Let's pool our knowledge: D&D helps D&D Debate and Discuss

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's pool our knowledge: D&D helps D&D Debate and Discuss

«‹›151 »

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

I suppose if you want a general definition I would probably suggest "a category applicable to a phenotype of a distinct species of organism based primarily on ideal reproductive functionality, discounting environmental impairments to that function."

Not perfect but I think should include most functional reproductive categories for organisms whose reproduction involves multiple phenotypes as well as the possibility of different categories for stuff like seahorses. Not actually sure if biology would prefer to use genotypes or phenotypes though, I think phenotypes are more interesting though so if I was going to write a universal definition everyone had to use I'd use them.

Though practically of course again it means whatever the people using it think it means as long as both parties understand it, as with all words.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 01:34 on Nov 29, 2017

# ? Nov 29, 2017 01:31

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 07:32

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; Can't post for 8 hours!

I'm not sure how this slapfight helps people debate and discuss.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 01:39

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

twodot posted:

What's a male gorilla? One with XY chromosomes? With testicles? With certain hormonal balances? With a penile urethra? Does a gorilla stop being male if it develops breast tissue? Does your definition of male gorilla tautologically include that they are larger?

So you think a sentence like "the female praying mantis eats the male after mating" should be replaced by "the praying mantis with a certain chromosome set eats the one with another chromosome set after mating"? Or what should we say?

twodot posted:

Like I said several times, I less concerned about this language when it comes to animals since animals can't get offended

I understand we should be careful when language can be insulting or exclusive, but I think what you're doing here is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

twodot posted:

I still can't grasp people arguing being lazy is good

Ok, then let me tell you with all the authority I have as a linguist and psychologist: being lazy is really good. A large fraction of what your brain does all the time is being lazy, and if it wouldn't be doing that, you'd have a hard time doing anything more complicated than breathing. A large part of language is brutal, reductive generalisation and categorisation, and if we didn't do that, you couldn't order a latte before your frustrated stomach crawled up your throat and choked your silly brain to death. Language is all about being lazy, imprecise, about implications and subtle errors. I can go in detail, but might also refer you to, uh, to begin with the entire field of what linguists call pragmatics.
Now that doesn't justify every kind of laziness, but blanket calls for universal precision are inadequate.

More generally, leaky abstractions are a crucial aspect of science. Yes, in the end you want a formula. But in biology and social sciences, you're getting 90% of the way with reductions that capture 90% of the phenomenon.

twodot posted:

several people show up and it's very important to them that not only is biological sex is real, but there are exactly two biological sexes, and there's no need to worry about people who don't fit in either box

What exactly did they mean? I am sure nobody here said "intersex people don't matter".

Ok ok, let's look at some actual science.

http://jap.physiology.org/content/99/3/785 posted:

In the most basic sense, sex is biologically determined and gender is culturally determined. The noun sex includes the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of living things determined by sex chromosomes. ... in the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK9967/ posted:

Primary sex determination is the determination of the gonads. In mammals, primary sex determination is strictly chromosomal and is not usually influenced by the environment. In most cases, the female is XX and the male is XY. Every individual must have at least one X chromosome. Since the female is XX, each of her eggs has a single X chromosome. The male, being XY, can generate two types of sperm: half bear the X chromosome, half the Y. If the egg receives another X chromosome from the sperm, the resulting individual is XX, forms ovaries, and is female; if the egg receives a Y chromosome from the sperm, the individual is XY, forms testes, and is male. The Y chromosome carries a gene that encodes a testis-determining factor. This factor organizes the gonad into a testis rather than an ovary. Unlike the situation in Drosophila (discussed below), the mammalian Y chromosome is a crucial factor for determining sex in mammals. A person with five X chromosomes and one Y chromosome (XXXXXY) would be male. Furthermore, an individual with only a single X chromosome and no second X or Y (i.e., XO) develops as a female and begins making ovaries, although the ovarian follicles cannot be maintained. For a complete ovary, a second X chromosome is needed.

In mammalian primary sex determination, there is no �default state.� The formation of ovaries and testes are both active, gene-directed processes. Moreover, as we shall see, both diverge from a common precursor, the bipotential gonad.

