You say what doesn’t make a “man” a woman and vice versa- but not what makes a man a man. “A man has many ways to say I’m a man” but how does he- or anyone else know he is a man to begin with? What makes him a man? Our operating line of reason (excluding “mutations”) is that a penis makes his sex male- but what makes his gender that of a man? If it is again- penis- why specify a gender at all and just sex? I’ll answer my own question. By its nature gender is not intrinsic. It is a classification- a description of roles in society. We have binary sexes and so we have binary genders because traditionally ones role in society was dependent upon ones reproductive function. We have people who don’t nearly fit either a binary sex or a binary gender concept- as we increase inclusiveness and equality in rights and more walls are destroyed between what each gender is “allowed” in society, we end up with blurring of gender roles. If you can’t tell what “being a man” is- or it is identical to....

Relating to non binary genders. When we analyize large data sets, the more “stakes” we can place to fine tune the categories of data, the more precise and accurate we can create a model. Informally there are already (often prejorative) subclasses to binary gender in popular use- “metrosexual” “Tom boy” “butch” and so on. These exist because certain relevant facts can be quickly ascertained from the classification, and a simple “man/woman” classification does not impart the key information in how this particular person defies gender role conventions. Gender is a system of classification, like any other your model must reflect reality, any data, assumptions, correlations etc. that you draw from a flawed model are likely as well to be flawed or inadequate. A binary classification by sex tells us the biological facts of an entity in terms of reproduction, but social roles are very dynamic as are individuals of a given sex, correlating sex to gender in a 1/1 binary system is inaccurate.

I don’t think you got my meaning. I’m not now nor ever suggesting intersex people disprove a two sex system. If we define sex as reproductive pairs- ones theoretical role in reproduction is can/can’t:egg/sperm. I’m saying that the social construct of gender doesn’t line up with the reality that there are as you say: “mutations” born which may have no functional reproductive role, or an ambiguous one. Yet we maintain binary gender. That was the point of my space example. Planet-star-other stuff (aka “mutation”) doesn’t work for a classification. You point out gender roles as defining ones gender- but gender roles change with time, few people completely fit the idea of a gender in a given time period, and the “walks like a man, talks like a man, must be a man” logic fails when confronted with a person who’s gender traits most closely mimic the idea of an other gender. As you mention, and again referencing my star example- we don’t really have statistics on crimes or other activity...

Show me the scientific criteria that defines anything with a penis as as man, and anything without a woman. It doesn’t exist. In terms of sex- breeding humans are paired by diametrically opposes reproductive organs. What we call those humans is irrelevant. That’s a fact. I lumped sex in with gender because regardless of the logic it is still a concept we made up to describe a reality, and as you say- the two sex model holds up to the scrutiny of reality. Gender is also a made up system- and this is what I was primarily referring to as it is more pertinent to the original post and comment by guest. Gender is completely made up, and has no hard defining characteristics. Gender and sex are not intrinsically linked, and intersex people can and most often do choose a gender for themselves. For a gender model to reflect reality it would have to reflect the genders that exist. That which doesn’t fit the model- “distortions” of this objective truth guest speaks of- show the flaws in the model.

I feel like you’re welcome to your opinion. I’m just trying to explore an idea, but it’s called “funsubstance” so if your idea of fun is non constructive analysis of others motivations based on assumption- please enjoy.

No. We did not. I didn’t say diss tracks were any of those things- I said that historically works seen as such have become romanticized as high art. They said that in simple terms a diss track is two people writing (insulting) poetry about each other in different rooms. If we look at the historical precident, that even vulgar or simple minded/innapropriate works can later become marks of high class entertainment- then it isn’t a stretch that two men writing (insulting) poetry in separate rooms could be romanticized by future generations. They are two distinct pieces of information that feed the same idea- that popular entertainment of an age is often not viewed as high art, but with time becomes dated and removed from its environment is viewed objectively or even through rose tinted glasses.

@guest seems to forget that gender and sex are categories we made up through observation and no objective truth. a realist, or someone looking at objective truth would change their model to reflect reality, not try to classify reality based on a model that doesn’t fit. We once looked at the sky and decided there were planets and stars. Then we realized moons aren’t planets- they are different. Black holes and quasars aren’t stars, asteroids and comets aren’t planets either. Their characteristics and behaviors required we change our model. Recently we decided (controversially) that Pluto was t a planet either. We search for truth in science. So we didn’t just decide that despite any reason otherwise we’d call everything a planet or a star because it was in space. Children are born all the time that specialists can’t say or male or female. But they exist. Bias truth clings to tradition, objective truth changes with additional information. I think you’re confused.

I would say the general purpose of change- especially sweeping and disruptive change- should be to improve upon the thing you’re changing and not simply to say: “well it’s already messed up so...”

In theory. It’s a fine line. Many charities are highly profitable, but when you do the accounting they are doing far more to help better their own and executives lives than the world. That may seem to go against what I said earlier, but there’s a distinction. An individual or corporation has its own goals. Any good it does are at its perofotive and not intrinsic to its being. A charity exists to do good. So while you should be able to live while doing public service, while not all charity requires a life of monk like poverty- it also shouldn’t be an excuse to throw killer parties or get rich. Donations and profits aren’t the same. People give donations thinking they will go to a cause that usually isn’t someones summer home. If charities are ran well and have checks and balances there is no problem with them being profitable. It’s when they are poorly ran, corrupt, or when people “game” tax and other laws to shield money that should go to the public good by sacrificing a smaller amount

Do you really think that the reason women shave their body hair is because they’re worried if they don’t that no one will have sex with them? Or that most women’s primary concern in life is getting sex? If you examine your misunderstanding of things you’ll see the type of thinking that is indicative of the problem.

It’s sad how often life goes that way. That’s what ruined my rocket powered toothbrush business too.

Better is subjective- but some people may prefer the crust ratio, the sizes of a slice, or the fact their are more. Having more than 1 pizza can make things like ordering a variety easier. A half/half may not be offered, or you may need 2 half half pizzas- meaning you can easily have 4 combinations of toppings with 2 mediums vs 2 with one large. You may have a situation where kids and adults are getting pizza and in different rooms or at different tables, and don’t forget if you want a specific combination of toppings- the extra topping charge is usually higher on a large than a medium, so while you get more pizza you can easily get less toppings with the large. By the numbers a single large will yield more pizza for less per square inch in cost. However the individual situation may not favor it. For example a single split pizza is harder to do 1/2 one type or quantity of sauce and another if one wants a bbq sauce, or white sauce, etc. the middle slices may end up a disgusting hybrid.

Doubling the 12 inches would give you a working diameter of 24 inches. You double pi because you are calculating for 2 12 inch circles and not one 24” circle. No joke. This is true.

It’s not 24 inches of pizza vs 18. 24 inched is the diameter of the pizza. Imagine a line drawn through the center of the widest pout of the pizza. That line would be 18 it 13 inches in our example. It doesn’t account for the pizza on either side of the line. Just the line. Because a circle has fixed dimensions, as the diameter increases, the area (total amount) of the circle increases greatly in every direction. We aren’t concerned with just the diameter of the pizza, because we aren’t just going to eat the center most line of the pizza. If you make a circle of string, and measure the diameter, then straighten the string you will see that the “crust” is much longer than the diameter you have already. Diameter is one one parameter of a circle,but we can use it with other formulas to get useful information. 2 12 inch pizzas is not 24” of pizza- the total amount of pizza is far greater. You have to look at all 3 dimensions when making the comparison, and account for total areal.

Clam and cheese. Classic.

Sorry. It’s spelled correctly. “Todd” in his name is short for “Toddler.”