MartianNight
No bio...
User ID: 1244
MartianNight
18hr ago
don’t believe in the gender/sex distinction but it’s central to the mainstream trans viewpoint
No it's not, and I've already pointed you to enough examples that I now believe you are being completely disingenuous the way all gender ideologues are always completely disingenuous.
If gender ideologues embraced the sex/gender distinction, Wikipedia's Elliot Page article would start with: "Elliot Page is a female actor who identifies as a man"
And Wikipedia's Imane Khelif article would start with "Imane Khelif is an intersex male suffering from 5AR2D who identifies as a woman..."
The Khelif article literally contains the false claim that "Khelif was born female" and for months contained the completely unsubstantiated sentence "false claims that she was a male circulated online": while these claims did circulate online, they were factually true, and this is still not acknowledged, though the sentence has been modified by replacing "male" with "man" which is still a lie since Khelif is a man in the trivial meaning of the word.
There is no "sensitivity" or "soft language" here. There is just a complete denial of objective reality. And it's not an oversight: this was one of the most-viewed articles of 2025. Many people tried to correct the "born female" and "false claims" phrasing; these people were all overruled by the gender activists that watch these articles like hawks and police the language carefully with the intent to maximally deceive the public.
If you disagree and you think the statement "Khelif was born female" was not meant to deceive the reader into thinking Khelif was born female (when in fact Khelif was born male) I would love to read your argument to that effect. But stop your bullshit about me not “believing” in a gender/sex distinction that obviously real world gender ideologues don't believe in either, considering that they're always intentionally conflating gender with sex, and never plainly state the sex of transgender/intersex people.
MartianNight
18hr ago
The premise that gender is merely a separate thing from sex was used as a foot in the door twenty years ago. No modern gender ideologue operates on the basis that biological sex is real and important today.
If you disagree, I will ask you the same thing as I asked Rae: go ahead edit the fact that Imane Khelif is male and that Elliot Page is female into their respective Wikipedia pages. If you manage to do that, I will concede that gender ideologues in the real world separate sex from gender identity.
Other people's biological sex, if they don't bring it up, is none of anyone else's beeswax.
Sure, that's what gender ideologues believe, but why shouldn't it be? Especially if they use their false claim to get special privileges, like Imane Khelif falsely claiming to be a woman to compete in the women's boxing tournament.
If you can tell that someone's biological sex is partially or entirely mismatched to their gender, you should keep that to yourself unless they bring it up first, just as you would if they had an embarrassing skin condition or a missing limb.
Again, that's perfectly reasonable up to the point where they make false claims to access resources they shouldn't have access to. The analogy fails because people with embarassing skin conditions or missing limbs don't generally claim to have flawless complexions or complete bodies.
The closest case I can think of is someone like Oscar Pistorius who is a sprinter with artifical legs who was eventually banned from competing against natural humans because he had an advantage over regular athletes. If we can ban Pistorius from men's sports, why can't we ban Khelif from women's sports?
MartianNight
20hr ago
Anyone who believes trans people literally become the opposite sex by self declaration is delusional and an idiot.
OK but that is literally the standard model of gender ideology in the real world, and if you argue for your interpretation you will get banned from half the internet and fired from every job in academia, hollywood, sillicon valley, and wherever else the woke reign supreme.
Go try and edit Wikipedia to reflect your belief that Elliot Page was a woman when he played a pregnant teenage girl. Heck, go on Wikipedia and edit the Elliot Page article to state that Page might be a man now but he still is biologically female and was born female (rather than merely being “assigned female at birth” by an ignorant doctor) If you manage to do that without getting banned or ganged upon by a rabid troupe of gender ideologues who will swiftly revert your changes, I might consider your hypothesis that gender ideology might possibly mean what you claim it means.
But who are we kidding? We both know that your conception of gender ideology doesn't exist outside The Motte. It's actually a fantastic example of the motte-and-baily fallacy. Only in The Motte, that wretched hive of scum and villainy, where people don't automatically agree that a woman is anyone who says they're a woman, does transwoman mean “person who wishes they are a woman but is a male in reality”. Everywhere else it means “woman, and if you deny it you're banned”.
MartianNight
20hr ago
When someone refers to Caster Semenya, Imane Khelif or other intersex individuals with female presenting genital as a man, they have changed the definition of man and woman. They are applying a new modern definition over words far far older than chromosomes were known to exist for. Historically intersex people like Semenya and Khelif would have been women, it is the changed definition that says otherwise.