Secondary sex determination affects the bodily phenotype outside the gonads. A male mammal has a penis, seminal vesicles, and prostate gland. A female mammal has a vagina, cervix, uterus, oviducts, and mammary glands. In many species, each sex has a sex-specific size, vocal cartilage, and musculature. These secondary sex characteristics are usually determined by hormones secreted from the gonads. However, in the absence of gonads, the female phenotype is generated. When Jost (1953) removed fetal rabbit gonads before they had differentiated, the resulting rabbits had a female phenotype, regardless of whether they were XX or XY. They each had oviducts, a uterus, and a vagina, and each lacked a penis and male accessory structures.

And so on.
So you have genetic/chromosomal sex, which translates into gonadal sex, which translates into phenotypic sex. Or at least that's what it was like 10 years ago, maybe science has moved on, feel free to google textbook stuff yourself.

twodot posted:

Again, no, tomatoes are vegetables.

What?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Fruit_versus_vegetable

A tomato is the fruit of a tomato plant. "Vegetable" is a culinary term. I mean, if there's any actual biologists in here, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it, "vegetable" ceased to be a biological term somehwere around the same time race did, and for similar reasons (only with less Hitler), and now we have biological plants (which a tomato plant is), fruit (which a tomato is), and culinary vegetables (which a tomato also is).

Also, strawberries are nuts, bananas and avocado are berries, and I forgot what cucumbers are, but it's something terrible.

(I once tried chatting up a biologist at a party. Learning all this was my just punishment.)

# ? Nov 29, 2017 01:58

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Jaxyon posted:

I'm not sure how this slapfight helps people debate and discuss.

Well, in the long run I think twodot will learn what a tomato is :v:

# ? Nov 29, 2017 02:00

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

OwlFancier posted:

I suppose if you want a general definition I would probably suggest "a category applicable to a phenotype of a distinct species of organism based primarily on ideal reproductive functionality, discounting environmental impairments to that function."

This is a pretty good definition, I have some issues, but I'll wait until morning to get into them.

quote:

Though practically of course again it means whatever the people using it think it means as long as both parties understand it, as with all words.

I am worried you felt compelled to add this unless this is something you routinely write after giving a definition (which I'm guessing you don't).

Cingulate posted:

So you think a sentence like "the female praying mantis eats the male after mating" should be replaced by "the praying mantis with a certain chromosome set eats the one with another chromosome set after mating"? Or what should we say?

I don't know! You tell me! When you write down the sentence "the female praying mantis eats the male after mating" did you mean "praying mantis with XX chromosomes eat the mantis with XY chromosomes after mating"? Did you mean "the female praying mantis eats the male after mating" did you mean "praying mantis with ideal reproductive functionality chromosomes eat the mantis with ideal reproductive functionality after mating"? You're the one who wrote it, tell me what you meant, I can't tell you. (edit: To further clarify, I don't know if "mantis eats the other mantis after sex" is a behavior created by chromosomes or hormones or what. I don't know if mantis have gay sex, and if they do what happens then. I don't know if there's some environmental impact. The person who wants to make assertion about male and female behaviors needs to tell us what those words mean)

quote:

Now that doesn't justify every kind of laziness, but blanket calls for universal precision are inadequate.

This is an area where I think precision is good, and the only argument I've encountered against precision here is reading the precise formulation is boring.

quote:

A tomato is the fruit of a tomato plant. "Vegetable" is a culinary term. I mean, if there's any actual biologists in here, please do correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it, "vegetable" ceased to be a biological term somehwere around the same time race did, and for similar reasons (only with less Hitler), and now we have biological plants (which a tomato plant is), fruit (which a tomato is), and culinary vegetables (which a tomato also is).

Also, strawberries are nuts, bananas and avocado are berries, and I forgot what cucumbers are, but it's something terrible.

(I once tried chatting up a biologist at a party. Learning all this was my just punishment.)

