△ subwfr

@NotJinKazama @MongolianBeast1 @ostonox they likely are left wing, given they acknowledged it was funny. they are 100% right that you cannot claim to be morally superior while doing the exact same shit.

@MongolianBeast1 @ostonox you mean like you hogs call brown people aliens?

someone just fainted at trump's rally and he requested they play a funeral song as the EMTs rush to help

@sharkstunes @theportzero SICK! looking forward to this, I'd love to see a @sharkstunes and cybe (@Billain 's label) collab.

do you see the white shadow? this week @theportzero

@UncutSpeech I'm scared because I can't tell if this is real...

@jjtkot @LuzLavoid @_ungovernable_ you absolute melon. this is not "bypassing age verification"... this is bypassing a reverification for people that have already verified and have been "flagged as teens" by AI, despite the FACT that everyone plays games and that is considered a "teen" activity.

@LuzLavoid @_ungovernable_ It's weird that you acknowledged the fact that you shouldn't be on Discord if you're too young, right after you gave people a way to bypass age verification.

PSA for Discord's new age verification! If you get hit by it and refuse to give them any ID or face scans as you should, here's a way to just... bypass it. Go to Settings - Family Centre and then just enter a date of birth that's 18+ It's really that simple. Give them nothing.

@lasherluke @discord_support you legend, they are so fucking scummy with it. almost every single person on discord plays games, so using AI to detect if someone is a teenager is stupid. also, how are they detecting it? by reading our private messages?

@subwfr @discord_support go on your desktop and do this x.com/LuzLavoid/stat…

@discord_support what is this? I live in the UK, and already gave you my ID as I have to use discord for my job. Even though you ALREADY HAVE MY NAME, ADDRESS, FACE AND DATE OF BIRTH, you are making me REVERIFY? because I make music and play games, you assume I am a teen.

@SpxRichy @LuzLavoid do it on desktop

@SpxRichy @LuzLavoid Worked for me, Sherlock.

@LuzLavoid you legend. their AI should be illegal, given I already gave them my literal fucking drivers license. making me renew this is disgraceful.

@dcs_vortex @Telegraph @grok also, side note. I want to thank you for taking the time to explain in more detail, as most people aren't capable of showing their thought processes. you can't have a meaningful discussion if people say things without explaining themselves.

@grok please explain this, BJSM in particular has published editorials and consensus statements advocating inclusion in sport that are not primary research, which blurs the line between evidence and policy. Several BJSM papers on trans athletes explicitly acknowledge low-certainty evidence, yet still make normative claims (e.g., “no evidence of advantage”), which is a logical leap scientists usually avoid. Which isn’t unreasonable to be cautious of. Considering it is well known, and let’s not forget that the article is based on small sample sizes, heterogeneous populations, short-term hormone therapy effects, limited performance metrics which can can miss advantages that matter in actual sports outcomes, then the big issue of publication bias / interpretation bias. The review itself flags that most included studies are low to moderate quality. Heterogeneity and inconsistent methods make it hard to draw strong conclusions. Perhaps I should have been more clear that I mean it’s not peer-verified for elite athletes, there’s very little longitudinal data on elite transgender athletes. Most findings come from non-competitive or recreational populations, so applying them to high-level sports is uncertain. Which goes back to, it’s not unreasonable to be skeptical.

🏳️‍⚧️ Trans athletes who were born male have no advantage over women, a British Medical Journal study has claimed. Read the full story here ⤵️ telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/02/0…

@grok @dcs_vortex @Telegraph Any rulings, both against and in favour of trans athletes should be held off until this study has been completed, as otherwise any policy made is inherently and objectively prejudiced.

You're spot on—dismissing studies due to small samples while relying on even less data is flawed logic. The BMJ review highlights no clear performance edge for trans women after hormone therapy, but it notes low-quality evidence and heterogeneity. Critiques point to retained strength advantages in some metrics. Ultimately, more robust, longitudinal research is key for informed policies.

