You must log in or register to comment.
Now say he’s a featherless (female) biped and we’re full circle
In this economy?
There’s gotta be at least six figures worth of eggs in this photo
4 x 3 containing 30 eggs = 360 x 6 layers per pallet = 2160 x 4 pallets = 8640 / 12 per dz = 720 dozen eggs x $5 a dz = $3600. Considering these are brown eggs, they may be selling as free range organic bullshit for like $10 / dz so maybe $7200.
Nothing makes a joke funnier than using math to poke holes in it lol
So it’s six figures if you include the places after the decimal then ;-)
Or if you sell eggs for $140 / dozen.
And to think I was upset about my eggs costing about $3.50 / dozen with treats included. Oh well, the little raptors are fun.
Look man I know that my taxonomy doesn’t work… but have you considered that it was created with the intent to work?
I’m having trouble finding anyone born with intention. Neither biology nor evolution have plans or intentions. We are fundamentally lipid based sacks of water.
Just being the devil’s advocate here, but do instincts count as intentions? They’re powerful and we’re born with a lot of them. Like, we’re all born to not starve, but also some birds are compelled to pick up large stones and roost them as eggs indefinitely, and others to perform migrations. “Born to survive and reproduce” is biology’s motto but I think it goes beyond that to “born to do as others do”. And if we extend that to gender roles, I can see how with the inherent variation in biology some people will be born to perform an alternative gender role just like I’m compelled to pursue the same gender.
They’re arguing from a religious perspective that understands God as providing intentionality
Which is a self-defeating argument, because if it were true, then women who don’t have eggs are functioning exactly as “intended,” and don’t fit this definition of “woman”
Ah, I can see Diogenes has made an impact on people.
Diogenes would be proud here
My first thought too.
To anyone unaware, plato defined man as “a featherless biped” so Diogenes brought a plucked chicken
You can’t spell genius without Diogenes
Diogenius
I wonder how Plato would have defined man if he knew kangaroos existed.
featherless tail-less biped? then we could have a story about Diogenes fighting a kangaroo to cut off its tail
Why does it always come back to chickens?
Because they couldn’t figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything.
“It’s just business”
He was so much more polite after Amos.
I find the phrase “Born with the intention” in itself worthy of head-scratching.
I think its meant sort of as physical intention aka the body doesn’t have the ability to “hold eggs” (jfc) yet but will try to develop the capability in the future. A sneaky way to try and include infertile cis women but it still excludes many of them as there are various reasons for infertility. Interestingly the phrasing also excludes all women post menopause but that’s to be expected given the amount of representation those usually get (the amount being zero).
Women are born with their eggs, but that’s not true for women who are born without ovaries, which has got to be possible, so this is a dumb definition anyway
Also post-hysterectomy if it includes the ovaries. Sorry bitch, still a woman.
Personally my definition of a woman is anyone subject to misogyny.
I suppose it’s wrong, because attacks on transmen are also rooted in misogyny, but that’s the misogynists’ fault.
For the religious: “Sometimes God puts a soul into a body that doesn’t match. The soul is sacred, and until it can be released from the body permanently, we owe it to those souls to recognize and help them. God doesn’t make mistakes, it’s us He’s testing.”
Technically, it doesn’t even need to include the ovaries if the bigots are defining the womb as the ‘holding eggs’ bit.
Jesus, we need better mandatory biology classes. (That’s aimed at the people defining women as egg holders, not you.)
I don’t agree with it, but the reason this religious argument (and most challenges of religion) falls flat, is because, to the true believer, their God is infallible, and so the idea of God making a mistake like that is on direct conflict with their core beliefs.
Christians famously don’t think children can get cancer or the plague, because “God doesn’t make mistakes”. Blind children and children in wheelchairs? A hoax by the devil, clearly.
As I said, it’s not a mistake, it to test us, to be sure we’re following His edicts to love one another and judge not.
Of course to the false “believer,” hating and judging has become second nature and their “Christian” lives are the deepest blasphemy.
But to a decent person who’s already beginning to question the false doctrine in which they’ve been raised, it opens a chink in the wall.
Why does God need to test us? Doesn’t he already know whether or not we’d pass?
I don’t disagree with you myself, but remember the apple? According to Godologists that was just the first of thousands of tests, including your impure thoughts last week. It’s kinda his thing. So I see no problem using it to get through to them.
Wasn’t even an apple. It was literally “the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
So, basically, before eating that fruit, Eve could not have possibly known right from wrong. So how is it her fault?
Why would god make that tree in the first place? Why would he make that tree, and then insert it into his perfect paradise? Why would he make the tree, insert it into his perfect paradise, but then forbid the humans from eating the fruit, and thus gaining the understanding of good and evil? Why wouldn’t he want humans to have that knowledge? Why would he allow the serpent (who never told Eve to eat the fruit, btw, he just said it was something that was possible for her to do) to exist there in the first place?
And lastly, if he’s all-knowing, why the fuck would he be surprised by any of this?
Because “god works in mysterious ways.”