Look even if my biology terms are in the stone age (which I don't believe they are), my point remains: there's absolutely no ambiguity about tomatoes status as a vegetable in biological terms. I think I'm right and that vegetable includes any plant or any part of a plant (see: vegetable matter), you think you're right and that term vegetable doesn't even exist in biology (making your question a strange one), and one of us is wrong, but either way it's a term with no ambiguity in terms of biology which was my point.

twodot fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Nov 29, 2017

# ? Nov 29, 2017 03:30

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

twodot posted:

Look even if my biology terms are in the stone age (which I don't believe they are)

I'm uncomfortable with this. If you believe something, and I disagree, and you quite confidently, and mockingly, disregard my claim, and I link you to something that supports my view, then you should, I think, feel quite compelled to go beyond belief and actually look stuff up. This is the internet! There's more than cat videos!

Now what I also linked you to was a physiological definition of sex by actual physiologists. I will repeat it here: there is genetical/chromosomal sex (equalling your chromosomes), which determines gonadal sex (corresponding to your gonadal development), which determines phenotypic sex (i.e., if you have a penis). There is little ambiguity about this. Also, the determinism is strong: the rare of people born as intersex is maybe 1 in 1.000 or 1 in 10.000 (Sax, J Sex Research 2003). (The rate of trans people is of course higher.) So in >99% of cases, the chromosomal and the gonadal and the phenotypic definition are equivalent.
So calling a female mantis a female mantis is not any more, and possibly much less, imprecise or inaccurate than to say "humans speak" or "humans have two legs" or "Black people did not vote for Trump" or "Trump constantly plays golf" or "red states are net receivers of federal aid" or, and I think have heard this and seen you not disagree, "white women voted for Trump" (56%!).

Now by this I don't want to say it isn't also perfectly legitimate to say human sex can be viewed as a spectrum, or that some individuals don't fall into either category. These can also be perfectly adequate statements, and in some cases the only adequate statements.
But I think your demand for perfect accuracy on the basis of denying that the vast majority of mammals quite nicely fall into either of two approximately categorical labels, reasonably well defined, even if you keep insisting there is no coherent definition, is not a sustainable position; it appears ignorant either of the factual matter (i.e., the prevalence of intersex and the coherence of the physiological definition and its overlap with an unreflected, colloquial understanding), or of how science works and how human language works.
Nor is it necessary. One can speak of biological sex without being mean to those who don't feel comfortable with such labels; after all, when I'm saying "the male mantis is eaten by the female mantis", I'm not denying your right to be respected in your gender identity, whatever it may be. I'm just using two 99.9% accurate words - i.e., words more accurate than a good many of the terms I use, such as "science" or "white women" or "mantis" (what's the definition of mantis? or cheese?); and certainly more accurate than your usage of the word "vegetable".

But I think the more crucial issue remains, how potentially hurtful do you really expect it to be if you turn out wrong? How much is lost? Will any of us stop respecting trans people's identities if you can be convinced biological sex is not a particularly peculiar category? I think not. I think we are all quite aligned in our moral and political stances here.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 10:23

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

Jaxyon posted:

I'm not sure how this slapfight helps people debate and discuss.

It's doing a good job of showing people how not to do it.

My hot take: In many contexts it's useful and sufficient to use male and female to describe sex, so do that. In some it's not, so maybe don't in those situations but if you do it's not that big a deal. If you do it on purpose to make someone uncomfortable you're kind of an rear end in a top hat. IDK this doesn't seem really hard.

Like if someone were talking about how male mantises are devoured by female mantises after mating and someone else piped up that actually .01% of visibly male mantises are ACTUALLY XX so sometimes females devour females I think it'd be ok to go "Oh, that's neat..." yet not feel obligated to build a whole new vocabulary to talk about mantis sex.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 15:32

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Cingulate posted:

I'm uncomfortable with this. If you believe something, and I disagree, and you quite confidently, and mockingly, disregard my claim, and I link you to something that supports my view, then you should, I think, feel quite compelled to go beyond belief and actually look stuff up. This is the internet! There's more than cat videos!

I mean it's trivial to find sources that disagree with you, so it didn't seem necessary, especially considering it's irrelevant to my point:
"the word vegetable is used in scientific and technical contexts with a different and much broader meaning, namely of "related to plants" in general, edible or not � as in vegetable matter, vegetable kingdom, vegetable origin"
It's just a question of authority.

quote:

Now what I also linked you to was a physiological definition of sex by actual physiologists. I will repeat it here: there is genetical/chromosomal sex (equalling your chromosomes), which determines gonadal sex (corresponding to your gonadal development), which determines phenotypic sex (i.e., if you have a penis).

