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. 🤷♂️
Damn you are dumb.
You are telling us *all* humans are male or female just because our _species_ is gonochoric.
That’s equivalent to saying everyone must have two legs because our species is bipedal.
And yet, some people have both sexes, just like some people are born with only one leg.
You are telling us *all* humans are male or female just because our _species_ is gonochoric.
That’s equivalent to saying everyone must have two legs because our species is bipedal.
And yet, some people have both sexes, just like some people are born with only one leg.
August 11, 2025 at 5:04 PM
Damn you are dumb.
You are telling us *all* humans are male or female just because our _species_ is gonochoric.
That’s equivalent to saying everyone must have two legs because our species is bipedal.
And yet, some people have both sexes, just like some people are born with only one leg.
You are telling us *all* humans are male or female just because our _species_ is gonochoric.
That’s equivalent to saying everyone must have two legs because our species is bipedal.
And yet, some people have both sexes, just like some people are born with only one leg.
And, again, what does the development towards ovaries and testes result in?
How do you determine the dominant sex if neither produce gametes?
You are slow rolling this answer like a toddler dragging their feet to a nap.
How do you determine the dominant sex if neither produce gametes?
You are slow rolling this answer like a toddler dragging their feet to a nap.
August 11, 2025 at 4:58 PM
And, again, what does the development towards ovaries and testes result in?
How do you determine the dominant sex if neither produce gametes?
You are slow rolling this answer like a toddler dragging their feet to a nap.
How do you determine the dominant sex if neither produce gametes?
You are slow rolling this answer like a toddler dragging their feet to a nap.
And what do those pathways consist of?
August 11, 2025 at 4:56 PM
And what do those pathways consist of?
You mean that previous post where you ignored reality and tried to change the subject because you realized you lost the argument??
Oh I remember that, it made you look like a complete idiot. 🤷♂️
Oh I remember that, it made you look like a complete idiot. 🤷♂️
August 11, 2025 at 4:55 PM
You mean that previous post where you ignored reality and tried to change the subject because you realized you lost the argument??
Oh I remember that, it made you look like a complete idiot. 🤷♂️
Oh I remember that, it made you look like a complete idiot. 🤷♂️
@alyssa3467.bsky.social - I’m starting to think he actually believes the pathway is a real trail that fetuses have to traverse to get to their sex.
a cartoon of a car driving down a road with the words " decisions " below it
ALT: a cartoon of a car driving down a road with the words " decisions " below it
media.tenor.com
August 10, 2025 at 1:36 PM
@alyssa3467.bsky.social - I’m starting to think he actually believes the pathway is a real trail that fetuses have to traverse to get to their sex.
The bipedal nature of humans is an evolved reality.
It just is.
There’s no way around that.
- You, trying to justify that congenital amputeeism doesn’t exist. 🤣
It just is.
There’s no way around that.
- You, trying to justify that congenital amputeeism doesn’t exist. 🤣
August 10, 2025 at 1:29 PM
The bipedal nature of humans is an evolved reality.
It just is.
There’s no way around that.
- You, trying to justify that congenital amputeeism doesn’t exist. 🤣
It just is.
There’s no way around that.
- You, trying to justify that congenital amputeeism doesn’t exist. 🤣
That’s not an answer to the question. You can’t answer it, so you gave an example of something else that also doesn’t answer it. 🤣
August 10, 2025 at 1:25 PM
That’s not an answer to the question. You can’t answer it, so you gave an example of something else that also doesn’t answer it. 🤣
You replaced the word sex with pathway. And then you didn’t explain what materially defines the pathways, just like you didn’t with sex.
We know it’s because you can’t.
We know it’s because you can’t.
August 10, 2025 at 1:20 PM
You replaced the word sex with pathway. And then you didn’t explain what materially defines the pathways, just like you didn’t with sex.
We know it’s because you can’t.
We know it’s because you can’t.
But again, if you are stating you have to be able to produce eggs and sperm, well then a lot of people are not even male or female. But you know that’s not the requirement. And you now know people have both ovaries and testes. And in rare cases they can produce both sperm and eggs.
