iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

You are astoundingly ignorant.

000

This you??? I didn’t ask how they define it, I asked how do they determine it, because YOU said they determine sex. But by all means, flounder around with the obvious fact that you can’t explain it. 🤣

000

I don’t know how to explain to someone who lacks a formal education in biology how wrong your statement is 😬🤷‍♂️ Like, it makes you look so incredibly dumb that I feel bad for your lack of awareness on the discussion at this point. It’s a third category, just acknowledge it, this is getting sad.

000

me @marcuspope.com · 08/08/2025

Sure it does, it means evolutionarily binary is not a requirement of sex. And definitionally, hermaphrodite is the appropriate classification for the trait in species that naturally develop both sexes and for the trait in individuals who develop both abnormally. You couldn’t be more wrong. 🤷‍♂️

000

Huh, so when you said this (screenshot) it was... wrong. Also crazy for you to say that what makes a woman, a woman, is only her reproductive system. Sucks for those women who lack a reproductive system. I guess, maybe, if they have a uterus but no ovaries - well they're just half a woman... 🤯🙄😒

me @marcuspope.com · 07/08/2025

Yeah, most, meaning the median or common distribution. That's why I linked to an example where the range was 9 - 16: > We confirmed the high levels of T (9-16 ng/ml... > there was no evidence for ovary tumor in either ovary. Reading comprehension problems (noticing the trend yet?)

100

me @marcuspope.com · 07/08/2025

According to Wikipedia... 😅

000

me @marcuspope.com · 07/08/2025

Because you have reading comprehension problems. Yes, chimeras have mosaicism, but people with mosaicism are not necessarily chimeric. The person in the study I linked to was NOT chimeric. Your Wikipedia article is not an authoritative source, and the citations explain the confusion _some_ have.

It's almost like you have a complete lack of the necessary education to make claims about any of this - remember when I said your default position should be acknowledging that you are just wrong? You make this just _too_ easy. 🤣

000

Do **you** what a chimera is?? Because that person had a 93XY/6X mosaicism in her ovaries - not chimerism. But again, flex those reading comprehension skills and highlight the passage where it said they had chimerism 🤣 It proves XY females can have functioning reproduction - directly refutes this:

200

You are welcome to highlight the part of that article that said she used IVF for her two natural pregnancies. 😅 Do you even know what ‘reading comprehension’ is?

Yes, when you _hear_ that someone _says_ those cropped images with zero context are Khelif's actual medical records - that would indeed qualify as hearsay. I think this is hilarious that you don't know how this works yet. You lack even the self-awareness to understand how dumb you look.

100

XY does not define a male human. Just a male karyotype. You can have a male karyotype _despite_ having a female genotype, female phenotype, female neuroanatomy, and female physiology / morphology. XY Females exist. You have no proof that Khelif is not an XY female, and only hearsay she is XY.

400

Well, you've clearly cracked the case - 'no comment' has never been used before to mean 'no comment' - especially when lawsuits are underway for false accusations and misrepresented medical records. Are you 12 years old?

100

It is hearsay from you that Cazorla agreed with the findings of an unverified medical report. You just don't understand the definition of the word hearsay, just like you don't understand the definition of the word observable. I can't fix your stupid problem.

A complete lack of reading comprehension is like your superpower or something.

220

I have not seen any confirmation that the medical records in the screenshot are: 1. Imane Khelif's. 2. From the hospital Kremlin-Bicêtre. 3. Confirmed by G. Cazorla. 4. Say Imane is a Male and not an XY (or other) Female. Particularly when Cazorla says the EXACT OPPOSITE of your unsourced claims:

610

Google exists, and confirms your claim is untrue. That's why I asked you to provide the source for your claim. The only person who has ever claimed the NHGRI says this is true is Emma Hilton (hearsay) who is a notorious transphobe. And she does not have evidence to support her claim either.

Do you have her actual medical records? Or did you just accept the _hearsay_ of Ait Aoudia based on his alleged access to the unverified records? Because so far you have only presented 3rd party hearsay, not even the alleged records. Do you often get your medical opinions from journalists?

210

I've already presented peer reviewed proof that XY SRY+ females exist due to more reasons besides 5-ARD. You are just too dumb to read / comprehend them. You have no proof Khelif is not one of those rare cases, and you ignored testimony from a doctor that she is. link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/...

000

The election was verifiable, the verbal statements of a third party about Khelif are by definition 'hearsay'.

