All Activity

Complaining that I'm being "obstinate" about a very fundamental and uncontestable fact because some other party ("the far right") is abusing science for political reasons makes it sound like I should be shutting up even if I'm correct. Why should I care what you were referring to, precisely? What does the biological fact that there are only two sexes noted on this forum have anything to do with what is going on at the White House, the Department of Education, various state governments, and the workings of the two parties? You're telling me to shut up about this because of something someone else is doing is a call for self-censorship. Stop trying to worm your way out of very plain words. I've already dealt with the bullshit about being an "enemy" because I'm not agreeing to nonsense that I don't believe is accurate. I have no monopoly on science. But there is no third gamete. There's male and there's female, and it's incumbent on you, if making a contrary claim, to prove that claim. Your own sources agreed with me, which is the weirdest thing. What then is the third sex? Sex is binary. There is one or the other. Variations of sexual traits, on the other hand, are bimodal, sure. As I already said, we can determine sex with 99.8% accuracy with an ultrasound. And 99.95% accuracy out of the womb. How can we do this? Well, we see the physical development of the organs of gamete and sexual hormone production in the ultrasounds, and we literally see the external organs associated with those organs out of the womb, and combined we approach 100% accurate sexual identification. People are making this overly complicated, and it seems counter-productive to me because it looks a lot like trying to erase biological sex from consideration when figuring out appropriate policies, and I think most people are going to object to that when you start to apply that logic to policy problems. I think the easiest way to look at this from a policy perspective is acknowledge that gender is a spectrum, and that the biological sex aspect is a part of that spectrum and needs to be considered when relevant to understanding issues. There are some transwomen who are hormonally and phenotypically completely identical to males, and there are some transwomen who are hormonally and phenotypically substantially less male, and maybe you need to have different rules for different groups depending on the areas of concern (sports, locker rooms, etc.) But that smells too much like compromise for activists on both sides, I suspect.

I don't like that theory very much. The literally have her kill someone in the final Arya chapter in ADWD. Who knows though, I've given up predicting on where George is taking her story, lol

Lol

Oh, not that it’s any of your business, but the reason I’m up late is because my last final is at 12:30 on Monday, and I spent four hours Sunday publishing my summer courses. It must be quite convenient though for you to insult others’ personal lives.

The sex binary is a fact. There are males and females. You might say the way that is expressed may differ with various factors but it doesn’t change the basic fact of the sex binary.

That's a nice detail. "The man who passes the sentence must swing the sword." Right, Ned would totally do that were he King.

"Biological sex = gametes" is also scientifically not true. It's an overly simplistic understanding that is derived from a human desire to reduce sex to a simple binary. People only started identifying gametes with "biological sex" after those people who believed that chromosomes equated to biological sex got crushed by science. When we determine the "sex" humans or other animals, we are not looking just at gametes alone. That is bad science. The sex of a human or other animal is a sum of elements and markers that includes but not exclusive to gametes. Biologists will also use markers like sexual dimorphism, internal/external genitalia, chromosomes, hormone expression, behavior, neurological elements, etc. It's about a phenotypic sex model over andg against a singular aspect of genotypic sex. This likely factors into the problem with a lot of discussion. There are people who insist that gametes proves that biological sex is binary. However, those who view sex as a spectrum are using the phenotypical model in which is a person's sex is a sum of gametes, chromosomes, secondary sex expressions, brain chemistry, and behavior.

One of my contemporaries at uni was a Tory who stood for the local elections: Rupert Garton-Jones. But he was standing in an area where the double-barreled surname would, let's say, have been a disadvantage (and being called Rupert wouldn't do him any favours either). So his posters dropped the forename and the hyphen, reading Vote Garton JONES Nice try. Didn't work.

I believe you would get more feedback if you posted this on any writing site. Wattpad, Fanfiction net, Archive of Our Own, etc. Cheers.

