You must log in or # to comment.
The non-Hydrogen, non-Helium atoms are a larger proportion of total mass, but that’s just because they’re really fat.
We don’t call them fat. They’re BBA: big beautiful atoms. Thicc would suffice too.
That’s not true. The “fatness” of metallic atoms doesn’t even come close to overcoming how rare they are. Hydrogen and helium combined still make up ~98% of the total mass fraction. Oxygen, which is next in line, is only about 1% the total mass.
They said “larger proportion”, and 2% is larger than 1%
/s
its a vocal minority, don’t pay them any attention
It looks like this chart is based on mass, rather than number. By number hydrogen is >90% by itself
Any good astronomer knows that the real binary is metal/non-metal
I wondered if the graph would look entirely different when looking at mass instead of atom count, and not really:
Hydrogen and helium make up 99% of all atoms and 98% of all mass.
https://sciencenotes.org/composition-of-the-universe-element-abundance/
oygen
Mmm, I lyove oygen in my lyngs
The Coalition for the Respect of the Unique Nature of Isotopes considers this lumping in of isotopes VERY disrespectful. CRUNI prefers this model.
Oh but 3H isn’t hydrogen enough to be on the list?
It’s there. If memory serves, its half-life is 12y, so it is on the list. Just microscopically small font size.
Gender is different vibrations on a string
That’s the coolest possible shit. Everything is just resonance
It’s not bad to be different, but it IS unusual. There is no need to common-wash. Basically every atom in the universe is one or the other and that is still true regardless of allegory.
In 2026 who cares (in states that don’t suck)?
Posted previously with lengthy discussion. I’ll copy my comment here again:
That’s the point of differentiating between sex and gender. Sex is indeed binary, there are exactly two gamete sizes. Gender is what captures everything on top of that base.
If you want more of an explanation, see this recent comment of mine showing that even for people who want to redefine sex to not be gamete-based, they still acknowledge the reality of the gamete binary.
Even biological sex is more complicated than just 2 gametes. There are cis-men with XX chromosomes do to a mutation in one of the Xs, there are cis-women with XY due to a myriad of mutations, there are intersex people due to everything from random mutations to chimerism, etc.
That’s confusing how sex is defined with how sex is determined. See the linked thread for a lot of this discussion, but you’re talking about variations within the sex binary. Intersex people aren’t in conflict with the sex binary, because they’re either male or female with Disorders of sex development.
If we put aside humans for a moment, some species of animal have more than binary sexes. Some species of mushroom have thousands, for example.
If we put aside humans for a moment
Is that you, Lrr, ruler of Omicron Persei 8?
Those actually aren’t sexes, those are mating types. The difference is that all of their gametes are approximately the same size, i.e. isogamy.
Gender isn’t biological at all, it is a social or linguistic concept. Biological sex is to do with gametes, chromosomes, sexual organs, hormone levels - it is far from binary, as you can see with the existence of intersex people with chromosomes other than XX or XY, differing organs present, and so on.
To add to that: that gender you’re talking about is actually two distinct concepts, one social and another grammatical/linguistic. The later is more like a traditional way to refer to noun classes, when they also split humans based on social gender.
Sadly my go-to example for that doesn’t work in English, because of the lack of grammatical gender.
That’s confusing how sex is defined with how sex is determined. See the linked thread for a lot of this discussion, but you’re talking about variations within the sex binary. Intersex people aren’t in conflict with the sex binary, because they’re either male or female with Disorders of sex development.
Sex is absolutely NOT binary
See diagram below for clarity:
You’re trying to bring facts, knowledge, understanding and the preexisting scientific consensus into a thread started by powerstruggle, an avid anti trans troll who respects trump’s definition of sex above anyone else’s and shows up in any trans-positive post to derail the conversion for hours and days, and suck any happiness out of it. I’ll tell you this now. It won’t work. They won’t listen.
Ahh thanks for the heads up. I wasn’t familiar with their game. I’ll block them now then
Sorry, but the facts, knowledge, and understanding of the preexisting scientific consensus is that sex is binary, in exactly the way I’ve been saying. You’re welcome to provide any citations to the contrary, but you can’t. In fact, any sources that people have linked have ended up proving my point. Such as the paper Sex Redefined which is commonly linked to by people that didn’t read it. The author themselves says that there’s “Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.”
