I have it on good authority there is a 5th element. I saw it in a documentary. It’s … perfect.
The people that need to understand this, will not understand this.
They won’t even notice the “others” part because they refuse to wear their glasses
Oh yes, the statistical mindset. Similarly, one could argue that for large integers, statistically there is no prime numbers.
Statistically, there are no small integers.
We also know elements can’t change to a different element through any kind of reaction or anything that would be absurd. I’m tired of these woke scientists.
Have you tried alchemy?
Alchemy started as a hastily invented way to disguise a piss-drinking fetish that got way way out of hand.
Incredible, thank you for that!
and stars are enacting the trans agenda to turn Hydrogen into Helium
Everytime I wake up in the morning, it’s because the light of a star has made me woke. Coincidences? I THINK NOT!
That shit is going to blow up in all of our faces before it’s all said and done, you mark my words.
It’s gonna blow out like my pants after gas station sushi
Yeah, shining and flaring like the beautiful little stars they are supposed to be!
Hollywood celebrities pushing the woke mind virus.
I prefer Hydrogen. While I am not Hydrogen, I say everything else must be.
It is UNUSUAL for an element to not be either hydrogen or helium. There is nothing wrong with it. It is simultaneously totally OK, an ABSOLUTE MINORITY position, and notably UNUSUAL considering statistical evaluation.
You can ascribe whatever meaning to that you want, but it is not a statistically typical position to be an element that is not hydrogen, not helium, and… Well… It’s also pretty unusual to have extra neutrons or something and be BETWEEN hydrogen and helium.
Again, this is TOTALLY FINE. And it is accurate in other hypothetical contexts which are in no way being referenced here. These group sizes are still, of course, in no way the same.
It’s not super uncommon to change from hydrogen to helium, but in other contexts… Yes it is. Still totally fine.
Everybody is just getting along the best he/she/they can, but PEOPLE have rights, we don’t need to argue for rights by common-washing. It ain’t common.
I’m just a Helium atom living in a Hydrogen atoms universe.
Wow, way to be another Atomist propagating more Hydrogenism lies!
Down with the hydriaechy!
I keep reading about how they don’t have enough helium supply. Is everything fake news?
The universe is full of Helium.
It’s just not concentrated here on Earth.
And also we want a very specific isotope of helium. The stuff you put in a balloon isn’t the same helium the planet is getting low on.
I read that if it wasn’t for the US dumping it’s strategic helium supply, the price of a party balloon would be $50. Yes, Helium 3 gets attention for Fusion research but regular Helium is used heavily in imaging equipment like MRI’s. The Large Hadron Collider needs 130 metric tons of the stuff.
Helium is one of those things I don’t really care about. I could tell you I never liked balloons because of their impact on the environment, and that would be true, especially with ones getting released into the air. However I also have a really selfish reason, and that was cleaning them up. I never really liked water balloons for the same reasons, and I’m so happy I haven’t been around much confetti.
helium3 is getting low, right? I had heard we’re looking at mining operations on the moon, but I think that would be a very bad idea…
nothing like unchecked capitalism in space.
There’s virtually no helium 3 on Earth, but that’s not because we’re using it up, it’s because there was essentially never any really to begin with.
The moon has helium 3 on its surface so naturally that leads to the idea of mining the moon for the material. But there are no actual serious plans to do so, for one thing nobody knows how you would actually go about doing that. Besides there’s practically no market for it, it’s used in some fusion research but only a tiny quantity is required and that can be supplied with domestic supplies more or less forever, since it’s possible to manufacture it from normal helium.
I think there was a this movie 🤔 about helium 3 🤔 and other stuff on the moon 🤔🤔
Ohhh, yea
It was Nazis 😂
Wait! What about the movie “Moon” (I think).
Isn’t that what they were mining?
Were there Nazis in Moon and I’ve forgotten? I mostly remember 1 or 2 guys
I had Iron Sky in mind 😇:
Honestly we’re probably way too late to stop that from happening. That’s been part of Elon’s plans for a long time. Battery power, robot tech, space technology. And Elon isn’t the only player eyeing what’s out there.
By the time we figure out something better than capitalism will have a few more solar systems to screw up on the new thing too.
i love breathing “other”!!!
Mmm, nitrogen, my love. *passes out*
shoulda gone with the nitrous oxide… still passes out
The universe has low metallicity.
Pure H, He ash, and filthy metals.
whats michael jackson's favorite gas
hee helium
Astronomers: correct
hydrogen, helium, metal
Science is for the birds
And birds aren’t real
Since birds aren’t real they are government spying devices
Since birds are government spying devices the government is spying on all of us
Since the government likes watching us they are voyeurs
Some trans people are also voyeurs
Voyeurism is diagnosed using science
Therefore trans people are birds
Shove that in and out of your logic hole until some kind of fluid sprays out
and monitor lizards
trans people are birds
birds aren’t real
Trans people aren’t real. Checkmate liberals. /s
If you follow the very perfect logic even further you’ll realize that trans people are actually government spying devices. Top and bottom surgery is actually just to replace things with cameras.
Can confirm, I got to choose a camera model at my dickectomy.
See!? Witness the surveillance inherent in the system! Help! I’m being surveilled I’m being surveilled!
I couldn’t really follow along with your logic maze, but I agree with you’re final point… which I think is,
Public transit is faster than birds.
A well reasoned and thoroughly salient, and logical, addition to my argument.
This person logics.
I have a question for kind of the whole thread in general, regarding the gametes discussion. Isn’t it the case that a human is born with all the eggs they’ll ever have? So like if you aren’t born with any, you’ll never make any later? And if so, isn’t the only way to produce eggs to become pregnant with a child and make their eggs for them?
e: I’m getting the impression that this comment is interpreted as a transphobic argument. To be clear, I don’t think sex is binary, and that even if it were, it would have no bearing on gender.
