You must log in or register to comment.
Waiting for the next Netflix series giving visibility to the rest of the periodic table.
There’s an anime for that! The Qwaser of Stigmata
Warning: it’s Super NSFW, which is a shame because it’s such a cool concept.
When Mafuyu Oribe and her adopted sister …
Alright, I’m in!
The Qwaser of Stigmata
Just read on Wikipedia about it… Jeez, no, I’m not interested, thanks
😁
Yeah, I wish someone would remake it without the gratuitous lactation porn
Gratuitous lactation porn is literally the entire point of the series
Yeah, but the core concept, people who have control over an element, could be done without it.
I feel like this kind of applies here:
“Content not viewable in your region”
Have you got another source?
what the actual fuck
the gratuitous lactation porn
That’s a helluva sentence to start 2026 out with. 🎊
Well youbsee, the Lactation represents Electrons ejecting out of atoms to bond with other atoms.
Its just science.
The series is notable for its violence, fan service, and the use of milk-like vital energy coming from women’s breasts (referred to as Soma) as a central plot device.
First paragraph, second sentence of Wikipedia. You were not kidding.
This is bad science.
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
Any good astronomer knows that the real binary is metal/non-metal
any good astronomer knows that the real binary is ordinary matter / dark matter
The non-Hydrogen, non-Helium atoms are a larger proportion of total mass, but that’s just because they’re really fat.
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
Actually, it’s twice as large!
It looks like this chart is based on mass, rather than number. By number hydrogen is >90% by itself
its a vocal minority, don’t pay them any attention
We don’t call them fat. They’re BBA: big beautiful atoms. Thicc would suffice too.
The 12 yo in me is giggling like crazy right now.
What are you doing with a 12yo inside you?
Better than reverse
Would be a lot cooler if those were scaled accordingly
There is scaling going on there, just not 1:1. Like the hydrogen is smaller than the rest, but it should be about half the size of the one above.
It’s barely perceptible. I just see a rainbow of butts.
We’ve all had dreams Lee that.
No mans sky makes a little more sense to me. Kinda less, but also more.
Gender is different vibrations on a string
That’s the coolest possible shit. Everything is just resonance
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.
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.
I’m a Nitrogen atom but I identify as a Lithium ion. Please keep that in mind when preparing your compounds.
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.
An organism that produces both types of gamete is a hermaphrodite.
Yep, and that exists in other species, but not humans. Nobody’s body is organized around the production of both gametes, unlike other species
A human with both gametes or no gametes at all is possible.
All of this has been better argued in the previous thread where you displayed an, in my opinion, astounding lack of reading comprehension. @Carnelian@lemmy.world argued eloquently with you quite a while.
Man, really? The person that thinks there’s 3 gamete types because they couldn’t even understand the paper they linked? Them? I mean FFS, the paper they linked directly, squarely contradicts them:
A strict binary, for which all individuals are unambiguously grouped into one of two categories. Whereas some traits, such as gamete size, operate this way, […]
I have to say that I’m disappointed that you found that eloquent, but to each their own. I hope that you some day find truth more eloquent.
At any rate, just in case you’re confused (since it’s not clear from your comment if you understand this), sex is defined by the gamete types your body is organized around producing. Someone born without the ability to create gametes isn’t a counter to the sex binary, their body is still organized around the production of sperm or ova, even if faulty. Nobody is born with a body organized around the production of both sperm and ova, not even in the case of ovotestis. See other comments for explanation.
Oh the self proclaimed ambassador for the field of biology is back at it again, what a surprise. Has he revealed yet that his smoking gun ‘study’ that defines sex and ‘represents literally all of biology’ is actually just a rant from a discredited nut job podcaster who has dozens of posts whining about how he’s been totally ostracized by all other biologists?
Edit: LMAOOO, yup
Edit 2: Instead of responding to his multiple new feature-length “I am the chad you are soy” tirades, I’ll suggest just reading through the old thread if you’re curious about what got him so worked up lol
Separately from my other comment demonstrating the other biologists telling you that you’re wrong, so it doesn’t get lost:
There’s nothing to “reveal” and there’s no “smoking gun”. It’s simply an easy to read paper, even if you have trouble reading. It’s true, regardless of the author.
You’re trying to say “Look at this one paper, it has an author I don’t like, so I’ll obsess about that guy and ignore everything else!”
If you really want, ignore that paper and read the many others telling you exactly how wrong you are. Please make sure to actually read them though. It was a waste of everyone’s time to correct your failed understanding of your own link.
You’re very focused on that one person and apparently refusing to read the citations from the paper. Feel free to peruse the list of scientists that signed a statement affirming the same:
https://projectnettie.wordpress.com/
Or the author of Sex Redefined, which people have linked without reading:
https://xcancel.com/ClaireAinsworth/status/888365994577735680
Two sexes, with a continuum of variation in anatomy/physiology.
Or another top biologist:
I like to summarize this by saying that the biological sex definition/concept is both universal and explanatory. No other concept of sex, for example, can explain sexual selection and the differences in behavior and phenotype that appear in animals.
It’s important to recognize that the recent reframing of the two sexes as needing revision did not result from any new discoveries about biology […]
It is not transphobic to recognize the two sexes that biologists have known for decades, but, unfortunately, we are dealing with ideologues who are largely impervious to both facts and reason, and so the five points above are aimed largely at those who don’t know a lot about the way biologists conceive of sex.
That’s you. You are the ideologue that is largely impervious to facts and reason. You demonstrated this by linking a paper and completely misunderstanding it to the point that you thought gametes are a spectrum, when it flatly contradicts you:
(A) A strict binary, for which all individuals are unambiguously grouped into one of two categories. Whereas some traits, such as gamete size, operate this way, […]
Or here’s yet another person with plenty of credentials telling you directly you’re wrong:
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable
This article says nothing novel. It discusses a fact as well-established as the billions of years of evolution that shaped our species. We live in a world, however, that increasingly ignores such truths, and in which the combination of awareness and courage to set the record straight appears rare.
This isn’t even a debate. You’re just wrong. Would you like more citations to that effect?
“Powerstruggle” is an anti trans troll who turns up in any trans-positive thread to pseudoscience their way to distracting everyone from a fun and positive post about gender into an acrimonious debate about why they think there are only two sexes. It will go on and on. They’re excellent at ignoring other people’s points and just restating their own.
You’re weirdly obsessed with the idea that anybody that disagrees with you is trolling. You’re free to provide any evidence to support your position, but you’re better suited to simply insult people that try to tell you facts.
You’re repeatedly insulting people trying to show you the truth and refusing to demonstrate anything that supports your position.
You’re a troll.
I think anyone looking at your post history will see who the troll is! You’re obsessive and relentlessly obnoxious about this one issue and you derail every trans positive post you come across.
I correct misinformation, which is a small number of trans related posts. Why are you lying, troll?
Conservatives like you: Every accusation a confession.
So when you accuse everyone of being a troll, it’s a confession. Please do better.
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.
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.
If we put aside humans for a moment
Is that you, Lrr, ruler of Omicron Persei 8?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
deleted by creator
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.
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?
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.
deleted by creator
Well, why do you care so much?
deleted by creator
That’s a lot of text. Why do you care so much?
deleted by creator
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.
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)?
Okay, but “MERA” has a much nicer ring to it than “TERF”.