Remember, just because you don’t like the truth, doesn’t mean it’s “trolling” to speak it. You have nothing on your side but pseudoscientific grifters.
scientific consensus is that sex is binary
Lol no, you’re just an anti trans troll who dismisses any evidence that goes against your worldview. Anyone who takes even the slightest scan of your post history can see you spending days and days arguing about sex rather than gender any time anyone mentions something reasonably trans positive. It’s toxic.
So where is your proof of a consensus? Or are you just lying?
It wasn’t me that was claiming consensus, oh beligerent anti trans troll.
This is a post about gender, and you spend all your days arguing that a consequence is a cause, all because you believe trump’s stupid definitions above well known scientific ones with a litany of bad faith arguments, ignoring other people’s valid points and derailing the conversation onto your favourite talking points.
Where’s my proof of all this? In your post history. Anyone can read it and see.
To anyone reading this, this user is obsessed with Trump. I don’t really know why. I suspect they might be a cheap LLM and this is a waste of my time. It’s the same every time: “If I don’t like you, you must be a troll! And love Trump! Bad faith! Derailing!” It’s super ironic that that they talk about “derailing the conversation” when that’s exactly what they’re doing by hurling insults and bringing Trump into this repeatedly.
I’ve explicitly differentiated between sex and gender. You keep conflating them.
Your proof that there isn’t a consensus has never been presented. You simply insult, because you have nothing. That’s called trolling. Every accusation is a confession, eh?
Nobody needs to “prove” anything because it doesn’t matter how other people experience themselves.
Sorry that you can’t accept yourself and believe others who do accept themselves to be the problem,
You’re talking about gender there and I agree! That’s why I explicitly differentiated between sex and gender in my original comment. Sex is an empirical, objective fact, which shouldn’t be confused with gender.
That chart shows variation within a sex. That’s all how sex is determined, but not how it’s defined
EDIT: As an example, it mentions “male characteristics” in the context of 5αR2D. If sex were defined by phenotypes, that would be a circular definition. You can’t define “male characteristics” in a coherent way across species without referring back to gametes.
Why do you care so much? Sounds like you have skin in the game - that’s why others care so much. Sorry that you can’t accept that you are trans yourself. I hope you find peace with it someday.
Well, why do you care so much?
Lol nice try… because I’ve got skin in the game, obviously!
You’re not fooling anyone any more. It’s like being bothered about someone else deciding to change their name to “Brian” and then dedicating your life to refusing to call them “Brian” and trying to make sure nobody else will call them “Brian” either by posting online every day about it.
Doesn’t that seem a little neurotic and obsessive to you?
Like why do you care if someone else wants to be called “Brian” when you too could call yourself “Brian” - or whatever you like instead!?
I’m really sorry you haven’t managed to accept yourself for whoever you are, I’m sure life has been pretty shit for you and I’m sorry. I do understand!
I hope you will find acceptance of yourself because going around in the world being angry that other people are calling themselves “Brian” makes no sense and is doing you no good. It never did!
Live and let live! You are trans and you haven’t come to terms with it. I can spot you a mile off, anybody can! Sorry to break it to you… life is going to be OK, in fact it is going to get better for you. You won’t need to be afraid of yourself or everyone else any more… only of people behaving like yourself here today.
That’s why I care about it.
The saddest thing for you is that you really can just be yourself in 2026 - it’s totally fine to be trans or gender nonconforming… be yourself! So all this stress, anger and bad feeling in your life is all for nothing.
Leave it all behind, feel the weight drop off your whole being! You are trans! Stop hating yourself and have a good life from the moment you just accept who you are! Life is too short to spend your time alive being miserable, making other people’s lives worse.
We see who you are very easily because you give yourself away instantly by attacking your own shadow in front of us, when you could just be enjoying life and being friendly.
You aren’t fooling anyone else and you certainly haven’t managed to fool yourself.
May you find your true self and live in peace.
Edit: typos
That’s a lot of text. Why do you care so much?
