Binette

4C hair gang

Kinda why i like reinforcement learning. You end up with silly stuff like this.

Sorry for the empty comment,

I don't want to pry too much, but in jerboa, do you use private navigation by default?

Also, by other apps do you mean other lemmy frontends? Or just other apps on your phone? Maybe an example, especially if it's open source, would help a lot.

Lastly, do you maybe have a step by step recreation of what happened? Screenshots and videos might give more context. You also mentioned the lemmy redirect service not working and giving you a 500 internal server error. Maybe more details could help out.

But then again, with this much information needed, i think a github issue should be opened. It doesn't seem as obvious of an issue, even when looking in the code, so get ready to have to document this issue thouroughly. It would help a bunch.

It might be a little different. Try Settings-> Apps & Notifications -> Advanced -> Default apps

Jerboa doesn't handle PDF URIs directly. It only handles links related to Lemmy. It offloads that responsibility to your browser. It could have something to do with your android settings.

For more context, here is the file that has the functions that handles link opening in the github source code: https://github.com/LemmyNet/jerboa/blob/main/app/src/main/java/com/jerboa/Utils.kt

The functions of interest are openLink and openLinkRaw.

I had, until I tasted alcohol. You'd think something that ruins lives would at last had a taste that justified it.

That's understandable. Stay safe

Gen Z here. Tastes like shit

People often think there is an intrinsic link between their assigned titles and their character. A mother is always motherly by the etymology of the word, right? People rely on these labels to give themselves, by association with the labels, the positive traits that are attributed to them. No need to prove you're compationate, because you're a mother, so it goes without saying. It's some kind of cognitive shortcut.

So someone who doesn't have a mother, according to yours, does not get to experience motherly love. And someone that has a mother immediately does. Even if the mother is extremely abusive, there is this belief that under all of that abuse, there was still "motherly love". After all, your mother will always love you no matter what, because that's how mothers are. All of these qualities are attached to someone who gave birth to a child without it necessarily being true.

I do remember you posting about your mother before. I'm not sure if your question was retorical, but nevertheless you kinda know the answer already, right? And even then, it doesn't seem like arguing back is possible. I'm not sure why you'd be asking here either.

Funny thing: 1 + 1 = 2 isn't material, it's derived of axioms. You don't know what you're talking about

My point is that biologists use the binary to simplify explanations of reality. In reality, what we call "sex" is just an observable variable trait. The question of "what is sex" is just philosophical.

Also, you say that despite what she says, that people will interpret this as "there are five sexes", when the paragraph that DOES reference her doesn't say so in the slightest.

You'd have to only read the title of her work to get this conclusion. Quite reactionary, but not unnexpected from a guy who did a video in PragerU of all fucking places lol.

For biologically speaking, there are many gradations running from female to male;

This is what she believes . It was so easy to spot even when reading diagonaly. The next sentence is an observation on the subject.

[…] and depending on how one calls the shots, one can argue that along that spectrum lie at least five sexes-and perhaps even more.

Here, she is saying that sex can be defined alongside this spectrum, depending on how you see things. You can split it up as as many subjective categories as you want. That is her point. To suggest otherwise is pretty disingenuous.

Speaking of disingenuous, I'm not saying your argument, as in you're the only one making it. No fucking shit. I'm talking about your argument in the context of this conversation (honestly, I can barely call it that). You ignore the points I made below and just slap a definition, answering none of them. What do you mean "immaterial"??? It is by definition material. It has direct consequences on the material realities of these people. Who do you think is doing the corrective surgeries? Randoes on the street? No, it is doctors that use this definition to justify what they do.

Your biologist guy left academia a while ago. His PhD is honestly irrelevant, especialy since he's a grifter. The fact that you cite a person that is clearly against trans people and that has to grift because he left academia makes me wonder if you actually take trans people and their struggles seriously: https://www.transgendermap.com/issues/biology/colin-wright/

Honestly I should've ended this convo the more I read about this guy. The fact that you take a transphobic grifter seriously, as your evidence, and don't cite anyone else should've been the end of that conversation. Not just on the definition of sex, but on disregarding another academic's text based on only the title at worse, or on the fact that he can't read at best. If you want an example of how that definition is used to harm people, look no further than the person you are citing. I'm honestly done with your bullshit

The first article is specifically talking about gender AND sex, and to reconsider our conception of both. It is quite relevant. You are technically turning phenotypes into binary. Again, look at your model and ask "Who is this helping?". It's helpful to those that want to impose a strict binary, not those that require nuance. Also, Zachary dubois has a PHD in biological anthropology: https://cas.uoregon.edu/directory/anthropology-faculty/all/zdubois. You're straight up lying now

Do you know what your binary definition has been usefull for? Imposing a binary on other people, especially children. "Your body is organized around producing small/large gametes, but it is not functional, so we'll fix you by making you closer to something that works, whether you like the side-effects or not". It wasn't usefull for me, wasn't usefull for intersex people, and will not be usefull for others in the future.

Again for the hyenas, that is not the point of the author. Plus definitions can be expanded, not just overwritten.

The people in that comitee are people that have worked in the medical field, including a medical doctor, a sociologist and a psychiatrist. The ASRM has reason to believe it is accurate as well, and should consider it.

That takedown of Fausto-Sterrling is arleady bogus. It calls LOCAH a non ambiguous sexual condition even though it affects hormones to an abnormal degree. Speaking again on intersex rights, the usefulness of treating LOCAH as intersex would be to let the children decide what treatments and effects on their body they want. When it comes to hormones even, it is assumed that the child wants effects alligned with their ASAB without asking them about it or by presure. Been through that myself. It is therefore useful to consider LOCAH as an intersex condition.

Not only that, yeah her claim about 5 sexes is tongue and cheek. It was meant to disprove a model. You gotta show contradictions in order to disprove it. So yeah, absurd claim are gonna come out. Like "therefore, there are 5 sexes". It's a critique of the current model, not her actual beliefs. The text is more about how intersex people are fit into these boxes without considering their opinion on how should they keep it. Anyone framing it as "she believes there are 5 sexes" is caricaturising what she is trying to say, and extremely bad faith for a scientist to do.

The guy responding to her work has also a pretty interesting track record in academia himself. He's also a TERF. Makes you wonder why he would take such position… Are you gonna argue that there is an academic conspiracy to cancel him or something? Again, this is a tongue in cheek question, and I assume the aswer is "no". https://en.everybodywiki.com/Colin_Wright#Leaving_academia

Again, with the organs that appear in one sex or the other, your own definition contradicts that. Since again, someone that is "organised around producing large/small gametes" CAN and HAVE HAD organs and traits from the opposite sex (ie MGD and other intersex hormonal conditions). Therefore, all sexual organs are able to appear in one sex and not the other.

I know that ovotesticular syndrome isn't that. I'm just saying if both gonads don't work, which sex should this person be? If you base yourself of of other sex characteristics, then your point is mute, per the last paragraph.