Kissing bugs cause chagas, and they do look very similar

Persimmon can be blue, but that picture is edited and over-saturated. They’re darker and have a powder coat, like blueberries. Wouldn’t be surprised if the apple picture was also edited, but they can have pink flesh.

I take issue with using a phylogeny as evidence, because a phylogeny is a hypothesis. Or maybe I’m an idiot and don’t know what I’m talking about lol

c/superbowl deserves to see this lol

Sandy clearly has the high ground

Found the cold-hearted Sandy downvoter!

This is my favorite part tbh. What a dweeb

I love that he’s wearing a plate carrier like a fashy dweeb. Especially because people just lobbed water balloons and silly string at his face

I have EDS and it definitely feels like this sometimes lol

Grats on the raise! You two are obviously such a great match. I hope finances work out so she can stay at this facility!

First, holy shit she does not look 56. Second:

“It’s kind of odd that the thing I get celebrated for the most - people are always like, ‘Wow, you’re a woman and you’re gay’ - are the two things I put the - least work into.”

I love this quote

The FDA is happy to regulate clothing, but has zero interest in regulating supplements. For the record, there’s plenty of evidence of these unregulated supplements causing actual illness and harm.

The safest way is probably to just take estrogen, fin and/or spiro. The much less safe way is to abuse anabolic steriods

I have an ex that did this well into his 20s,and convinced me to try it one night. I did not understand the appeal lol

Are you the weirdo checking the undersides of fern leaves for sporangia? (/j that weirdo might be me)

Not all articles that are peer-reviewed and given a doi are credible. Peer reviewers are directly contacted by the editor(s) of a journal, this can introduce bias. That journal, its current and past editor, and the sources of the opinion article have all been advised of bias.

I already had them tagged as “Richard Dawkins lover”, had to laugh when the article they posted had Dawkins as a source almost immediately.

This is from Scientific American in 2017

That’s admirable that you want to be able to respond to arguments in a more thoughtful way, and I’m sorry people were assuming otherwise. I can’t really condense the entire semester of my developmental biology class into a comment, but I tried to give you terms to explore and learn more about.

I read the edit to your original comment and I think you’re on the right path!

The term that might help you is “oogenesis”.

Essentially once cells have begun dividing following fertilization some are set apart as germ cells. These are the cells that eventually become gametes. The thing is, like I tried to mention in my last reply to that guy, it isn’t strictly chromosomes that determine what these cells become in humans. Lots of genetic transcription and translation factors, hormones and hormone receptors, ligands and so on are involved. Sometimes those cells don’t even make it into the gonad, they die, and are absorbed by the embryo’s body.

This is why sex isn’t a binary, there is a spectrum of outcomes following gametogenesis, including a lack of gametes. Statistically it is most likely for a person who is born XX to have primary and secondary female sex characteristics. But that doesn’t mean people who fall outside of that aren’t also “biologically” women. If you define a woman as someone that is born with eggs, you deny womanhood to millions of people that would otherwise be considered a cis-woman by outdated standards.

That person stated one argument and then kept changing it, eventually arguing that we just weren’t understanding his words. Either he’s willfully ignorant and pushing a definition that is not taught in American universities, or he has an agenda. And the refusal to acknowledge the 30+ comments telling him he is wrong really suggests that there is an agenda.

This is how I’m going to refer to myself from now on. “My name is FoxyFerengi. I have no pronouns because my body is unorganized.”