Take your time reading it.
A bit that can be 0 or 1 is binary. A quantum bit is not binary, even though it’s a linear combination of 0 and 1.
Sure, but that’s not relevant here
Then I don’t understand your argument. I thought you were saying that since any definition needs to be grounded in the gamete type which is binary, then any definition would necessarily also be binary.
What are you actually proposing? That an entire person exists in a superposition until they produce gametes?
I’m saying that a definition based on something binary is not necessarily binary.
Neither is your anti trans ranting.
If you think science is anti trans, that’s completely on you.
No, I think that unlike you, science is descriptive, explanatory and neutral and that instead of understanding the consensus you pick out one or two outliers who have let their politics interfere with their work.
You’re just the same as people who believe there’s a link between MMR and autism because you found Pons and Fleischman and some nurse you meet swears it’s a cover up by big pharma.
deleted by creator
males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates
That’s not typically the definition people use, but I do admit it’s a way of “solving” the issues of a binary that often arise when using the more common definitions. You’re either a sperm-maker or egg-maker.
So using this definition, there are likely still some intersex people or at the very least people who have an “undefined” sex.
That’s the definition biologists have always used. It’s just a description of the reality that they found in their field. Lay people have started using it recently because of culture wars, but they’re not incorrect to do so.
There still aren’t “intersex” people as you’re probably thinking. The closest you’ll find in humans is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotestis, but that’s not “fully functioning gonads of both types, producing healthy gametes of both types”. It’s “maybe a functioning gonad of one type, with a bit of non-functional tissue of the other type”. Their sex can still be determined, even if it’s not readily apparent.
I’m actually thinking of people who have neither sets, working or not, but you’ve got me thinking: if a non-functional set would still count in the case of it being the only one (I.e. someone infertile but otherwise nothing out of the ordinary) I’m not sure why it wouldn’t when it’s beside a working one. If it’s binary, surely they either count or they don’t?
That falls into the “organized around” bit. They won’t have any other structures necessary for supporting the bit of tissue, and their body won’t be trying to create those structures. As a loose analogy, think of it like transplanting an ovary into a human male. You haven’t changed his sex, you’ve merely created a man with an ovary grafted onto him. His body is still organized around production of sperm.
In the case of someone that’s infertile, if you fixed the issue that was causing their infertility, they would produce the normal gametes that their body is organized around producing. They wouldn’t then magically start producing both gametes or gametes from the other sex.
Fair enough. So somebody with no plumbing at all would just be undefined in terms of sex then?
You’d have to point to a particular case for a good answer. Nobody is simply born live and healthy and simply lacks any plumbing. You’d have to get into nonviable embryos or the like to get something with truly undefinable sex.
Don’t have a particular case, just curious how this definition works. I appreciate the answers.
Lay people have started using it recently…
Oh my God this is hilarious. Just caught it.
Who are these lay people?
Dude you trolling online without an advanced degree or research history. XD
I think the meaning is clear. You seem rather upset. Are you having trouble understanding it?
Lol. The meaning is a bit delusional. You are implying that you elevate your own academic status and understanding to something that is well outside of what you can claim. XD
Edit: Oh, holy shit, your moderation history is hilarious. Mostly for being an idiot or transphobes. XD
Ah, so you do misunderstand. You’re very obsessed with me. That statement makes no claim about me.
That sentence means that, just because some random conservative on twitter talks about the sex binary, doesn’t mean they’re wrong. They might be right for the wrong reasons, but they’re still right.
I’ll use a simple analogy to help you. Just because Hitler was a vegetarian doesn’t mean that vegetarianism is bad. Are you able to understand now?
Nah, man, you don’t get to imply that others are lay people and not yourself. XD I understand completely because clout chasing is not at all uncommon.
And no obsession, just still having fun with a transphobe. Lol.
Thought I was going to learn about radical new astronomy techniques from this post 😒
MERA has me lmaoing though
Carbon, puh. It just ain’t right.
Okay, but “MERA” has a much nicer ring to it than “TERF”.
This is bad science.
No mans sky makes a little more sense to me. Kinda less, but also more.