This is simply not true. Historically, most males with 5ARD (which is the condition that Semenya and Khelif have) would be considered men after going through puberty.
This varies between cultures, obviously, but for example, in the Dominican Republic boys with 5ARD are called guevedoces (literally: penis-at-twelve) and they are considered men who only grow a penis when they hit puberty. They aren't considered women, which makes sense, when they don't have any of the traits of women: they don't have breasts, wider hips, they don't have ovaries or a uterus, and cannot give birth. But they can impregnate women, like men, just like Caster Semenya has.
So historically, intersex males with 5ARD have been considered men, not women. You are changing definitions if you insist that Semenya and Khelif are women.
The delusion is in insisting that wanting to be something is exactly the same thing as being that something, which is obviously ridiculous. Honestly you are starting to sound wilfully ignorant which makes me think you are trans-identified yourself, because consistently denying reality and pretending not to understand things that have been explained to you ad nauseam is a key characteristic of trans-identified people and their allies.
But I'll bite and explain once more. According to mainstream gender ideology:
- Any person who self-declares themselves as the opposite of their biological sex is the opposite of their biological sex.
- That person has always been the opposite sex!
- Absolutely no medication or change in behavior is required to become the opposite sex.
It’s like thinking overweight people who take GLP-1 antagonists are delusional about thinking they’re actually skinny.
To apply this analogy, it would be like thinking that overweight people become skinny merely by expressing the desire to become skinny. And moreover, not only are they now skinny (even though they are objectively still fat), they have retroactively always been skinny, and if you deny this, you are a bigot and you will get banned for misweighting a stunning and brave transskinny person.
The fact that nobody actually thinks like this when it comes to fat people shows how ridiculous gender ideology is.
And sure, there is a type of trans person who actually tries to transition. They will take cross sex hormones, change out their wardrobe, change their behavior, and so on. Those people have at least some valid claim to be treated as the opposite sex. But importantly, gender ideology doesn't require anyone to do anything like that (claiming someone needs to transitions to be “valid” as a transgender makes you truscum which is practically as bad as being a TERF) and even if you go through all that trouble, obviously it doesn't change who you were before your transition, although gender ideologues will insist that who you were in the past depends entirely on what you identify as today.
MartianNight
7d ago
the highest rate seems to be in Geneva, at 0.38% for the top bracket
It's a bit more complicated than just 0.38% because the tax rate is progressive, plus there is a municipal tax that is a percentage of the cantonal tax added on top (typically around 50%). I think you can get up to around 1% in the worst case, but it's mostly theoretical because in practice rich people move to a place where they get taxed less, unless they are either extremely principled or they really want to live in one of the major cities no matter the cost.
Perhaps 38% would be enough, though I was thinking >50% as a symbolic gesture that it takes a majority above a certain point.
The point is that these taxes are charged every year. 38% would be insanely high: in just 10 years you'd have lost >99% of your wealth. That's not reasonable.
By comparison, at a 0.5% rate you pay e.g. $5000 per million dollars in savings. Over 70 years, you'd lose 30%. If you have a top rate of 1%, then you lose 9,5% in 10 years, or 50% in 70 years. This strikes me as reasonable, especially since you can usually generate some return on your wealth too (the US stock market has yielded >10% on average in the past decade even compensating for inflation).
If the notion is that simply existing as a billionaire - and certainly as a trillionaire - is intrinsically unethical in a world with poverty (i.e. our world), then the tax certainly must be big enough to actually turn real billionaires into merely hectomillionaires.
I understand that there are some people who want that, but I don't think those are realistic proposals, in that you wouldn't be able to pass them into law even at the state level, and if you could, the main effect would be driving out billionaires and businesses, rather than generating a huge amount of tax revenue.
I'm rather more interested in proposals that:
- Have more than a snowball's chance in hell of being implemented.
- Wouldn't completely destroy the US economy.
- Increase government revenue by a significant amount.
If he had to pay a $400 billion tax bill, he would likely have to sell a heck of a lot of his stock in a way that also destroys a lot of value for a lot of people.
Right, it's impossible for Musk to raise $400 billion all at once, that's why the wealth tax should be a small annual percentage instead. Selling 1% of his shares each year wouldn't tank the stock price the way that selling 30% would. But you're still getting 10 billion a year out of him alone.
