The bull that fathered the Minotaur was not Zeus, it was a gift by Poseidon who expected king Minos to sacrifice the bull to Poseidon. The king kept the gift and sacrificed another bull, Poseidon got pissed and had the king's wife screw the bull, giving birth to the Minotaur.
Uruanna
joined 2 years ago
You are correct, the bull that sired the Minotaur was not Zeus, and Europe was not the mother. That's a different bull-queen pair.
No one has said anything about any of that, you are making up this argument out of nothing, no one has tried to define what a man or a woman is - except you, actually. You are moving the discussion and muddying what is even being argued about, so you can pretend I'm a conservative for some reason and the doctor is as bad as an anti-vaxxer. Even though you're the one who tried to declare what a man or a woman is, when that wasn't the subject at all. You are projecting.
Has y = man
No y = woman
No. You are conflating chromosoms, gender, sex. The PhD is telling you that you are wrong. You are claiming that you know better than them. The whole meme is about you, you have Dunning-Kruger, they have a PhD.
??? No one said it determines your gender. We're telling you that it happens. Obviously there are XY people who grow up to be cis men, trans women, but also cis women, and surely trans men as well, or anything inbetween, with any form of gender expression you can think of. You're the only one making this all up for some reason.
That there are men (xy) with female parts
This is your misunderstanding right there. XY is not automatically a man. You are the one making the claim that chromosoms define if you are a man or a woman, and the PhD and the other guy are telling you that there are people born with XY who are cis women with female genitalia. You are wrong.
they talk about xx becoming xy
No, they are saying no such thing. They are telling you that there are people born with XY but who have female genitalia and grow up to be cis women. No one told you that some XY people changed to XX, or XX to XY. This does not happen. This is not what the PhD said, and this is not what the other guy explained to you. You are wrong. And you keep claiming that everybody else is wrong, without ever questioning your own understanding.
That's okay, it's only the cost of, what, a couple eggs?
... And you still don't understand it, and you assume that everyone else is wrong even after it was explained to you. That quote is correct and it does not contradict what the PhD said. In fact, it illustrates exactly what they said.
So, I've never seen any research bring it up, but I've always been curious about the connection with Arianism.
Arianism and Aryanism have nothing to do with each other, and the names are pure coincidence (Arianism was literally named after some dude), but the whole "divine race" concept seems to come straight out of it. Arianism is the Christian interpretation that got Germanic tribes to join Christianity back in the 3rd to 6th centuries because it resembled their own theology the most - that kings were descendants of gods, a concept that does originate in a common Proto-Indo-European mytheme.
All I'm saying is, I wouldn't be surprised if we found out one day that one of those 1850s guys heard about Arianism giving a divine origin in their bloodline and mixed it up with Aryanism. Wagner was heavily into Germanic mythology too, he knew that Norse and Germanic myths said that kings were the children of Norse gods, and he's one of the leading names in Aryanism. Ignoring the name resemblance, the concept is definitely there. Meanwhile, actual Aryan populations have nothing to do with a divine origin or racial superiority, beside the perceived connection to an older race, which these guys interpreted as natural racial superiority. But I've never seen anyone bring up the coincidence.
You're the only one here claiming that the PhD is equating gender, sex, genitalia. The PhD says no such thing. The person the PhD is responding to is the one trying to equate gender, sex, genitalia, chromosoms, reducing it to "there are only two sexes, male or female." The PhD is telling that person that they are wrong, and chromosoms do not determine what comes out in the end. The PhD is correct an you are misreading them, and it has already been explained to you that the PhD is saying, verbatim, that chromosoms do not determine gender or even the sex. If you think that contradicts the PhD, you are still misunderstanding and assuming that the one who's wrong must be the PhD and certainly not you. But you really really want to say that the PhD is equating gender and sex, or that the explanation that was given to you is contradicting what the PhD is saying. At this point, you're just trying to obfuscate what the PhD is claiming and what you are defending, and somehow the PhD is the one who's wrong and as bad as anti-vaxxers.
Once again: the PhD is correct, you misunderstand what they said, someone explained to you what the PhD was saying, and that explanation is not contradicting what the PhD said. The PhD and the explanation are both correct and they are saying the same thing. You keep trying to pretend that you know better than the PhD and the PhD must be anti science somehow, instead of wondering if you're not completely missing the entire discussion. The only way you are going is trying to devaluate science.
Or the thought the phd must have meant something else
But sure the phd is wrong if he meant that; just like those anti-vax doctors and anti-abortion doctors
The PhD is not wrong. The PhD meant what they said, but it is not what you think they meant or said. The mistake is yours, and you still insist that maybe it's the PhD who's wrong and meant something else they didn't say - even after somebody else correctly explained what the PhD said and meant, to which you wrongly responded "that's not what the PhD claims."
view more: next ›
Et Français. La Louisiane Française était tout le tiers du milieu du Nord au Sud, centré sur le Mississippi, jusqu'à ce que Napoléon la vende aux USA qui n'avaient que le tiers Est.