August 10, 2025 at 1:15 PM
But again, if you are stating you have to be able to produce eggs and sperm, well then a lot of people are not even male or female. But you know that’s not the requirement. And you now know people have both ovaries and testes. And in rare cases they can produce both sperm and eggs.
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.
It’s an analogy designed to help you understand a very basic concept. You think a third category cannot emerge from binary inputs, and yet it clearly can.
Mixing pathways is a third category. Just like a person with heterochromia goes in a unique eye-color group from the homochromia ones.
Mixing pathways is a third category. Just like a person with heterochromia goes in a unique eye-color group from the homochromia ones.
August 10, 2025 at 1:08 PM
It’s an analogy designed to help you understand a very basic concept. You think a third category cannot emerge from binary inputs, and yet it clearly can.
Mixing pathways is a third category. Just like a person with heterochromia goes in a unique eye-color group from the homochromia ones.
Mixing pathways is a third category. Just like a person with heterochromia goes in a unique eye-color group from the homochromia ones.
August 10, 2025 at 1:01 PM
Yes, we get a little device, kinda like a dimmer switch for lights but it determines sex. 🤦♂️
When not geno/phenotypically concordant they are typically assigned intersex.
If the person identifies as a given sex, we accept that - even when it’s opposite of their physiology.
When not geno/phenotypically concordant they are typically assigned intersex.
If the person identifies as a given sex, we accept that - even when it’s opposite of their physiology.
August 10, 2025 at 1:01 PM
Yes, we get a little device, kinda like a dimmer switch for lights but it determines sex. 🤦♂️
When not geno/phenotypically concordant they are typically assigned intersex.
If the person identifies as a given sex, we accept that - even when it’s opposite of their physiology.
When not geno/phenotypically concordant they are typically assigned intersex.
If the person identifies as a given sex, we accept that - even when it’s opposite of their physiology.
They are, I’ve provided multiple forms of evidence to support them.
Your reply has been “nuh uh” - something someone resorts to when they know they don’t have a good response and have lost the argument.
Your reply has been “nuh uh” - something someone resorts to when they know they don’t have a good response and have lost the argument.
August 10, 2025 at 12:51 PM
They are, I’ve provided multiple forms of evidence to support them.
Your reply has been “nuh uh” - something someone resorts to when they know they don’t have a good response and have lost the argument.
Your reply has been “nuh uh” - something someone resorts to when they know they don’t have a good response and have lost the argument.
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
Nope, we’re talking about your complete inability to provide a definition of sex that meets the criterion of binary.
But you keep changing the subject.
So, sex is not binary, unless of course you can provide an explanation for how having OT-VSD is not a circumstance of having both pathways.
But you keep changing the subject.
So, sex is not binary, unless of course you can provide an explanation for how having OT-VSD is not a circumstance of having both pathways.
August 9, 2025 at 10:43 PM
Nope, we’re talking about your complete inability to provide a definition of sex that meets the criterion of binary.
But you keep changing the subject.
So, sex is not binary, unless of course you can provide an explanation for how having OT-VSD is not a circumstance of having both pathways.
But you keep changing the subject.
So, sex is not binary, unless of course you can provide an explanation for how having OT-VSD is not a circumstance of having both pathways.
You are astoundingly ignorant.
August 9, 2025 at 10:23 PM
You are astoundingly ignorant.
You sure have the memory of a hamlet fish. Corpus luteum histologies are reliable indicators of ovulation. And your premise falters when you acknowledge people can have a dysgenic ovary and testis - so they produce neither sperm/ova, but are on both pathways still.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200380/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200380/
Ovulation in a cytogenetically proved phenotypically male fertile hermaphrodite - PubMed
An unusual case of true hermaphroditism is reported. The patient was a 32-year-old phenotypically male true hermaphrodite. Histology of his removed ovary suggested that ovulation had, at some time, oc...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
August 9, 2025 at 10:20 PM
You sure have the memory of a hamlet fish. Corpus luteum histologies are reliable indicators of ovulation. And your premise falters when you acknowledge people can have a dysgenic ovary and testis - so they produce neither sperm/ova, but are on both pathways still.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200380/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200380/
If you had two choices of soda, Coke and Diet Coke, and I asked for a mix of half of each, what am I drinking? It’s a different category from the other two, despite being comprised of two choices. The mix is no longer Coke, and no longer Diet Coke. There’s no third soda, but it’s not a Coke either.