I don't buy the concern about Musk losing control of the company. Musk already uses his class B shares with 10x voting power to maintain >80% control with <50% of the shares. He can sell 75% of those shares and maintain majority control. Or use tricks like equity swaps to raise money without losing his shares. Or just make the company pay 1% dividend per year (though that requires it to become actually profitable). Plenty of ways to pay taxes while remaining both CEO and majority shareholder.
So given that Musk can stay in control and pay a hypothetical wealth tax, it's not clear to me what value you think is being destroyed by taxing wealthy people somewhat. Unless you say it's always better for billionaire to have a dollar than the government, on the basis that billionaire's investments are more beneficial to society than whatever the government wastes it's money on (healthcare, pensions, education, foodstamps, the military), but that's highly debatable.
You write this as if the concept of a wealth tax is completely unexplored territory, but in reality many countries already have a wealth tax, including most European countries. They simply assess your net worth for tax purposes on the basis of the assets you own: bank balance, stocks, bonds, property, etc. For private companies it's based on the book value of the company according to the latest financial statement. For shares of a publicly traded company it's simply the stock price at December 31 multiplied by the number of shares you owned.
So if the US wanted to create a wealth tax, it's not that hard to figure out. You can just copy the tax law from e.g. Switzerland.
If the government were to take shares away from Musk to take partial ownership of his companies
Ah, I see there's a misunderstanding here on what it means to tax a person's wealth. The government does not want to be paid in shares. They want to be paid in cash, where the amount is a percentage of your net worth. How you raise the money to pay your tax bill is entirely up to you. You can use other sources of income, borrow against your shares, sell stock, whatever.
In theory this can be tricky for people who are cash poor, own a lot of stock, but are restricted from selling it (e.g. immediately after an IPO) but in practice this is not a problem. All billionaires in America have figured out how to buy mansions, yachts and private jets while avoiding anything that resembles a taxable event. I'm sure they can figure out how to raise cash to pay their tax bill, too.
"Worst" case companies will start paying dividends and real CEO salaries again. They only stopped doing that because it allows shareholders and CEOs to dodge taxes under the American tax regime (since dividend and salary payments are taxed as income, while capital gains are only taxed when they are realized, which can be deferred indefinitely). If that trend is reversed nothing of value is lost.
MartianNight
8d ago
Based on a market cap of 2.5 trillion and 18.7 billion/year revenue, SpaceX has an EV/R of around 135. (For reference, an EV/R of 3.57 is typical for aerospace companies according to the first source I could find.)
Clearly the valuation is almost entirely speculative rather than based on current fundamentals. Of the three segments, it seems like the AI branch has the highest growth potential.
Here's another random article: Top analyst: 71% of SpaceX’s $2 trillion value rests on AI.. Of course, that's also just an (expert) opinion, but the fundamental argument seems sound.
Why would you pay >100x revenue for the space company when they already cornered half the market? Starlink already has over 10 million users; how much bigger can that number realistically get when most people will only use satellite internet as a last resort, when fixed and mobile networks aren't available? The only part that doesn't have an obvious ceiling like that is xAI.
MartianNight
8d ago
I'm not sure what your definition of fake internet shit is, but obviously a large (majority?) share of the SpaceX valuation is xAI; it's not all about rockets and space. And xAI is essentially a copy-cat of OpenAI/Anthropic/the other tech companies chasing AI.
As for the space operations of SpaceX, it's not really clear to me what kind of innovation you expect here. In 2025, SpaceX already launched more rockets than the rest of the world combined. They've established a reputation as being cost effective and very reliable, which is great but also means it's hard to drive costs down further or become even more reliable. From that perspective, it seems like it's practically impossible to significantly grow their core operations.
I don't think that's it, because in most cases the nonconsensual videos are professionally produced too; this is obvious from the acting and grooming and multiple camera angles and literally everything that gives it away as a professional production.
It's just part of the great censoring of the internet. You cannot even search for rape porn on Google or Bing anymore. Try it! Turn off safesearch, search for "rape porn", select video results, and you will get 0% porn results. Literally nothing! They don't block your query but they just show you non-porn results. And it's not Google and Bing blocking porn in general, because if you change it to "stepsister porn" you immediately get 100% porn results.
