Thanks for the sources.
The first article doesn‘t invalidate my thesis. It explains the difference between sex and gender.
The second article argues against the sex binary, which I never defended. I view „male“ and „female“ (in the context of the biological sex) as terms for a combination of chromosomes. The article still was absolutely worth reading, thanks.
The third article actually lists a bunch of stuff I didn‘t know about. I‘m going to look into that.
As you may have guessed I don‘t have a doctorate in genetics, just like you, I assume.
I don‘t get to determine biological definitions, but the definition of a biological sex, if such a thing exists, is still heavily debated in science. Therefore a consensus couldn‘t be reached so far. I just argued for the definition, that sounds the most logical to me. If you have other definitions or models I am open always open to learn.
So you are male even if you have a complete set of female sex organs and no male sex organs?
Biologically yes. At least according to my definition, but thats a different discussion.
Literally the only way to determine 'male' or 'female' is a DNA test?
Biologically, yes.
We've never been able to determine that before Flemming discovered chromosomes in the late 19th century?
In the 19th century we assumed, that social and biological gender are the same and ignored, that basically every definition of „male“ or „female“ at the time had exceptions and wasn‘t applicable to everyone.
That's really weird, because the etymology of the word male traces it back to the 14th century.
I am surprised it doesn‘t traces back even further. People believed in all kind of shit back then. Thats no argument.
Now I'm not math expert, but I'm pretty sure 14 comes before 18.
That doesn‘t make sense in the slightest. By that logic the earth is flat, because the first models of a flat earth were published before the first models of a round earth.
Biological gender: A Person with two X-Chromosons
Social Gender: Anyone who wants to be a woman
Divorce.
I agree with most of your comment, but when I was suicidal I absolutely was looking for ways to achieve something good through my death.
When you killed everyone in a coup
I didn‘t kill „everybody“. I killed the king, his family and his guards and maybe his ministers or generals
you are by definition a new military
No, I am a member of one of many militias
all your friends who are running around with rifles trying to do a coup are in it for power
Not all of them, but I understand what you mean
for everyone bright eyed idealist who will immediately relinquish his absolute authority that he just won by fighting a civil war, there will be 10 people who fought in civil war to get this absolute authority.
Yes. Thats how war works.
both technologies and situations are different now
Exactly
Our horses are covering miles trotting swiftly, For us liberty is priceless
Then you get your single shot rifle and storm the the king’s palace with it, against a bunch of people with single shot rifles, kill them all, kill a king, all his family
Sounds good
thus establish a military goverment.
Nah, I just defeated the military. I would prefer a less authoritarian system
To be fair: We had a nazi rapper in the Charts in Germany a few years ago.
In my case: I have ~7 very, very close friends, ~70 people, that are part of our direct network, ~160 people that are indirect part of our network and ~300 people I know of, that sympathize with us. Most people in the network are between 18 and 34 years old and have some experience with getting beaten up by police, can tank some punches and know how to fight in a fistfight.
Thing is: The fascists don‘t know every member of our network. Even I don‘t know every member, I only know a person, that knows a person, that knows the guy who can do me a favor.