DaveSumm

I think you’re going to have to come to terms with this being a different continuity. It’s not early, this is just when it shows up in this version. This much, much shitter version.

No, the video linked is the pre-teasening for the teaser, which itself teases the trailer, the purpose of which is to tease the season. Don’t know about you but I feel really, really teased right now.

Galactus cannot have a Yorkshire accent. I don’t know what accent he should have but it ain’t Yorkshire.

For some reason I feel like I really need a trailer to wrap my head around this movie. I just can’t visualise what a Gunn Superman movie with this many characters looks like at all. Suit looks OK, I like that it’s a casual thing and not the classic pose. Although the loose bunching at the shoulders is kinda odd, it makes it look like it’d be hard to move in.

Are those my only two options? I was making a point; you can’t have your cake and eat it. Either biological sex exists and there are those who aren’t born into the sex they wish they were, or it’s big murky slippery nothing and then, what are trans people complaining about? What do you mean you weren’t born into the sex you wanted? How are you defining sex? ETA; while I guess I’m coming across as being on a particular ‘side’ here, the hospital ward thing doesn’t make any sense that I can see and I can’t come up with any good arguments for it.

Ran hasn’t said anything that I would’ve expected anyone else to have been reprimanded for. I went digging before I saw the update, thanks. I did want to pull out this quote; Leaving aside this heavily biased assumption of their opponents motivations, it’s an interesting point because it can be levelled at both sides. If biological sex is so elusive, what exactly is it that trans people want to transition to or from? What is it that they wish they were born as? Can’t every one of your responses be levelled at any answer they might give in reply?

Sorry, you don’t get to call this a hyperfixation if you’re continually asking Ran what he means by biological sex. He’s responding to challenges that sex isn’t binary, in which case he’s unavoidably going to bring up gametes. I don’t think anyone wants to be talking about gametes page after page, I just can’t understand why you don’t just concede this simple point - for as long as humanity has existed, we’ve referred to men and women and those terms do actually correspond to something. We didn’t pull them out of a hat, it’s not smoke and mirrors that can be dismantled so we can all look back and wonder what on earth we were talking about.

Are we gonna derail a trans thread with some UK politics? Makes a change

I’ll see if I can dig out the source later, but I’m fairly sure he’s said that. He sees it as two distinct 5 book arcs and believes the second should be shorter. But as you point out, he thought that about the first so… *shrug*

Why wouldn’t I?

He’s an evolutionary biologist, so biological sex is smack dab in the middle of his field of expertise. It’s a shame he’s become far more known for his religious views because, while I largely agree with those views, his books on evolution are fantastic. The Selfish Gene should be required reading, particular its second chapter which is easily the best explanation of how evolution works I’ve read.

I don’t recall anyone ‘celebrating’ it…

I know we’re well past the point of making much progress in this debate, but for what it’s worth, this is exactly how it feels on the other side of the debate too. That the attempt is to eliminate any means by which one might successfully identify what, 20 years ago, was called a woman. First gender meant gender, sex meant sex. But now sex doesn’t mean that. We’ll have woman, but not female. OK you can’t have female either. It’s not realistic to expect someone debating something like sports, or medical practices, or any issue where birth sex is relevant, to be muscled out of every term other than ‘those who were assigned female at birth’ or ‘those who potentially could or used to or do produce microgametes’. Woman vs female makes the most sense to me. They’re short words, nobody needs to say female unless they mean female and not woman. They’re words everyone already knows. I think it’s a losing game to try and remove that ground from the discussion.

Sadly yes, that someone decided to retract an award because they said something controversial about trans people isn’t remotely surprising to anyone on either side. It proves nothing either way.

I liked this section: I don’t go as far as him in trying to hold to the previous definition of ‘woman’, I’d be happy with differentiating ‘woman’ and ‘female’ depending on what you’re trying to say. I don’t really care what words we settle on, just anything so we can stop bickering about what words we’re using.