It's clear that rape porn has just been banned from the modern internet. It's being treated like child porn or revenge porn, despite being not actually illegal or even particularly immoral. This isn't super relevant to the topic being discussed in this thread, I admit, but it still grinds my gears, because it's a sign of the internet, once a bastion of freedom, becoming completely corporatized and sanitized. And I say that as someone who only rarely watches porn to begin with.
That was a different era. Rape porn has been removed from pornhub for years.
Using the word "rape" in a search query gets you blocked with a snotty "uhm, sweaty, don't you know rape is bad and illegal?" popup. You cannot even search for CNC anymore. The C literally stands for "consensual" for fucks sake! But nope, Pornhub has decided consensual sex is "illegal and abusive". Somehow, this doesn't apply to stepsisters who are stuck in household appliances.
(And don't get me started on the boner-killing pride banners they have up right now.)
MartianNight
16d ago
Oh, that's just copy of Sofie Peeters Femme de la Rue from 2012.
It's funny how the scenario plays out virtually identically across the Atlantic ocean. A feminist woman walks around a large city, in an attempt to draw attention to the problem of street harassment. People Notice™ that the harassers are virtually exclusively of non-European extraction, which is exactly the thing they weren't supposed to notice: they were supposed to accuse men-in-general, not the men who have culturally enriched all major cities in Europe.
A similar phenomenon is the subway shirt. I would almost feel bad for these women if they weren't the ones voting for this.
MartianNight
1mo ago
The Nordics require a degree of financial transparency that would at least make most Americans I know a bit uncomfortable
You realize he said Swiss, not Swedish?
Switzerland is not exactly famous for its financial transparency; rather the opposite, actually, though the reality is a lot more nuanced these days (truly anonymous secret Swiss bank accounts no longer exist).
MartianNight
1mo ago
“One of the many tragedies of this war is that before the war began the U.S. Intel Community, including CIA, was in agreement that Iran wasn't developing a nuclear weapon”
I find this type of claim infuriating, not just because I believe they're lying, but they don't even make an attempt to reconcile their claim with known facts, such as:
- Iran has stockpiled around 440 kg of 60% enriched uranium.
- It is extremely expensive to create such a stockpile (especially for a country with a developing economy like Iran).
- Highly enriched urinanium (HEU) is useless for power plants, which need enrichment around 3% to 5%
- Academic research, if it relies on HEU at all, certainly doesn't need large quantities of it.
- The only known use for a large stockpile of HEU is to create nuclear weapons.
So we know that creating a HEU stockpile is expensive, and that literally the only use for such a stockpile is to create a nuclear weapon. Then the obvious conclusion is: Iran created the stockpile with the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon. Why else would they do it?
I would like to know how Joe Kent explain this away. Why did Iran invest so much into building a uranium stockpile, if not to ultimately build a nuclear weapon?
The most charitable explanation I can come up with is that Iran hopes to use it as a bargaining chip: it will give up its stockpile in exchange for America lifting sanctions against Iran. Maybe that's even the preferred outcome, over actually going through with building a nuclear warhead. But it only works as a bargaining chip if Iran is willing to go through with the threat, so that means they cannot be committed to not creating a nuclear weapon.
So this begs the question, what is the real reason?
No it doesn't. You're jumping the gun by assuming Joe Kent is speaking the truth, when there is plenty reason to assume he's in fact lying. Nothing we know is inconsistent with the following statements:
- Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons, as evidenced by their weapons grade uranium stockpiles.
- Joe Kent is lying for political reasons (which happens all the time).
- Stopping/delaying the development of nuclear weapons was one of the reasons for the Iran war.
The nukes might not be the only reason for the Iran war, or even the primary reason, but there is absolutely no reason to assume they weren't a reason for the war.
MartianNight
1mo ago
Both cases are better excuse for riots and arson than Floyd.
No, because Good and Pretti were both white, and they don't riot for white people. Trump had nothing to do with it.
MartianNight
2mo ago
Oops, you're right. How embarrassing. Wikipedia tells me Thomas Sowell was a professor at UCLA between 1974 and 1980 and is now 95 years old, so clearly in a position to say whatever he wants. But the quote isn't necessarily recent; when did he say that?
If he was a tenured professor at ACLU that's still consistent with my point that he was in a unique position to say what was obvious to anyone with a brain. Kind of similar to Jordan Peterson who could say the things he said because he was a tenured professor who didn't have to worry about losing his job, not because he was the first person to ever think of them.