The fact that you qualified sex with three different qualifiers here supports my point. I've constantly agreed you can build a system of biological sex, it just won't only have two categories.

quote:

There is little ambiguity about this. Also, the determinism is strong: the rare of people born as intersex is maybe 1 in 1.000 or 1 in 10.000 (Sax, J Sex Research 2003). (The rate of trans people is of course higher.) So in >99% of cases, the chromosomal and the gonadal and the phenotypic definition are equivalent.
So calling a female mantis a female mantis is not any more, and possibly much less, imprecise or inaccurate than to say "humans speak" or "humans have two legs" or "Black people did not vote for Trump" or "Trump constantly plays golf" or "red states are net receivers of federal aid" or, and I think have heard this and seen you not disagree, "white women voted for Trump" (56%!).

These are all dumb things to say (except for the red state comment, that's true), and if I didn't disagree, it's only because I don't have infinite resources.

quote:

the basis of denying that the vast majority of mammals quite nicely fall into either of two approximately categorical labels

I've never denied this don't put words in my mouth (edit: I specifically said XXY people are rare enough, that if we're making statistical claims, it's strange to even bother to test for them)

quote:

reasonably well defined

I've had to drag definitions out of people, and now I'm currently having to respond to three different definitions so I think this is definitely in dispute.

quote:

Nor is it necessary. One can speak of biological sex without being mean to those who don't feel comfortable with such labels; after all, when I'm saying "the male mantis is eaten by the female mantis"

You still haven't explained what this is even means, and when I asked you what it means, you replied by asking me what I thought it meant.

quote:

I'm not denying your right to be respected in your gender identity, whatever it may be. I'm just using two 99.9% accurate words - i.e., words more accurate than a good many of the terms I use, such as "science" or "white women"

"White women" is also biologically incoherent, so I'm not seeing your point here.

quote:

But I think the more crucial issue remains, how potentially hurtful do you really expect it to be if you turn out wrong? How much is lost? Will any of us stop respecting trans people's identities if you can be convinced biological sex is not a particularly peculiar category? I think not. I think we are all quite aligned in our moral and political stances here.

Not a lot. How much harm would come from replacing terms like "male" with whatever you actually mean?

wateroverfire posted:

Like if someone were talking about how male mantises are devoured by female mantises after mating and someone else piped up that actually .01% of visibly male mantises are ACTUALLY XX so sometimes females devour females I think it'd be ok to go "Oh, that's neat..." yet not feel obligated to build a whole new vocabulary to talk about mantis sex.

Do you not think this sounds stupid? If by "male" the speaker meant "visibly male" (which I guess means has a penis? I don't know much about mantises), you don't need a whole new vocabulary, the speaker could have just said "visibly male", and been completely correct instead of just mostly correct. How in the world can anyone think the sentence is improved by omitting "visibly"? I'm not asking for a revolution, I'm just observing "male" can mean many conflicting things (aka incoherent), so we should replace it with what we actually mean.

twodot fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Nov 29, 2017

# ? Nov 29, 2017 17:37

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

twodot posted:

Do you not think this sounds stupid? If by "male" the speaker meant "visibly male" (which I guess means has a penis? I don't know much about mantises), you don't need a whole new vocabulary, the speaker could have just said "visibly male", and been completely correct instead of just mostly correct. How in the world can anyone think the sentence is improved by omitting "visibly"? I'm not asking for a revolution, I'm just observing "male" can mean many conflicting things (aka incoherent), so we should replace it with what we actually mean.

99.99% (or less or more, idk much about mantises either) of the time "male" and "visibly male" are both correct in this context and saying "visibly male" every time leads to someone asking "what do you mean..." every time and having to explain and maybe check the mantis (idk how you would even do that...). It's unhelpful unless what you're talking about benefits from making that distinction - which usually it doesn't. Adding "visibly" makes the conversation less clear by introducing ambiguity about whether the thing is actually male when it makes no difference to the discussion.

