wonderingwanderer

Paper plates can act like sails, especially if the slice isn’t that huge

The part about predicting protein folding makes sense, but this post was about waffles…

Some autistics thrive on chaos, some thrive on order. I’m not the “pack a prime number into a square” kind of autistic, I’m the “why would you want to do that” kind

But it’s especially primes, cause they can’t even fit in a rectangle unless it’s 1×

Okay, but none of that applies to waffles. They said they wanted more squares for syrup, but they actually got more unused space on the waffle surface.

I guess I’m not the “figure out how to fit a prime number into a square” kind of autistic, I’m the “why would you want to do that” kind of autistic.

To me, square numbers are beautiful because of how harmoniously they can be arranged, and prime numbers are beautiful because of how unique and impossible to neatly arrange they are. Trying to treat one like the other feels like an itch that can’t be scratched…

Do I need to tap the sign?

You raised the packing coefficient by ⅝ to squeeze one extra square in with all that wasted space, so don’t argue that 25 squares has a packing coefficient of 5. Another ⅜ will get you an extra 8 squares, and no wasted space.

Literally already addressed that, but go off

You raised the packing coefficient by ⅝ to squeeze one extra square in with all that wasted space, so don’t argue that 25 squares has a packing coefficient of 5. Another ⅜ will get you an extra 8 squares, and no wasted space.

My autistic ass can’t comprehend why anyone would want to arrange a prime number in a square pattern…

But you can fit 25 squares into the same space. This isn’t efficiency, it’s just wasted space and bad planning.

You raised the packing coefficient by ⅝ to squeeze one extra square in with all that wasted space, so don’t argue that 25 squares has a packing coefficient of 5. Another ⅜ will get you an extra 8 squares, and no wasted space.

The only thing pseudoscienctific about it is people trying to say there’s exactly two genders. Literally no one is trying to put an exact number to it except for you. You’re the only one trying to control how other people live their lives.

The guy in BC wasn’t fined for what he believed about gender. He was fined for using his position of authority to impose his own personal beliefs on everyone else in a discriminatory manner.

You’re right, I have a bad habit of arguing in circles when people do this. As if pointing out their inconsistencies/irrationalities and explaining the reality just one more time will get them to see the light. I need to stop doing that…

Reading other comments in the chain, he was doing it to other people too. Just deliberately missing the point on repeat.

I need to stop engaging with trolls…

So you’re saying that punishing people for having a gender identity that conflicts with someone else’s belief that there’s only two genders is similar to shariah law?

You either didn’t read my comment or you deliberately missed the point.

I didn’t say “anything but two,” I simply said something that wasn’t “exactly two,” and you apparently can’t handle that because you seem to think your opinion is the only valid one (since you impose an arbitrary restriction such as “anything other than two is ambiguous”).

It’s not about how many genders there are. It’s about not imposing arbitrary restrictions on how other people live their lives. No one in their right mind is trying to say “there are exactly [3, 8, 144, or however many] genders.” You’re the only one trying to say “there are exactly two.”

You’re acting like other people are trying to make laws to dictate how you live your life based on how they feel, but the truth is you are the one who wants laws dictating how other people live their lives based on how you feel.

No one is writing laws saying “you must recognize exactly eight genders.” The only people trying to write laws like that are the ones who believe everyone must conform to one of exactly two genders, and that it must correspond to the sex they were assigned at birth.

Trans rights isn’t about forcing you to recognize some arbitrary number. It’s about being inclusive of people’s identities instead of writing arbitrary rules about what they can and cannot be.

TL;DR, you’re the only one trying to force your feelings about an arbitrary number of genders (in your case, two) on everyone else.

You’re asking the wrong questions in an attempt to make it sound more ridiculous than it is. It’s not about reaching some scientific consensus of the exact number of genders that exist.

You said it yourself, gender is a social construct. So why limit it to just two and exactly two? Because you want to dictate who and what everyone else can be?

If gender is a social construct, and you want to be entirely objective, then there are zero genders. Gender is just a myth. From a subjective point of view, gender describes how a person identifies, presents, and expresses oneself, in which case there are as many genders as people identify as.

The “scientific consensus” is that there are at least three biological sexes, and that sex is a spectrum in which male and female provide the two polarities, and intersex describes anything in between. Gender, on the other hand, being a social construct, is more in the realm of sociology, and not the place for making concrete scientific assertions that impose extrinsic limitations on individual expression. From the perspective of psychology, an individual’s gender identity should be respected, acknowledged, and affirmed, because this has been shown to have the best outcomes out of all the treatment options.

As far as “finable offense” goes, you’re really missing the point. Average Joe Schmoe at the local dive bar isn’t going to get a ticket for saying there’s only two genders. He’d just be wrong, and people might avoid him, or maybe even argue with him, but he’s not going to get fined over it.

If you’re entrusted as a public servant in a position of authority, with potentially hundreds or even thousands of people whose day-to-day lives depend on your decisions, then you’re responsible for the ways in which your words impact those people’s lives, you should be held to a higher standard, and you have a duty to govern your personal conduct accordingly. Someone in such a position making comments that deliberately exclude a vulnerable minority group and invalidate their personal identities causes harm, and shouldn’t be treated as protected political speech because it’s not done in the capacity of a private citizen but as a representative of the state.

It’s like “there are 10 kinds of people in the world: those that can read binary, and those that can’t.”

It doesn’t work if you say it aloud.

Yeah, of all the things to criticize shariah for (such as its treatment of women and queer people), this guy chose to compare it to the wOkE mInD vIrUs™ because apparently it has so much in common with… checks notes… respecting gender diversity?

He couldn’t pick just one group to hate while remaining ideologically consistent, he had to go full delusional so that he could hate both muslims and queers…

Everything is a social construct, from the languages we speak to the base-10 numeral systems we consider standard, and the units of measurements we use to describe the universe and everything it contains.

And no, shariah is specifically a theocratic legal system based on the authority of muslim religious scholars called imams to write and enforce laws based on the Quran and the Hadith. It’s not the same thing at all, no matter how many layers of mental gymnastics you pass it through in an effort to contort reality into some semblance of what you want it to be.

Using religion to justify pigeonholing everyone into one of two mutually exclusive categories and discriminating against anyone who doesn’t fit within those norms is far closer to being “spiritual and pseudoscienctific jargon” than simply saying “everyone’s choices for how to identify and present themselves relative to the social construct of gender should be respected, especially by the authorities,” but since that conflicts with your preferred narrative I don’t expect you to actually be able to see things from that broader perspective.

That’s really cool, I didn’t know that.

Okay, but did he pronounce it as “Ten factorial”‽‽‽‽‽