Watched John Wick 4 this weekend. I feel like four is enough, tbh three was probably enough? Not sure if it was just me, but I couldn't really engage with it, all a bit too predictable. Went to see Abigail last night. As predicted merely from learning what the run time was, this film was a bit too long. However, I did enjoy it overall. Some nice cinematography too. But there's a high bar to clear in the horror-comedy sub genre and I don't think this is a film I am going to need to revisit. (Unlike Dog Soldiers or Ginger Snaps) For one thing, the comedy wasn't quite comedy enough for me. The gore was pleasingly OTT though. Would recommend if you like horror and fancy something a bit more light-hearted/less tense than your average vampire/haunted house movie.

Agreed. Part of why Valyria interests us so much is the mystery surrounding it. There are many other examples throughout the series, of mystery and rumours being used to create an effect far more horrifying/interesting/scandalous/whatever than if it was directly stated to us. After all, each of us can come up with something which horrifies/interests/you-get-the-idea ourselves, so it's more personalized, you can say.

A bit late to this, but here's a very helpful site: A Search of Ice and Fire. If you remember any phrase from the scene, you can search it up and see what you get. Would love to hear if helps.

We have no real idea of how big an organization the Faceless Men is. I don't think it is huge, with tentacles everywhere, nor do I think it has much presence in Westeros. Having someone in a position of power who can help them could be quite useful. And her training seems more aimed at being an undercover agent than being an assassin. What talent she has is really nothing special. Her martial training is limited; I think her sword skills are basic at best. She is fearless, resourceful, and can be ruthless, all of which is useful, though hardly rare. However, she lacks the sort of sociopathic personality that would likely be necessary to be successful as an assassin for hire. She cares too much and asks too many questions.

It doesn't have variety all all. I can only see one outcome for each choice. Here's the list, if anyone is interested: Welcome to the ultimate Game of Thrones simulator. The longer the summer the longer the winter. This summer has lasted for about ten years, and winter is coming... Pick a house you will serve. Stark House Stark of Winterfell is a Great House of Westeros. Bran the builder is one of the first men, it was he who founded House Stark. Lord Eddard Stark is the house head. Male: You are a cousin of the Starks and serve as a squire for Ser Donnel Locke. You are following him on foot as the stark forces head towards the Green Fork. You are immediately slain in the battle and your master is captured. Female: You are a cousin of the Starks and serve as a nurse for Ser Donnel Locke. You are following him on foot as the stark forces head towards the Green Fork. You are immediately slain in the battle and your master is captured. Lannister House Lannister of Casterly Rock is one of the Great houses of Westeros. A common saying but not their actual motto is "A Lannister always pays his debts." Lord Tywin Lannister is house head. Male: You are killed by a dragon. Female: You are killed by a dragon. Bolton House Bolton of the Dreadfort is a noble house from the north. They have sworn allegiance to House Stark. Lord Roose Bolton is house head. Male: You are slain by the night's watch. Female: You are slain by the night's watch. Arryn House Arryn of the Eyrie is one of the Great Houses of Westeros. According to legend, the house was founded by Ser Artys Arryn, the Winged Knight. Lord Jon Arryn is house head. Male: You fall from a tall height and perish. Female: You fall from a tall height and perish. Greyjoy House Greyjoy of Pyke is one of the Great Houses of Westeros. The traditional ironborn way of life, is centered on piracy and raiding. King Balon Greyjoy is house head. Male: You drown at sea. Female: You drown at sea. (How absurd, I'm ironborn and I drown?!) Targaryen House Targaryen is a former Great House of Westeros. After Roberts Rebellion the few remaining Targaryens fled into exile. King Viserys III Targaryen is the house head. Male: Your sister kills you. Female: Your brother kills you. Tyrell House Tyrell of Highgarden is one of the Great Houses of Westeros. The Reach is the most fertile and populous region of Westeros, allowing House Tyrell to gain immense wealth Male: You are poisoned. Female: You are poisoned. The most annoying part is this message, which appears each time before we choose our gender: Now, are you male or female? (Gender affects the story, try playing as both and see what changes.) Literally nothing about the story changes no matter what we choose. The only "changes" are: if we're serving House Stark and are a male, then we're a squire, and if we're a female, then we're a nurse; if we're serving House Targaryen and are a male, then our sister kills us, and if we're a female, then our brother does. Overall, not a good generator.

