this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
178 points (95.4% liked)

World News

56225 readers
1860 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You are sealioning. You don't speak to your doctor in order to use the loos. In this context, "biological sex" is a transphobic dog whistle.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I'm not commenting on the top-level post, I was replying to a comment that said:

Biological sex is a dogwhistle made digestible to appease the apathetic moderate

That's not sealioning.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world -1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

You don’t speak to your doctor in order to use the loos. In this context, “biological sex” is a transphobic dog whistle.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I never said that you do.

It's entirely possible to say "it's being used as a dogwhistle in this context" without saying "it's a totally useless term that can only be used as a dogwhistle."

The comment I originally replied to was insinuating the latter.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

No, they said "it's a transphobic dog whistle" and you invented all that extra stuff to start your irrelevant argument. It's called a straw man.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I didn't invent anything. They said it's a transphobic dogwhistle made digestible to appease the apathetic moderate. Nothing about that statement limits it to the context of this post. It sounds overly-broad to me.

And if you think I invented the relevance to the medical field, then how do you argue with this person's comment:

Can you explain further? I’m a biochemist / medical lab scientist, and between my studies in genetics, human sexuality, and endocrinology, it seems pretty well figured out. Between “normal” X/Y chromosomes, various chromosomal abnormalities (X, XXX, XXY, XYY, etc), and mutations like androgen insensitivity syndrome it seems there is significant causal data. Not sure if they’ve studied these with knockout mice but it’s well beyond inference at this point.

I’m not sealioning here, it has been like a decade since I was actively learning this stuff and I’m sure there have been more discoveries. In general though it seems like we know the genetics, we know the hormones and receptors involved, the developmental process and various maladies are known, etc.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I didn’t invent anything.

Really?

"it’s a totally useless term that can only be used as a dogwhistle."

This you?

If you can't see the strawmanning here, you're one or more of unselfaware, unable to back down when you're wrong, disingenuous or malicious.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That's not a strawman or an invention, it's literally what the person was saying.

Are you fixating on the fact that it wasn't verbatim? Because I had to elucidate the subtext, since otherwise you'll pretend subtext doesn't exist.

And there you go pretending subtext doesn't exist. Amazing.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

And there you go pretending context doesn’t exist. Amazing.

That’s not a strawman or an invention, it’s literally what the person was saying.

You and I clearly use the word literally very differently. I use it considerably more honestly and literally than you do.

If you can’t see the strawmanning here, you’re one or more of unselfaware, unable to back down when you’re wrong, disingenuous or malicious.

I'm leaning towards options (b) and (c) here.

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

You're the one ignoring context.

Also, you're confusing "literal" with "verbatim." A paraphrase doesn't have to be verbatim to be literal, and likewise a quote can be verbatim without being literal.

And you're the one strawmanning.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

Like I say, you and I use the word "literally" very, very differently.

When I say something like "they literally said it", I mean that they actually said it. You know, that that was what they said. Literally.

When you use that phrase, you mean "that's how I interpreted it because I wanted to argue about it. All day."

[–] wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

No, you're using it incorrectly. You're attempting to use it as meaning "verbatim."

It's completely accurate to say "literally" while paraphrasing.

And it wasn't just my interpretation, it was the clear intended meaning as evidenced by later discussion when people insisted that sex has no meaningful use even in medical contexts.

Get over yourself.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

It’s completely accurate to say “literally” while paraphrasing.

  1. No is isn't. Use words like "essentially" for that. "It's literally what they said" is in fact a lie.
  2. Especially not when inventing a bunch of absolutism that wasn't there and interpreting it with a whole bunch of extra, much easier to debunk nonsense that you added yourself.

people insisted that sex has no meaningful use even in medical contexts.

I didn't see that in this thread. Oh, unless you're meaning it "literally" with your version of the word "literally" which doesn't man literally literally and for some reason includes absurd straw man content.