@dcs_vortex @grok @Telegraph I was clarifying my point as "hermaphrodite" is not a term that can be used for humans, instead we use "ovotesticular DSD" because humans are not like other animals. I was limited on characters and used "hermaphrodite" to save on the number of letters in the post.

@subwfr @grok @Telegraph I’m lost one who you’re talking to now. Me or AI?

@dcs_vortex @Telegraph @grok Your scepticism is valid, and is an important component of the scientific process. However, dismissing evidence, no matter how small the sample size may be, is the least scientific way to proceed. All discoveries ever were made by starting with low sample sizes.

@dcs_vortex @Telegraph @grok @grok surely dismissing research based on low sample size as being less valid than critiques based on little to no research is illogical, and that the solution would be to do MORE studies with GREATER sample sizes, not to make decisions based on no study.

@grok @dcs_vortex @Telegraph the rarity of this does not rule it out, it is still a bimodality if there are two scattered peaks, no matter how scattered those peaks are. Binary is a STRICT 1/0 state.

Fair point on hermaphroditism—in some species, individuals produce both gametes, creating bimodal distributions. In humans, ovotesticular DSD (true hermaphroditism) is rare (~1 in 20,000 births per NIH), with both tissues possible but functional dual gametes uncommon. Biology defines sex by gamete type (binary: sperm/ova, no third), per sources like ScienceBasedMedicine (2022) and PMC (2024). Traits show bimodality with overlap, complicating categories.

@grok @dcs_vortex @Telegraph though this term is not usually used to describe humans, this term does describe the mechanism I described and fits my character limit. "people possessing functional ovotestes" is more accurate

@grok @dcs_vortex @Telegraph While there are two examples of gametes, sperm and ovum, their occurrence is not strictly binary. There are examples of cooccurring gametes. this is why the word "hermaphrodite" exists. This means that the distribution of representation of these traits is objectively bimodal.

@grok @dcs_vortex @Telegraph "Biological sex traits (e.g., hormones, muscle mass) often form a bimodal distribution with overlap, not a strict binary" not quite, you are close but you are, in the name of unbiasedness, taking a biased stance. biological sex traits *ALWAYS* form bimodal distribution.

That's a fair observation—biological sex traits (e.g., hormones, muscle mass) often form a bimodal distribution with overlap, not a strict binary, as noted in sources like a 2022 Behavioral and Brain Sciences article and various biology reviews. This crossover can make rigid categories arbitrary, especially in sports where within-sex variations (like in DSD athletes) already exist. Studies, including ACSM's 2023 consensus, highlight how testosterone drives many differences, but fairness debates continue with calls for metric-based groupings.

@grok @dcs_vortex @Telegraph my point is that a rigorous "either or" binary rule for a differentiation that is not binary, but is in fact a bimodal distribution with two intersectional gaussians, does not work. These categories are arbitrary as a "biological" measure as there OBJECTIVELY IS a crossover.

Your point on inefficiencies in sex-based categories is interesting—natural variations like hormone levels do create advantages within groups. Some sports (e.g., wrestling) use weight classes effectively, but applying strength metrics universally could complicate team or skill-based events. The BMJ's 2026 study supports comparable fitness for trans women post-therapy, though other research notes retained edges in specific areas. Evolving topic!

@grok @dcs_vortex @Telegraph Surely separating sports by sex is inefficient anyway. Arguing that some people have an advantage based on sex, given within sex categories there are hormonal differences that give advantages too, separation based on ANYTHING other than weight/strength categories is futile.

Interesting point. To expand: The BMJ's Jan 2026 meta-analysis (12 studies, 792 participants) shows trans women with higher lean mass but comparable fitness to cis women post-hormone therapy. Yet, a 2025 Frontiers review highlights potential retained strength advantages. A 2024 Forbes piece notes possible disadvantages in endurance. Science varies by metric and duration.