We do this all the time about things other than gender without really thinking about it because often being exactly, technically correct is less beneficial than getting a point across.

edit: Like... jade can be either jadeite or nephrite - two different minerals that look the same. "Jade" can mean two different things but when we're talking about jewelry it's good enough unless we really need to know whether it has the properties of one mineral or the other.

wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 18:58 on Nov 29, 2017

# ? Nov 29, 2017 18:53

Dr. Arbitrary: Mar 15, 2006; Bleak Gremlin

As long as we can all agree that mushrooms are vegetables, we can move on.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 19:09

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

wateroverfire posted:

99.99% (or less or more, idk much about mantises either) of the time "male" and "visibly male" are both correct in this context and saying "visibly male" every time leads to someone asking "what do you mean..." every time and having to explain and maybe check the mantis (idk how you would even do that...). It's unhelpful unless what you're talking about benefits from making that distinction - which usually it doesn't. Adding "visibly" makes the conversation less clear by introducing ambiguity about whether the thing is actually male when it makes no difference to the discussion.

I mean you're just presupposing facts about a made up discussion. The specific mechanic that triggers the devouring behavior sounds highly relevant to a discussion where a statement like "male mantises are devoured by female mantises after mating" is interesting.

quote:

edit: Like... jade can be either jadeite or nephrite - two different minerals that look the same. "Jade" can mean two different things but when we're talking about jewelry it's good enough unless we really need to know whether it has the properties of one mineral or the other.

"I want a piece of jade" with the implication that I either don't know or don't care as long as it is one of following: jadeite or nephrite, seems fine to me. "I want a male member of this species" with the implication that I either don't know or don't care as long as it has at least one of the following properties: has XY chromosomes, has a penis, doesn't have breasts, has high testosterone, has low estrogen, has testicles, produces sperm, doesn't produce ova, seems highly suspicious to me, like I'm pretty confident if you are using the term male, you have an idea of what you want from that list, and you're just not telling me. If you ask for jade I know you want a green rock, even if I don't know which specific green rock you want (assuming you even know specific green rocks exist), if you ask for a male you are asking me to leap to a conclusion.

OwlFancier posted:

I suppose if you want a general definition I would probably suggest "a category applicable to a phenotype of a distinct species of organism based primarily on ideal reproductive functionality, discounting environmental impairments to that function."

Not perfect but I think should include most functional reproductive categories for organisms whose reproduction involves multiple phenotypes as well as the possibility of different categories for stuff like seahorses. Not actually sure if biology would prefer to use genotypes or phenotypes though, I think phenotypes are more interesting though so if I was going to write a universal definition everyone had to use I'd use them.

Though practically of course again it means whatever the people using it think it means as long as both parties understand it, as with all words.

I have a couple thoughts here, and I don't want to get all Socratic, but I do want to take it one at a time. I offered definitions of both vegetable and fruit that I think are universal (though there appears to be some dispute here) and should be universal. For the purposes of biology, if people use those words differently, I think they should stop, because those words mean something. From this post, I'm getting the impression you neither think this definition is universal, nor do you think it should be universal. Is that right? Assuming that's right, do you see why I might think this term doesn't have a well defined meaning?

twodot fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Nov 29, 2017

# ? Nov 29, 2017 19:28

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

twodot posted:

I have a couple thoughts here, and I don't want to get all Socratic, but I do want to take it one at a time. I offered definitions of both vegetable and fruit that I think are universal (though there appears to be some dispute here) and should be universal. For the purposes of biology, if people use those words differently, I think they should stop, because those words mean something. From this post, I'm getting the impression you neither think this definition is universal, nor do you think it should be universal. Is that right? Assuming that's right, do you see why I might think this term doesn't have a well defined meaning?

I think that language is subjective and that there is no one meaning of any word, just mutually intelligible ones. Some of which are extremely dominant.

Specifically in that instance I qualify it with "this isn't universal" cos I'm not a biologist and they might have an actual different definition.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 19:33

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

OwlFancier posted:

I think that language is subjective and that there is no one meaning of any word, just mutually intelligible ones. Some of which are extremely dominant.

Specifically in that instance I qualify it with "this isn't universal" cos I'm not a biologist and they might have an actual different definition.

