You’re confusing sex with mating types. But thank you for finally acknowledging that anisogamy is observed to be binary.
I realize that the accentuation there might come across as sarcastic, but it’s genuine. Too many people are trying to argue with me about things I’m not saying or they misunderstand. My original comment should’ve been an entirely uncontroversial minor correction.
I did acknowledge it in every post. I said biological sex has two models and one is not a binary model. You made some absolutely inane assumptions about the future of scientific models.
I think you’re confusing sex with mating types again, but as long as we can agree for anisogamy
It’s rather silly that you say “inane assumptions about the future of scientific models” and then go on to describe the same thing in different words.
You’re saying “the map is not the territory”, which is true, but ignoring that the territory has been observed to have an attribute universally. The territory could change, but until it does, it’s correct to note the current universal reality of that attribute in the map.
You’re basically saying “Yeah, but you could just be a brain in a jar!” or “What if electrons stopped existing!”. Interesting thought experiment but silly to take seriously.
You’re confusing sex with mating types. But thank you for finally acknowledging that anisogamy is observed to be binary.
I realize that the accentuation there might come across as sarcastic, but it’s genuine. Too many people are trying to argue with me about things I’m not saying or they misunderstand. My original comment should’ve been an entirely uncontroversial minor correction.
I did acknowledge it in every post. I said biological sex has two models and one is not a binary model. You made some absolutely inane assumptions about the future of scientific models.
I think you’re confusing sex with mating types again, but as long as we can agree for anisogamy
It’s rather silly that you say “inane assumptions about the future of scientific models” and then go on to describe the same thing in different words.
You’re saying “the map is not the territory”, which is true, but ignoring that the territory has been observed to have an attribute universally. The territory could change, but until it does, it’s correct to note the current universal reality of that attribute in the map.
You’re basically saying “Yeah, but you could just be a brain in a jar!” or “What if electrons stopped existing!”. Interesting thought experiment but silly to take seriously.