JK Rowling is another example. And many such cases.
Not to be a contrarian, and I don't mean to disrespect Thomas Sowell whom I know little about, but I don't think that's a revelationary quote. It's something obvious that any intelligent person would have observed, except that if you say it out loud, you will get accused of white supremacy and fired from your job.
Thomas Sowell has the benefits that he is a black man so the usual white supremacy accusations don't stick (I'm sure they'll call him an Uncle Tom, though) and he has life tenure as a judge of the supreme court. That enables him to say what everyone is thinking without the usual blowback. I'm glad he's saying it, but I don't think it's a particularly insightful or original thought.
MartianNight
3mo ago
Funny how that logic never applies to me as a European when I don't want to let in the refugees from the countries that Israel attacks.
MartianNight
4mo ago
the number of actual prepubescent kids molested by actual paedophiles each year in the UK appears to be in single figures.
That figure seems several orders of magnitude too small.
For example, RAINN claims “child protective services substantiated or found strong evidence that 63,000 children a year were sexually abused” in the US, and this is significantly less than their estimates based on victimization surveys. They also mention 34% of victims are under 12, which seems more or less the same as “prepubescent” so 63,000/3 = 21,000 prepubescent children. Divide by 5 to account for the difference in population size and you get around 4200 cases in the UK each year.
Another sanity check is to compare it with the murder rate. In the UK, around 700 people get murdered each year. It seems implausible that people are ~100x more likely to be murdered than sexually molested as children. If anything I'd guess the latter is significantly more common than the former.
So in all likelyhood, pedophiles molest hundreds or thousands of prepubescent children a year in the UK, not single digit numbers.
The extent to which the RAINN stats support your view is that despite being only 1/3 of minors, those 12+ are 2/3 of victims. And while the gender ratio is fairly even under 12, girls outnumber boys 4 to 1 among those over 12. So that suggests that indeed female puberty is a big risk factor, but it only explains roughly 50% of the victimization of children under 18.
MartianNight
4mo ago
It's funny because Der Stürmer's take much more accurately describes the position of Jews today.
Sure, I acknowledge that bots/shills exist; my point is that people are really bad at identifying them, and more likely to throw “bot” or “shill” out as insults or ways to dismiss an opponent, with little to no regard for the truth.
For product reviews, there is a clear incentive for the seller to prop up their listing with fake reviews, while legitimately happy customers often have little incentive to leave a review: if you buy a ream of printer paper, a set of kitchen towels or a box of pencils, how excited can you possibly be about your purchase? If the product is subpar, I could imagine leaving a negative review, as a form of revenge and a warning to others (I've done that myself). But for mundane products that basically meet expectations, you'd have to be exceedingly bored to leave a detailed 5 star review praising the subtle off-white coloring and the tasteful thickness of a sheet of printer paper. Consequently, I can imagine for those type of products, a relatively high fraction of rave reviews were left by shills.
For political discussions, the opposite is true. Lots of people like to waste their time online arguing about stuff that even politicians don't care that much about. These people are real humans. Take the presidential election, for example, where it was shown that Harris hired people (it's not clear if they were paid) to post positive stories on reddit in an attempt to generate buzz/get people to show up at the polls. Even knowing that that was a thing, I believe the majority of Harris supporters on reddit were genuine believers, not (un)paid shills.
This is based on the observation that reddit has millions of leftist users who would support Harris by default, versus only a handful of shills. That means the prior probability of any Harris-supporter being a paid shill is just very low, and I definitely wouldn't feel confident about identifying the shills. That can either mean I'm a terrible judge of character, or the people who confidently claim they can sniff out shills are just overconfident; the latter seems more plausible to me.
To give an example I saw today on reddit: this (re)post about Shell (the oil company) emitting orders of magnitude more CO2 than an average person has many people crying “shill”:
I love all the shills or dorks in this comment thread parroting fossil fuel talking points
man some of the people in this reddit thread must work for exxon-mobil lmao.
Someone reasonably replies to the last comment:
They’re not defending a corporation, they’re defending basic logic. To attribute every emission to the company that produces the oil and gas is downright stupid.