It is! And this is bereft of it. I honestly don’t know where I fall on a number of issues discussed here, but your blatant biases certainly help the other side. …Cowardly censoriouness? WTF? Are you trying to be the next William Safire? Who, btw, was a dick that just used fun coins of term to make a career. Anyway, how am I trying to censor anything? Like, seriously, this defies basic logic and rather clearly is derived from some emotional based animus. But, to your credit, positively Nixonian. So, in other words, you don’t even know what I was referring to. K. Lemme know when you catch up. It’s very cute you think this. It assumes you have a monopoly on science. And a bewildering understanding of what self-censorship means. My friend, you are not on the left. In any way, shape, or form. Which is absolutely fine! I’d also like to clarify I don’t think you are in any way associated with the far right - that’s why I emphasized the difference. Further, I don’t think anyone here - and especially not you - is transphobic. But..you aren’t on any version of the left in any industrialized democracy I’m familiar with. Unless you think left means center.

Reverse jinx time. Pacers in 6.

Wrong orders though.

Nothing that I’ve seen of young Griff suggests to me a particularly capable ruler. And, I think that his capture of Kings Landing will be accompanied by the executions of Myrcella, Tommen, Margaery, and a bloodbath of anyone associated with the ancien regime. This may well be popular with his supporters, but will create opposition from the relatives of the victims.

So what if it looks like a hit. If anybody gets blamed, it would be the Lannisters, which would suit Baelish just fine. He's been pitting the two families against one another for some time. And I still fall to see how being locked in a wagon helps. The Wall is at the end of the world. Nobody would be able to hear Ned if he did say anything. And he doesn't know about Lysa's letter being arranged by Baelish, or who gave the initial tip to Stannis.

That's true but Arya's only been there for a couple of months/just under a year(?), and there is a theory she was being trained to gather intel rather than as an assassin.

What stored food? The Vale's? She wants to be in charge of the entire continent.

I had understood your argument to be that industrialisation meant that a large slave workforce was no longer required. However, slavery had vanished from the domestic economies of Western Europe, long before industrialisation, and long before their involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. There’s a very long period, beginning in the mid-12th century, where Western Europe abandons slavery, followed by a period, beginning about 200 years later, where serfdom gradually disappears. The Venetians continue to trade and use slaves in their Eastern colonies, but they’re atypical. Slavery in the British and French and Dutch colonies only starts becoming important in the latter half of the 17th century.

To be fair, they mostly have developed a skill set based on arrogance and narcissism, which can be good for getting people to take orders from you.

What cowardly censoriousness to hold that position that simply correcting a very basic issue of biology is "obstinacy" and "insistent attitude". How about encouraging people on the side we support to know their science and to argue from truth rather than falsehood? Last year's Title IX draft proposal on athletics looked fine to me, acknowledging that sex-based discrimination may be necessary for competitive fairness or safety in sports, as determined by the appropriate federations and associations. I know less about this year's update to the role of Title IX in activities, but a cursory look at them makes them seem rather broader and I'd have to read comments for and against to see if it's all really just the right being assholes as they usually are, or if there are points where the regulations can be better improved. I'm no scientist at all, which is why I'm even more mystified by your posting at 3AM on a Monday arguing for self-censorship on science. If people start to turn to the right on some culture war issue because people on the left keep misstating facts or outright lying about them, whose fault is that? "The right made us do it!" isn't going to fly. We on the left should be willing to be truthful when discussing the interface between policy and science, even about facts that may be in some fashion inconvenient when we know our opponent will seize on it as a wedge. We should be talking about civil rights for all people and be opposed to gender-based discrimination outside of narrow contexts, and then go about fighting over those contexts, rather than attempting to falsify biology for the sake of putting forward a counter-maximalist position just because the opponent has a maximal one.

No no. I was considering the Myrish lens Lysa sent to Master Luwin during the beginning of A Game of Thrones, imagine how that would be. Hmm, I wonder what does happen if nobody guessed the object after 20 questions.