this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2024
412 points (92.9% liked)

World News

39032 readers
2640 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A record number of athletes openly identifying as LGBTQ+ are competing in the 2024 Paris Olympics, a massive leap during a competition that organizers have pushed to center around inclusion and diversity.

There are 191 athletes publicly saying they are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, queer and nonbinary who are participating in the Games, according to Outsports, an organization that compiles a database of openly queer Olympians. The vast majority of the athletes are women.

That number has quashed the previous record of 186 out athletes counted at the COVID-19-delayed Tokyo Olympics held in 2021, and the count is only expected to grow at future Olympics.

“More and more people are coming out,” said Jim Buzinski, co-founder of Outsports. “They realize it’s important to be visible because there’s no other way to get representation.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Timii@biglemmowski.win -3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

The definition stands with an express exception due to pathology. The exception that proves the rule.

Show me a scientist that doesn't agree. Good luck when blood test paperwork literally declares the range for males.

Edit: Some related reading for you while you search

Bias Rating

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The definition stands with an express exception due to pathology.

That is not a biologist. Please find one. Name. Paper.

The exception that proves the rule.

That is not how science works. That is a folk idea of rules.

Some related reading for you while you search

Nothing to do with this conversation whatsoever.

Now, either show me some evidence that actual biologists agree with you or we're done.

[–] Timii@biglemmowski.win -2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)
[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I read your second link first since it had the word 'defined' in it and I saw that you didn't read past that sentence, because you would know a bit more if you did. You are not here in good faith.

[–] Timii@biglemmowski.win 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

Yes, vague nonsensical statements are going to work. The abstract says nothing along the lines of what you appear to suggest it is.

You are the one not here in good faith. You've yet to substantiate a claim, and are obviously only here to defend your agenda, and not the science

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What did I suggest it is? Because you're the one making the claim here, not me. All I said was that you did not read it further.

[–] Timii@biglemmowski.win 0 points 3 months ago (1 children)

All I said was that you did not read it further.

A claim. Substantiate it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

No, I have no reason to play the "prove I'm not here in good faith" game. You clearly did not read the whole paper, you read one sentence and thought it supported your point. I'll leave it up to everyone else to read the paper and judge for themselves.

Also, I do not give in to silly demands. If you had requested I substantiate it, maybe this would have ended differently.

Edit: Also, looking into your history, I see you've been breaking a few of our community rules.

[–] Timii@biglemmowski.win 1 points 3 months ago

It was not a 'silly demand'. It was an implied argument:

Your statement was either a claim that can be substantiated and should be otherwise it is a personal attack for which you should be banned for 3 days in this world you live in where "I feel seen" is considered uncivil.

But, I think you knew this which is why you, by your own admission, immediately scrambled for an excuse to ban me by examining my history in hopes anything was there so you could press what you think is an 'I win' button. Sadly, by abusing your mod powers all you do is hurt Lemmy and the fact you did the exact same thing less than an hour later to someone else you weren't arguing in good faith with tells me this is a serious problem that I doubt is going to get fixed.

So, enjoy your own personal 4Chan for however long it lasts but know you lost the argument when you couldn't resort to anything but an unstubstantiated ad hominem and had to hide behind false authority to cover it up.