000

Those called claims - not evidence. I think you are the dumbest person on the planet - oh look Bing agrees with me! Wow, I read it on the internet so it must be true!

000

"This is so easy" <proceeds to fail at the easy thing.> Again, Dunning-Kruger levels of ignorance on the subject. Try searching "Are the uterus and ovaries part of someone's phenotype?" Or reading any of the links on what a phenotype includes... 🤦‍♂️

220

The same trends in per capita prevalence exist for several other traits and classes. You see no rational basis for explanation because you are irrationally relying on personal anecdotes instead of actual data. These are normal curves for newly socially accepted circumstances.

250

It’s been 3 days since you last dodged this question, I suspect my prediction was 100% accurate.

000

What is the sex of someone who produces neither gamete? What is the sex of someone who produces both? What determines the sex of someone with 46XX, 46XY mosaicism with SRY+ or SRY- if they don’t produce gametes? Seriously, explain why those traits are on both sides here - I haven’t been told. 🙄

000

But I never denied that was true as a generality. You just keep ignoring hermaphroditic species and humans that fit the criteria from a biological standpoint. You’ve been told this, repeatedly, why do you keep ignoring it?

000

But it’s literally not in anisogamy. It’s quaternary by definition. Only two sexes, but individuals can have neither, male, female, or both sexes - four groups. How does this very basic concept of binary classification not register in your brain?

000

I have proven why a pair of items can produce an n-ary output distribution of 3 or more. Hair melanins, gametes, heterochromia, etc. Anisogamy: m / f / both (ternary). You have yet to produce a definition of sex that supports a binary. You’ve made the claim, the onus is on you to support it.

100

There is no difference between the people who say supporting trans women is 'misogyny' and the people who say civil rights for Blacks is 'reverse discrimination' - the overlap of bigotry is 100%. You cannot take rights away from someone by giving someone else equal rights. Rights are not zero-sum.

1964: “A majority of white New Yorkers questioned here in the last month in a survey by the New York Times said they believed the Negro civil rights movement had gone too far. While denying any deep-seated prejudice against Negroes, a large number of those questioned used the same terms to express their feelings. They spoke of Negroes’ receiving ‘everything on a silver platter’ and of ‘reverse discrimination’ against whites. More than one‐fourth of those who were interviewed said they had become more opposed to Negro aims during the last few months.” — New York Times

050

The idea that my advocacy for human rights is misogyny is literally the same bullshit argument that Whites made against desegregation and establishing civil rights for Blacks - that it was "reverse discrimination". Segregation is evil whether by race or sex, you just can't see through your bigotry.

Now he claims I cherry-picked the poll? 🤣 It’s also hilarious that he quoted “comparative analogy” like it’s not a real concept applied to analyzing relationships between historical events 🤣 Seems like he just couldn’t handle his own fuckup, and then made additional fuckups trying to defend it. 🤷‍♂️

I just assumed you were aware of the overwhelming opposition to MLK’s (et al) demands, not just the tactics. But since you lack the intelligence to understand the comparative analogy, here’s an explicit example of polling where the majority thought Blacks were just asking for “too much”:

210

Says the person who writes posts like this 😅

Racial segregation and anti miscegenation laws used to poll really well back in the 1960’s. Would you say advocating for that equality was a bad idea because it was an “utter liability in terms of popularity”?? You sound *exactly* like MLK’s critics, but on equality for LGBTQI+ people. Deplorable.

And yet the law allows for trans men to be excluded from women’s spaces. Plus it’s utter bullshit you wouldn’t flip out about this man entering the bathroom with you. Like you could tell the difference any better than the other article for a cis woman. www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-eve...

000

Actually most women want single-person spaces as they are not comfortable changing in front of even other women. Single person spaces provide a right of privacy and solve the sex segregation issue entirely. today.yougov.com/society/arti...

100

That's literally not what you said. And it's not how that recorded *opinion* gets recorded. So, few people ever get an SRY test. And you also never said what that "further examination" was - again, I already know there is no "sex test" so I'm curious what you think there is that fills in the 1%.

100

Your point? In 1950 98% of Americans were against interracial marriage. All you have suggested is that a majority of the people in the UK are bigots. Cool. Here in the US a majority of people support trans rights - including a super majority of 30 and under. Guess what happens over time...

Further still people like these women get assaulted simply for not looking "woman enough" despite being cisgendered women.

100

The evidence of that absurdity is that people like this are not allowed in "women's spaces" despite TERFs arguing that they are female.

100

Standard English way... like you did with facetious, and privacy? 🤔

000