The conclusion I'm getting from here is "when biologists use biological sex, we don't know what they mean" which seems supportive of my point.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 19:34

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

When biologists use the term biological sex they presumably know what they mean but not being a biologist I can't tell you if there's a universal and specific definition. I also think there is a functional general definition of it as well which I understand enough to derive meaning from, but that wasn't what you were asking for.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 19:36

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

twodot posted:

I have a couple thoughts here, and I don't want to get all Socratic, but I do want to take it one at a time. I offered definitions of both vegetable and fruit that I think are universal (though there appears to be some dispute here) and should be universal. For the purposes of biology, if people use those words differently, I think they should stop, because those words mean something. From this post, I'm getting the impression you neither think this definition is universal, nor do you think it should be universal. Is that right? Assuming that's right, do you see why I might think this term doesn't have a well defined meaning?

So, about white chocolate ...

And tomatos ...

(I'm not sure where you are on the tomato front right now.)

twodot posted:

I've had to drag definitions out of people, and now I'm currently having to respond to three different definitions so I think this is definitely in dispute.

Here's my ad-hoc definition: when I say "male", I mean something that's chromosomally, gonadaly (?), and phenotypically male - is XY, has, if old enough, testicular tissue, has a penis.
So, ~49.95% of humans. Or gorillas.

Now some of the sentences I might say about males might also apply to other entities, and some things I say about males might not apply to all males - i.e., I might say, the human male has a penis, and you might say, I once knew this guy had a terrible accident with a chainsaw ... And I say, I am sorry for that male person, that sounds bloody! And if that inaccuracy and inconsistency bothers you, I can recommend you read the works of Eleanor Rosch and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

Biologists seem perfectly happy to say "male" most of the time too, only getting specific when they actually need to be specific. This would be, I assume, because as in >99% of cases, chromosomes and gonads and phenotype agree, there is no need to be more specific 99% of the time, for biologists.

wateroverfire posted:

It's doing a good job of showing people how not to do it.

My hot take: In many contexts it's useful and sufficient to use male and female to describe sex, so do that. In some it's not, so maybe don't in those situations but if you do it's not that big a deal. If you do it on purpose to make someone uncomfortable you're kind of an rear end in a top hat. IDK this doesn't seem really hard.

Like if someone were talking about how male mantises are devoured by female mantises after mating and someone else piped up that actually .01% of visibly male mantises are ACTUALLY XX so sometimes females devour females I think it'd be ok to go "Oh, that's neat..." yet not feel obligated to build a whole new vocabulary to talk about mantis sex.

Now here is my fear.
The kind of thing twodot is going for is actually turning away people from the cause. I speculate there is a significant number of people who'd in principle be perfectly willing to respect and tolerate trans and inter and whatever people. But then they encounter verbal judo combined with a fanatical unwillingness to consider the existence of scientific biological literature, and they say, screw that, I'm instead gonna deny climate change and gently caress my hummer.
Maybe there's only 30 or 3 or 0 people like that, but maybe it's 50.000 or 5.000.000.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 19:45

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

OwlFancier posted:

When biologists use the term biological sex they presumably know what they mean but not being a biologist I can't tell you if there's a universal and specific definition. I also think there is a functional general definition of it as well which I understand enough to derive meaning from, but that wasn't what you were asking for.

Ah, that's fair.

This is a confusing phrase to me: "a category applicable to a phenotype" I can imagine, given some set of stuff (for example, phenotypes), categorizing them, or offering a list of categories that one might sort stuff into, but I don't know what it means to have a category applicable to something. Like the existence of one category implies other categories. What are the other the categories in this set?

# ? Nov 29, 2017 19:52

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

twodot posted:

Ah, that's fair.

This is a confusing phrase to me: "a category applicable to a phenotype" I can imagine, given some set of stuff (for example, phenotypes), categorizing them, or offering a list of categories that one might sort stuff into, but I don't know what it means to have a category applicable to something. Like the existence of one category implies other categories. What are the other the categories in this set?

