this post was submitted on 21 Aug 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

Science Memes

16376 readers
405 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] k4gie@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Do the two tails left of M and right of F mean there are males more male than cis males, and similarly with females?

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, hyperreal genders do exist, but are not stable outside lab conditions.

[–] Mastema@infosec.pub 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I would submit David Bowie as a counter example.

[–] SeptugenarianSenate@leminal.space 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Are we sure he would describe himself as either consistently “stable” throughout his experiences? Alternately, he might also protest to feeling as though his existence and the context around it might be well described as a sort of experimental setting, albeit not contained within a traditional laboratory setting.

Any world famous musician who not only survives their 30s but is relatively alive and kicking for decades later I would consider to pass the first condition, considering the track record for individuals experiencing that volume of fanatic obsession at young ages.

[–] Mastema@infosec.pub 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You know... Maybe I interpreted the question wrong. I think I added the HYPER modifier to "gender", rather than "real". In my interpretation his gender sort of rotates in and out of 3d space like a hypercube. Now that I've noticed that the modifier was actually on "real", I'm trying to figure out if that changes my answer. Because, while I may not know exactly what gender Bowie was going for, I know that his instantiation of it was far more REAL than most people manage to achieve.

[–] outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Hyperreal refers to a fake tthing that feels more substantial than the real thing. Like a vegan meat substitute being more meaty than meat, or any current mass political thing.

[–] Mastema@infosec.pub 0 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

So David Bowie represents the Impossible-Gender, or the Beyond-Gender...? I can accept that.

I don't know. I barely know who david bowie was.

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I don't think it's an accepted term anymore, but you reminded me that they used to call the triple X chromosome syndrome by the term Super-Female-Syndrome.

Probably not what the author intended though.

[–] Cracks_InTheWalls@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

...

I am a horrible person, but the only thing I can think of reading this is a small-circuit pro wrestling event where all participants have this set of chromosomes, billed as 'The Triple X Throwdown', for the title of Supreme Female.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It means that traditionally understood cis male can still have some female characteristics (no facial hair, higher pitched voice, bad at driving) but some males will have none.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)
[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Is not being able to take a light hearted joke a female trait, or just a you thing?

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

wasn't aware the sexism was intended as a light-hearted joke, my bad apparently

[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago

You must be just so much fun to around...

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I was kidding.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

the peaks do not designate "cis", you can be cis and fall anywhere on the chart - being cis is about the sex you were arbitrarily assigned at birth.

And when doctors change assignments, it's really unclear whether you're cis or not if you transition - e.g. a baby assigned female at birth who is then weeks later assigned male at birth later transitions to be a girl, she was originally assigned female at birth - is she trans or cis?

[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So what youre saying is, is that because theres like 200 per million babies born without legs. That means we cant classify human beings as a bipedal species?

I mean, if you ask the owner of dog if the dog is a boy or a girl... How does the owner know what to answer? Do they take the dog for an MRI? Do some blood tests? How would they know?

And why would a doctor "assign" one sex, and then change their mind two weeks later? Is this a particularly stupid doctor?

All the shit to worry about in life, and this nonsense is what people choose to focus on.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are like 1 in 100 people born trans, a similar number born intersex. It's as common as having green eyes or having red hair.

Regardless, I figure the scientists are probably looking at this with more detail and seriousness than either of us.

[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

well, thats a fucking lie.

That census data came from Brighton, which last time I checked, was the LGBT capital of the UK, if not the world.

Trans people account for between 0.1 and 0.6% of the population, and intersex is even less at 0.018%.

Stop getting your facts from facebook.

[–] barooboodoo@lemmy.zip 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Accurate statistics on the number of transgender people vary widely,[11] in part due to different definitions of what constitutes being transgender.[6] Some countries collect census data on transgender people, starting with Canada in 2021.[12][13][14][15] Generally, less than 1% of the worldwide population is transgender, with figures ranging from <0.1% to 0.6%.[16][17]

From wikipedia.

[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks for repeating what I said... I dont know why you did though.

[–] barooboodoo@lemmy.zip 0 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I'm providing context for why numbers regarding transgender people are fuzzy at best and why telling someone they're "fucking lying" about them is misguided at best.

[–] Bennyboybumberchums@lemmy.world 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Its not actually the case though is it? "1 in 100" is no where near "0.1 to 0.6", is it? Theres nothing fuzzy about any of these numbers. I stated them, you repeated it. But your the good guy? lol

[–] barooboodoo@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 hours ago

Repeat the first sentence from the wikipedia quote and ask yourself if it addresses everything you just said. Here's a hint: it does.

[–] squaresinger@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

Well, clearly. If you define a male characteristic as something that's more common in men than in women and vice-versa, then e.g. being tall would be a "male characteristic".

Height isn't a binary thing with men being exactly Xcm tall and women exactly Ycm, so there's people who have more of said male characteristic and people who have less. And you also have women who have more of this characteristic and some men (e.g. there are some women that are taller than some men).

The same can be done for every characteristic that's associated with a gender. Genitals are on a spectrum (large clitoris vs micropenis), fat distribution is on a spectrum (e.g. there are men with breasts and women without), body hair is on a spectrum, hormone distribution is on a spectrum and so on and so on.

If you take a lot of characteristics at once it becomes clear in most cases whether the person you are dealing with is a man or a woman (though there are some where that's more difficult or impossible), but if you take just a single characteristic (e.g. height) it's impossible to say whether the person you are dealing with is definitively a man or a woman.