That’s the most you’ll ever get.
You’re right, and that whole argument is sidestepping the fact what they really want is a separation between men and women so that they can attempt to force a safe space for women that appeals to their sensibilities of women being born weaker than men with lower bone density and testosterone while not allowing glaring loopholes. Which is how they really view women as an infantile subset of our species that needs protection from a minority of opportunists that would take advantage of them.
Born with the intention to chew bubblegum & Rock n’ Roll.
I was born with the intention to be wild, but I got busy and haven’t had the time.
AND I’M ALL OUTTA BUBBLEGUM
A woman is one of those things where know you one when you see one. Doesn’t have to be any more complex than that.
Like Jiminy Cricket said, “Let your conscience be your guide”
That’s what I initially thought, too, but there are people who identify as a woman who 100% look like a man to me. It’s rare, but it does happen, and I’m not going to argue with them about it.
If you say you’re a woman, then you’re a woman, and it shouldn’t be any more complex than that.
Unless you’re underage, in which case you’re a girl. Women must be sapient adults.
One internet search later:
https://patient.info/forums/discuss/born-without-ovaries-634173
There are cis women born without ovaries.
Thus Lea the bigot is disproven.
Bigots will just say they’re not true women. That goalpost has legs.
But what’s between the goalposts legs? If it’s got legs then it’s somehow my business what’s going on between them.
I think she already knew, why else would she mention the people born with the intent of holding eggs (whatever that means).
There’s hormonal, chromosomal, and gamete definitions of biological woman/man and you’ll want to be specific about which youre referencing and why it is even relevent for the text.
Hormonal woman with XY (“male”) chromosomes and no eggs: Complete Androgen Insensitivity
Chromosomal woman with no eggs and low hormones: Swyer Syndrome (born without ovaries)
Men who have eggs: Chimeras, probably, and this guy: https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-man-shocked-learn-ovaries-202311718.html
A woman is when a guy crosses the line. You say “Wo! Man!”
They said “without excluding” not “without including”
Oh, believe me, they don’t want this egg selling man to be called a woman.
I know, but that’s on them. They should’ve been more specific.
☝️🤓
That man is moments away from financial disaster
That man is 100% in Germany. He’s fine.
I once dropped 6 eggs while working and cried
It is deeply confusing to me why people think they can define a word in a way that covers all it’s meaning and no additional ones and make fun of those who admit they can’t.
Challenge for anyone, define “to eat”. Remember, you have to cover eating soup but not drinking tea, or smoothie. But obviously, that isn’t everything.
It shouldn’t be that confusing, considering this is literally the challenge lawmakers (honest ones, as rare as they are) face.
There’s a great blog post by Neil Gaiman (despite recent revelations about his misconduct) that talks about “why we must defend icky speech”.
Long story short, the law is a blunt instrument. If you cannot clearly and accurately define the terms being used in the language of the law then you wind up with a law that can be applied beyond the intended scope. Like when you write laws about freedom of religion and then wind up with The Satanic Temple erecting statues of Baphomet in court houses. Or banning the Bible from library because it contains depictions of violence and sexual deviancy or promiscuity
These issues aren’t just academic. They have real-world consequences. Like, there have literally been legal rulings made based on the presence or absence of an Oxford comma
Is that kind of pedantry useful to the average conversation? No, of course not. But there are people trying to make laws that target women, or trans women, and if they can’t accurately define what a woman is then the law can be used to target people they didn’t want targeted.
Which is one of many reasons why trying to target trans folks with legal authority is a fool’s errand
What shouldn’t be confusing?
In this particular case the available words are easily found in a dictionary, and if it comes to law you can easily write about cisgender women and transgender women.
The problem is people that want the word women to not include trans women. They want to say trans women are not women, while also saying trans men aren’t women, and that’s why to them it is gets confusing talking about what gender is. Because once they realise they are basically saying trans people are not people, they subconsciously know they are morally wrong. And it’s confusing when you think you are doing something that is morally right, while knowing (maybe only subconsciously) you’re not.
Honestly, I don’t know what you are trying to tell me. I am not trying to be rude, I just don’t understand. But I have a point that I understood and disagree with.
Defining words isn’t the “challenge” of lawmakers. Most words used in most legal systems are undefined within it and the rest are defined by words which aren’t defined. E.g. the American legal system is built on that acknowledgement. That is why they work with case law. (Also I wasn’t talking about defining words in a legal setting. So not sure why we talk about it like this)
That’s because historically what we call drinking has less to do with the contents and more to do with the container
I am not disagreeing with you (while I am not convinced by your claim) but can you imagine how the “what is a woman?” Crowd would lose their marbles when you would say “whether it is eating or drinking, depends on the container and we 100% artificially decided what container is for eating or drinking” they would 100% claim that you don’t know what it means to eat.
When I was a kid and got hungry before dinner was ready, my solution was to pour a bowl of water to eat it with a spoon. I don’t know why I put some things on the internet.
Is this the kind of picture millionaires take these days?
Or anyone from, you know, the rest of the world.