And yeah, I agree. These are just normal people deviating from the “oil company bad—upvotes to the left” playbook. I tried looking at the history of some of the top commenters and they seemed to have normal histories with no clear indication of paid shilling. That doesn't prove they aren't shilling, of course, but given that none of the shill-accusers give evidence to support their beliefs, I conclude that they were making those accussations baselessly.
I've seen this so many times now that I've come to believe that on reddit and spaces like it, words like “bot” and “shill” aren't used to identify actual bots or actual shills, but they are terms used to dismiss real people who express unwelcome opinions.
Please just answer the question. What method did you use to determine that the obvious paid shill was obviously paid to shill? That should be easy to answer since it was so obvious, right?
edit: instead of answering, phailyoor chose to block me. Cowardly behavior, that all but proves he has no reasonable answer, and my suspicions were correct all along.
Now maaaybe you might have a point that normies can't tell me from those other people you hate. But they way your post is written it seems like you're accusing me of being a retard.
You're not beating the allegations if you're not able to field any argument why I should treat you differently than the majority of people who accuse others of being bots and shills without evidence.
Your argument sounds indistinguishable from: “People seem to really despise you when you call a witch a witch. Whenever I call a woman a witch, there are people defending her by saying ‘that's just a woman with a slightly crooked nose’ when she's obviously the bride of Satan.”
Given that I know that most people who call women witches are full of shit, I'm not inclined to believe the women that you called witches were in fact witches, unless you can give me a solid argument why your ability to identify witches is so much more accurate than that of other witch hunters. And you can't just say “Yeah those other witch hunters were phonies, but I'm the real deal, trust me okay!” because that's what all those other witch hunters would say too.
Recently I've had a related observation while browsing a different website, which has an amount of bots and shills.
Not sure which site you're vaguebooking about, but my experience on reddit is that most of the time someone gets called a bot or a shill, the accused is really an actual human who simply dared to deviate 0.01% from hivemind-approved window of opinions. I know this because I'm often the target of such accusations (I am neither a bot nor a shill), and because I've reviewed the comment history of many of those people who get dismissed this way, and rarely are there any obvious signs of them being anything but a human being with an organic opinion.
To be clear, there are bots on reddit, but they mostly seem to be karma farming, and not making detailed political arguments. They will typically (re)post generic oneliners on cat pictures and the like. And there are shills, like Kamala Harris reddit astro-turfing campaign, but it's not even clear they are paid, and rather just act based on their own righteousness.
So how do I know you're not doing the same thing? Dismissing people whose views you disagree with as being paid for or generated by a LLM? In particular, when you say:
I saw a similar thing on a local Facebook group, where an obvious paid shill posted a wall of text clearly written by ChatGPT
Can you clarify how you determined that this person was getting paid to post that content? Did you see their paycheck?
And yes, people sometimes use ChatGPT to write arguments for them. I find that super obnoxious too, but mostly those are just losers who are too lazy or stupid to defend their own views. They're despicable, but they're not bots and they're not shills; they're just lazy morons.
But what I hate even more than those morons is the circlejerkers who avoid engaging in discussion and instead just label every outsider as a “bot” or “shill”, encouraging the rest to downvote rather than engage with their arguments intellectually. How do I know you aren't doing exactly that which I most despise?
MartianNight
4mo ago
The video from the other side is posted e.g. here: https://x.com/i/status/2015131503622021472
But it doesn't make the situation clearer.
You're dodging the central point, which is that ancient cultures already knew that geuevedoces weren't women. They called them "penis at twelve" exactly because they thought of them a special kind of boy that only grows his penis when he hits puberty (when most boys are born with them). They weren't considered women.
No, she didn't live life as a woman. She lived as a girl until puberty. Then when girls started to develop into women, Khelif developed into a man. He grew taller, with broad shoulders, and narrow hips, while his female peers developed wider hips and started menstruating. Khelif has never had a period in his life, because he lacks any female organs, which is how he knew he was male. He must have figured it out at age 15 or 16 at the latest. Since then, he has been living a lie.
Sure, but 5ARD is the most common and it is what Khelif and Semenya and a bunch of other male athletes who competed in women's sports have. Let's start by getting the gender ideologues to acknowledge that, then we can move into more obscure conditions.
Humans knew about the male and female sex before the discovery of chromosomes. You don't need to know the genetic details to understand that males and females are built differently. In any case, it doesn't excuse the current state of the world. It's settled science that Imane Khelif is a man in all ways that matter for the purpose of boxing.
More options
Context Copy link