I’ve added a link to the discussion which inspired the question.
Update: It’s possible for an intersex person to have both eggs and sperm, so I think that definition of sex as a binary collapses on itself, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome (I’m not sure I agree with characterizing any kind of intersex as disordered, but I also don’t know enough about it to make a strong argument and also I didn’t write the page.)
The word “make” does a lot of heavy lifting when it comes to pregnancy. A word like “nurture” might fit better. Once the sperm and egg combine, it starts doing its own thing, the mother’s body just provides resources for it to continue growing and a safe place to do so for the first 9 months give or take.
So the way to make human egg cells would be to either be conceived as a female and have everything go well enough to grow those eggs, or probably some other methods involving introducing various chemicals to unspecialized cells to trick them into behaving as if that was happening.
Okay, thank you.
When you say other methods, do you mean like in a lab somewhere? I was restricting my idea of egg production to what’s naturally capable by a human body (which I feel is in the spirit of powerstruggle’s definition of a sexual binary), but I figure probably anyone can produce any gametes they like through the magic of science.
Yeah, I was talking about the magic of science or extreme coincidences.
Ultimately (having read your other reply), I don’t think biological definitions are useful when it comes to social things like gender. It’s just trying to change the argument into an easier one. “What is normal?” vs “what is possible?” or “what is ok?”.
Are you asking leading questions?
There’s a comment chain in this thread focused on the definition of sex as producing one of two gametes, which leads to pointing out that some people produce no gametes, which is countered by saying they could potentially produce them in the future or if they didn’t have a particular condition, etc. Normally I would post this kind of question directly to someone, but the same stuff is being said so many times that I’m not sure which one to reply to, hence creating a new comment chain.
Basically I’m thinking that defining the female sex by ability (or potential ability) to produce eggs might be faulty on the grounds that no one produces eggs. Or that only a person pregnant with a child who will be born with eggs can be said to have achieved femaleness by this definition. Or maybe the baby is the one making the eggs, so the only way to be female is to have produced eggs prior to birth. I’m not really sure of the details regarding when the eggs develop or who’s really responsible for them, I’m just pretty sure they’re there at birth and it’s interesting to think about.
The term that might help you is “oogenesis”.
Essentially once cells have begun dividing following fertilization some are set apart as germ cells. These are the cells that eventually become gametes. The thing is, like I tried to mention in my last reply to that guy, it isn’t strictly chromosomes that determine what these cells become in humans. Lots of genetic transcription and translation factors, hormones and hormone receptors, ligands and so on are involved. Sometimes those cells don’t even make it into the gonad, they die, and are absorbed by the embryo’s body.
This is why sex isn’t a binary, there is a spectrum of outcomes following gametogenesis, including a lack of gametes. Statistically it is most likely for a person who is born XX to have primary and secondary female sex characteristics. But that doesn’t mean people who fall outside of that aren’t also “biologically” women. If you define a woman as someone that is born with eggs, you deny womanhood to millions of people that would otherwise be considered a cis-woman by outdated standards.
That person stated one argument and then kept changing it, eventually arguing that we just weren’t understanding his words. Either he’s willfully ignorant and pushing a definition that is not taught in American universities, or he has an agenda. And the refusal to acknowledge the 30+ comments telling him he is wrong really suggests that there is an agenda.
I’m pretty sure they have an agenda, yeah. I just wanted to think about the premise on its own terms, like how one might think about the definition of a fish? I feel like it’s both personally enriching and better equips me to respond to such arguments. Even though I don’t think they’ll listen to anyone, I don’t think anyone’s responses to them were a waste of time because I really feel like I’ve learned a lot from reading them, and I’m sure plenty of other people did too, so thank you for your labor.
That’s admirable that you want to be able to respond to arguments in a more thoughtful way, and I’m sorry people were assuming otherwise. I can’t really condense the entire semester of my developmental biology class into a comment, but I tried to give you terms to explore and learn more about.
I read the edit to your original comment and I think you’re on the right path!
If you’re trying to define being a woman as being a female by “asking questions” which, in this context, are stupid ones then sure. Unfortunately for that line of thinking it’s only possible if you’re aggressively ignorant so I’m hoping that I’m misunderstanding something.
At the end of the day, gender and sex are separate things which often councide in a certain way but do not need to. I won’t claim to understand that feeling as a cis dude but that’s just how it is. Bringing sex into the transgender talk is beyond pointless(except when it isn’t, but that’s not what people who talk about “biological females” are ever talking about).
You are misunderstanding, but I don’t blame you in the slightest. I don’t seem to have communicated very clearly. Someone else in this post has a comment making the argument that there are two sexes and that all humans either produce one of two gametes or have the potential to based on their body’s design, and at the time I thought it would be very obvious what I was referring to and why I would make a separate post instead of replying in that chain. I’m sorry for the confusion and any offense.
What I’m thinking about with my question is whether any humans can truly be considered as capable of producing eggs if they must be present at birth, if even people who already have eggs can’t make more.
Ah ok cool cool. “Asking questions” is always a dicey game that needs incredibly clear intent these days.
I don’t have the background nevessary to answer your question, but if I understand it correctly you’re asking about when the eggs are created and, if they’re technically made before birth, does it then not count. I’m not sure any one definition would really help nail it down. It’s a question that can probably not be answered within a strict binary which I imagine is part of the point you were trying to make, that said strict binary isn’t something we should be wasting too much time trying to force in the first place.
