functioning reproduction - directly refutes this:
August 6, 2025 at 10:15 PM
Do **you** what a chimera is?? Because that person had a 93XY/6X mosaicism in her ovaries - not chimerism.
But again, flex those reading comprehension skills and highlight the passage where it said they had chimerism 🤣
It proves XY females can have functioning reproduction - directly refutes this:
But again, flex those reading comprehension skills and highlight the passage where it said they had chimerism 🤣
It proves XY females can have functioning reproduction - directly refutes this:
You are welcome to highlight the part of that article that said she used IVF for her two natural pregnancies. 😅
Do you even know what ‘reading comprehension’ is?
Do you even know what ‘reading comprehension’ is?
August 6, 2025 at 9:32 PM
You are welcome to highlight the part of that article that said she used IVF for her two natural pregnancies. 😅
Do you even know what ‘reading comprehension’ is?
Do you even know what ‘reading comprehension’ is?
Yes, when you _hear_ that someone _says_ those cropped images with zero context are Khelif's actual medical records - that would indeed qualify as hearsay.
I think this is hilarious that you don't know how this works yet. You lack even the self-awareness to understand how dumb you look.
I think this is hilarious that you don't know how this works yet. You lack even the self-awareness to understand how dumb you look.
August 6, 2025 at 8:10 PM
Yes, when you _hear_ that someone _says_ those cropped images with zero context are Khelif's actual medical records - that would indeed qualify as hearsay.
I think this is hilarious that you don't know how this works yet. You lack even the self-awareness to understand how dumb you look.
I think this is hilarious that you don't know how this works yet. You lack even the self-awareness to understand how dumb you look.
XY does not define a male human. Just a male karyotype. You can have a male karyotype _despite_ having a female genotype, female phenotype, female neuroanatomy, and female physiology / morphology.
XY Females exist.
You have no proof that Khelif is not an XY female, and only hearsay she is XY.
XY Females exist.
You have no proof that Khelif is not an XY female, and only hearsay she is XY.
August 6, 2025 at 7:59 PM
XY does not define a male human. Just a male karyotype. You can have a male karyotype _despite_ having a female genotype, female phenotype, female neuroanatomy, and female physiology / morphology.
XY Females exist.
You have no proof that Khelif is not an XY female, and only hearsay she is XY.
XY Females exist.
You have no proof that Khelif is not an XY female, and only hearsay she is XY.
Well, you've clearly cracked the case - 'no comment' has never been used before to mean 'no comment' - especially when lawsuits are underway for false accusations and misrepresented medical records.
Are you 12 years old?
Are you 12 years old?
August 6, 2025 at 7:50 PM
Well, you've clearly cracked the case - 'no comment' has never been used before to mean 'no comment' - especially when lawsuits are underway for false accusations and misrepresented medical records.
Are you 12 years old?
Are you 12 years old?
It is hearsay from you that Cazorla agreed with the findings of an unverified medical report.
You just don't understand the definition of the word hearsay, just like you don't understand the definition of the word observable.
I can't fix your stupid problem.
You just don't understand the definition of the word hearsay, just like you don't understand the definition of the word observable.
I can't fix your stupid problem.
August 6, 2025 at 6:57 PM
It is hearsay from you that Cazorla agreed with the findings of an unverified medical report.
You just don't understand the definition of the word hearsay, just like you don't understand the definition of the word observable.
I can't fix your stupid problem.
You just don't understand the definition of the word hearsay, just like you don't understand the definition of the word observable.
I can't fix your stupid problem.
A complete lack of reading comprehension is like your superpower or something.
August 6, 2025 at 6:45 PM
A complete lack of reading comprehension is like your superpower or something.
I have not seen any confirmation that the medical records in the screenshot are:
1. Imane Khelif's.
2. From the hospital Kremlin-Bicêtre.
3. Confirmed by G. Cazorla.
4. Say Imane is a Male and not an XY (or other) Female.
Particularly when Cazorla says the EXACT OPPOSITE of your unsourced claims:
1. Imane Khelif's.
2. From the hospital Kremlin-Bicêtre.
3. Confirmed by G. Cazorla.
4. Say Imane is a Male and not an XY (or other) Female.
Particularly when Cazorla says the EXACT OPPOSITE of your unsourced claims:
August 6, 2025 at 6:25 PM
I have not seen any confirmation that the medical records in the screenshot are:
1. Imane Khelif's.
2. From the hospital Kremlin-Bicêtre.
3. Confirmed by G. Cazorla.
4. Say Imane is a Male and not an XY (or other) Female.
Particularly when Cazorla says the EXACT OPPOSITE of your unsourced claims:
1. Imane Khelif's.
2. From the hospital Kremlin-Bicêtre.
3. Confirmed by G. Cazorla.
4. Say Imane is a Male and not an XY (or other) Female.
Particularly when Cazorla says the EXACT OPPOSITE of your unsourced claims:
Google exists, and confirms your claim is untrue. That's why I asked you to provide the source for your claim. The only person who has ever claimed the NHGRI says this is true is Emma Hilton (hearsay) who is a notorious transphobe. And she does not have evidence to support her claim either.
August 6, 2025 at 5:29 PM
Google exists, and confirms your claim is untrue. That's why I asked you to provide the source for your claim. The only person who has ever claimed the NHGRI says this is true is Emma Hilton (hearsay) who is a notorious transphobe. And she does not have evidence to support her claim either.
Do you have her actual medical records? Or did you just accept the _hearsay_ of Ait Aoudia based on his alleged access to the unverified records?
Because so far you have only presented 3rd party hearsay, not even the alleged records.
Do you often get your medical opinions from journalists?
Because so far you have only presented 3rd party hearsay, not even the alleged records.
Do you often get your medical opinions from journalists?
August 6, 2025 at 5:23 PM
Do you have her actual medical records? Or did you just accept the _hearsay_ of Ait Aoudia based on his alleged access to the unverified records?
Because so far you have only presented 3rd party hearsay, not even the alleged records.
Do you often get your medical opinions from journalists?
Because so far you have only presented 3rd party hearsay, not even the alleged records.
Do you often get your medical opinions from journalists?
I've already presented peer reviewed proof that XY SRY+ females exist due to more reasons besides 5-ARD. You are just too dumb to read / comprehend them.
You have no proof Khelif is not one of those rare cases, and you ignored testimony from a doctor that she is.
link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/...
You have no proof Khelif is not one of those rare cases, and you ignored testimony from a doctor that she is.
link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/...
August 6, 2025 at 5:11 PM
I've already presented peer reviewed proof that XY SRY+ females exist due to more reasons besides 5-ARD. You are just too dumb to read / comprehend them.
You have no proof Khelif is not one of those rare cases, and you ignored testimony from a doctor that she is.
link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/...
You have no proof Khelif is not one of those rare cases, and you ignored testimony from a doctor that she is.
link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/...
The election was verifiable, the verbal statements of a third party about Khelif are by definition 'hearsay'.
August 6, 2025 at 5:07 PM
The election was verifiable, the verbal statements of a third party about Khelif are by definition 'hearsay'.