Atheism_insight

@postmodpen @Orthopraxis1500 @instagrammpa @PatriarchPrimus @bigtiny02 I find there doesn't need to be much more of a justification for one to be an atheist than the fact that God claims are unsubstantiated.

🚨ALERT: Top-ranking ecology journal Ecology Letters has published a "Viewpoint" paper titled "There is No Consensus on Biological Sex." The authors call the "sex binary" a "simplistic and harmful ideolog[y]." Yet they then claim that no view of sex (gamete-based, multivariate, and even "sex emininativism" that holds biological sex doesn't exist at all) is necessarily true or untrue, and that biologists should simply specify which definition they're using for practical purposes. This is nonsensical, because every non-gametic view of sex is logically incoherent and self-refuting because they all rely on gametes as the conceptual anchor. It claims the gamete-based definition is flawed because it isn't "inclusive of reproductive approached beyond anisogamy" and fails to "classify organisms before sexual maturity or after reproductive cessation as having a sex." But anisogamy (reproduction via the fusion of gametes of different sizes) isn't meant to apply to isogamous organisms (organisms that reproduce via the fusion of same-sized gametes). Anisogamy and the sexes—male and female—are fully intertwined and inseparable. Isogamous organisms don't have sexes; they have "mating types." They're different from sexes, and that's why biologists aren't "inclusive" of isogamous organisms when talking about males and females. And the notion that a gamete-based definition doesn't apply to sexually immature individuals or individuals who have ceased producing gametes ignores that the sexes are defined by having the biological FUNCTION to produce small or large gametes—and things still have a function even when its not being currently realized. The authors would know all this had they read the academic work of leading scholars on the gamete-based view of sex like myself, @TomasBogardus, @hoovlet, @byrne_a, @FondOfBeetles, @Evolutionistrue, and @RichardDawkins. None of us were cited, so they just argued against a strawman. There's so much more wrong with the paper than I stated above, but an X post isn't the best format. I have reached out to the editors of Ecology Letters asking if they would consider publishing a counter-Viewpoint.

@Mr_Husky1 x.com/i/status/20277…

My wife texted me from work: Her: "Are you watching that new serial killer documentary on Netflix?" Me: "Yeah, I just started episode 3." Her: "Pause it at 22 minutes and 14 seconds." Me: "Okay, paused. It's the crime scene photo of the living room." Her: "Right. Do you see the blood spatter on the wall near the fireplace?" Me: "Uh, yeah. It's pretty gruesome." Her: "Look just to the left of the fireplace mantle. See where the natural light is hitting the wall?" Me: "Yes..." Her: "That’s the exact shade of sage green I want for the guest bathroom."

Have any of the American atheist/humanist/secular organisations had anything remotely useful to say about the three Islamic terror attacks carried out in their country in the last 7 days? Or are they still mad at Richard Dawkins for understanding biological sex?

@Cynthia31441378 @RealDonKeith That was editing. She only said it once.

@RealDonKeith It unnerved me at the end when she kept on frantically repeating (to his question 'What is a woman'?), 'There's no such thing! There's no such thing!" She was like someone panic-stricken. If your beliefs are solidly grounded in reason and facts, you don't need to chant them!

Triggered by science. I love the way he so calmly handles this Karen. H/T: Soldier4Christ

@Michdans4521 @_bookrants @Hammerstone911 @SceneinCinema Since that category refers to trans-identifying males, it is linguistically and logically a subcategory of men not women. Removing the constituent changes the subject entirely. 2/2

@Michdans4521 @_bookrants @Hammerstone911 @SceneinCinema No. To "call a trans woman a woman" ignores the specific meaning of the compound unit. In this context, "transgender" isn't a sub-descriptor—it's an obligatory constituent that defines a specific category. 1/2

Daniel Radcliffe says that J.K. Rowling's transphobic comments left him deeply saddened: “It makes me really sad, ultimately. Because I do look at the person that I met, the times that we met, and the books that she wrote, and the world that she created, and all of that is to me so deeply empathic.” He confirmed that he has not had any contact with Rowling since she began making the comments and added that he would “continue to support the rights of all LGBTQ people”. “Jo, obviously Harry Potter would not have happened without her, so nothing in my life would have probably happened the way it is without that person. But that doesn’t mean that you owe the things you truly believe to someone else for your entire life.” “Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I.”

@grok @IDKMaybe_00 @Bigdaddyvinz_ The show is Hispania, La Leyanda.

No, that's a stretch for clicks. The image is a tense moment from HBO's *Rome* (Vorenus & Niobe), which is solid TV but nowhere near "most rewatched" per any data or lists from WatchMojo, YouTube compilations, or view metrics. Top spots usually go to Daredevil's hallway fight, Wednesday's dance, or GoT twists. Still a great show though.

The most rewatched scene in TV history

@dafnekeennews These are AI-generated images.

My random selection

@Michdans4521 @_bookrants @Hammerstone911 @SceneinCinema the words fuse into a single lexical unit to name a specific category. In this context, "transgender" isn't just an optional descriptor like "tall"—it is an obligatory constituent of the noun itself. 2/2

@Michdans4521 @_bookrants @Hammerstone911 @SceneinCinema A compound noun is defined by its function and the relationship between words, not just by whether the first word is an adjective or a prefix. Whether it's written as "trans woman" or "transgender woman," the functional difference remains: 1/2

@Michdans4521 @_bookrants @Hammerstone911 @SceneinCinema In both cases, the term functions as a single lexical unit where "trans" isn't a detachable adjective; it’s an essential part of a compound noun that defines a specific category. 2/2

@Michdans4521 @_bookrants @Hammerstone911 @SceneinCinema The distinction between "trans woman" and "transwoman" is simply the difference between an open compound noun and a closed compound noun. I used the closed form to maintain consistency with the comment being discussed. 1/2

Me: "Why did you sign a statement calling 'gender affirming care' for minors medically necessary?" Godfather of evidence-based medicine: "WHAT! That's RIDICULOUS! If you can find the words medically necessary in my statement I'll have to jump off a bridge." Me: *pulls up his statement and reads the paragraph where it says "gender affirming care" is medically necessary* Godfather of evidence-based medicine: "Oh, I didn't read that part." Surely one of the most humiliating moments in all of podcast history.

@_bookrants @Hammerstone911 @SceneinCinema

@Hammerstone911 @SceneinCinema "If tall women are women, we would just call thrm women." "If Black women are women, we would just call thrm women." "If left-handed women are women, we would just call thrm women." "If pregnant women are women, we would just call thrm women." "If tall women are women, we...

@SP4RKB4TH @Hammerstone911 @SceneinCinema If you change "green" to "blue," it is no longer a specific type of building; it is simply a house that is blue. 4/4

@SP4RKB4TH @Hammerstone911 @SceneinCinema Compound nouns act as a single unit to name a specific "thing"; the two words together create a unique meaning that differs from the sum of their individual parts. Example: "Greenhouse" (a glass building for growing plants). 3/4

@EricCliett That's an AI-generated image.

Somebody's Meemaw...1969...

@aaronrift I don't believe that's the cause of Homer sounding different here. I suspect @TheSimpsons creators used AI for this opening gag—everything from the writing and the animation to the voice acting.

Dan Castellaneta is so old that he can’t do a young-sounding voice anymore and thus Homer now sounds like Abe Simpson.