August 9, 2025 at 10:15 PM
If you had two choices of soda, Coke and Diet Coke, and I asked for a mix of half of each, what am I drinking? It’s a different category from the other two, despite being comprised of two choices. The mix is no longer Coke, and no longer Diet Coke. There’s no third soda, but it’s not a Coke either.
You’ve already been told the answer to this.
Binary: male or female.
Ternary: male or female or hermaphrodite.
Quaternary: unknown, male, female, hermaphrodite.
Binary: male or female.
Ternary: male or female or hermaphrodite.
Quaternary: unknown, male, female, hermaphrodite.
August 9, 2025 at 10:15 PM
You’ve already been told the answer to this.
Binary: male or female.
Ternary: male or female or hermaphrodite.
Quaternary: unknown, male, female, hermaphrodite.
Binary: male or female.
Ternary: male or female or hermaphrodite.
Quaternary: unknown, male, female, hermaphrodite.
So developing an ovary and a testis breaks your binary definition. As would just developing ovotestes.
This is you: sex is binary, it’s based on the pathway, the pathway is defined by the sex, and the pathway defines the sex.
Your circular reasoning comes across as desperate and uneducated.
This is you: sex is binary, it’s based on the pathway, the pathway is defined by the sex, and the pathway defines the sex.
Your circular reasoning comes across as desperate and uneducated.
August 9, 2025 at 10:04 PM
So developing an ovary and a testis breaks your binary definition. As would just developing ovotestes.
This is you: sex is binary, it’s based on the pathway, the pathway is defined by the sex, and the pathway defines the sex.
Your circular reasoning comes across as desperate and uneducated.
This is you: sex is binary, it’s based on the pathway, the pathway is defined by the sex, and the pathway defines the sex.
Your circular reasoning comes across as desperate and uneducated.
So how does someone end up with an ovary and a testis? Are those not the endpoints of two different pathways?
What does the pathway consist of?
I’ll agree sex is binary if you can provide a warrant that meets scientific consensus, until then it’s just a meritless claim.
What does the pathway consist of?
I’ll agree sex is binary if you can provide a warrant that meets scientific consensus, until then it’s just a meritless claim.
August 9, 2025 at 10:00 PM
So how does someone end up with an ovary and a testis? Are those not the endpoints of two different pathways?
What does the pathway consist of?
I’ll agree sex is binary if you can provide a warrant that meets scientific consensus, until then it’s just a meritless claim.
What does the pathway consist of?
I’ll agree sex is binary if you can provide a warrant that meets scientific consensus, until then it’s just a meritless claim.
So you can’t have both, but if you did (as I clearly demonstrated) it’s based on which pathway is dominant.
Ok, as I asked before, what determines the dominant pathway. Is it based on organ count? Weight of tissues? A hierarchy of traits?
Stop changing the subject and answer the questions.
Ok, as I asked before, what determines the dominant pathway. Is it based on organ count? Weight of tissues? A hierarchy of traits?
Stop changing the subject and answer the questions.
August 9, 2025 at 9:57 PM
So you can’t have both, but if you did (as I clearly demonstrated) it’s based on which pathway is dominant.
Ok, as I asked before, what determines the dominant pathway. Is it based on organ count? Weight of tissues? A hierarchy of traits?
Stop changing the subject and answer the questions.
Ok, as I asked before, what determines the dominant pathway. Is it based on organ count? Weight of tissues? A hierarchy of traits?
Stop changing the subject and answer the questions.