Well as in you could define sex by genotype but I'm thinking of seahorses, which as far as I know can change functional sex. So presumably that isn't genotype linked and their sexual functionality is, well, phenotypical. So you've got male and female, I think, but they're necessarily phenotypes rather then genotypes.

You could also have say, ants, where they have males females and queens, where I would probably argue that the queen is a functionally different sex from the worker females because they play a very different role in the colony's reproduction and life. I dunno if biology would look at it that way or not cos again I'm not a biologist.

There's also the concept of parthenogenesis, whereby some animals can spontaneously reproduce in the absence of a mate, you could hypothetically have a species that uses both of those interchangeably or perhaps the ability to do that is not universal, which would lead to having several different functional sexes.

OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Nov 29, 2017

# ? Nov 29, 2017 19:56

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

OwlFancier posted:

Well as in you could define sex by genotype but I'm thinking of seahorses, which as far as I know can change functional sex. So presumably that isn't genotype linked and their sexual functionality is, well, phenotypical. So you've got male and female, I think, but they're necessarily phenotypes rather then genotypes.

You could also have say, ants, where they have males females and queens, where I would probably argue that the queen is a functionally different sex from the worker females because they play a very different role in the colony's reproduction and life. I dunno if biology would look at it that way or not cos again I'm not a biologist.

There's also the concept of parthenogenesis, whereby some animals can spontaneously reproduce in the absence of a mate, you could hypothetically have a species that uses both of those interchangeably or perhaps the ability to do that is not universal, which would lead to having several different functional sexes.

And of course there's stuff like this: https://www.nature.com/articles/468871a

And IIRC there's slime molds with many more than 3 sexes.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 20:05

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Cingulate posted:

Here's my ad-hoc definition: when I say "male", I mean something that's chromosomally, gonadaly (?), and phenotypically male - is XY, has, if old enough, testicular tissue, has a penis.
So, ~49.95% of humans. Or gorillas.

Now some of the sentences I might say about males might also apply to other entities, and some things I say about males might not apply to all males - i.e., I might say, the human male has a penis, and you might say, I once knew this guy had a terrible accident with a chainsaw ... And I say, I am sorry for that male person

But according to you that person isn't male. Like why is it important to you to both define male as having a penis and also call people without penises male? (edit: Scratch that, it's not actually relevant why this is important to you. If you have a definition of a set, but also insist you should include things in that set that violate that definition, you just have an incoherent definition.)

quote:

Biologists seem perfectly happy to say "male" most of the time too, only getting specific when they actually need to be specific. This would be, I assume, because as in >99% of cases, chromosomes and gonads and phenotype agree, there is no need to be more specific 99% of the time, for biologists.

It's >99% accurate to call all humans cisgender, but we shouldn't do that, and if biologists are doing that, they should stop, authority be damned. If you want to talk about sexual characteristics, just do that, we don't need inaccurate categorization to do that.

quote:

Now here is my fear.
The kind of thing twodot is going for is actually turning away people from the cause. I speculate there is a significant number of people who'd in principle be perfectly willing to respect and tolerate trans and inter and whatever people. But then they encounter verbal judo combined with a fanatical unwillingness to consider the existence of scientific biological literature, and they say, screw that, I'm instead gonna deny climate change and gently caress my hummer.
Maybe there's only 30 or 3 or 0 people like that, but maybe it's 50.000 or 5.000.000.

Ok my fear is people are going to see you saying willfully incorrect things and conclude really nothing matters, and then they say, I'm instead gonna deny climate change and gently caress my hummer.
Maybe there's only 30 or 3 or 0 people like that, but maybe it's 50.000 or 5.000.000.

OwlFancier posted:

Well as in you could define sex by genotype but I'm thinking of seahorses, which as far as I know can change functional sex. So presumably that isn't genotype linked and their sexual functionality is, well, phenotypical. So you've got male and female, I think, but they're necessarily phenotypes rather then genotypes.

You could also have say, ants, where they have males females and queens, where I would probably argue that the queen is a functionally different sex from the worker females because they play a very different role in the colony's reproduction and life. I dunno if biology would look at it that way or not cos again I'm not a biologist.

There's also the concept of parthenogenesis, whereby some animals can spontaneously reproduce in the absence of a mate, you could hypothetically have a species that uses both of those interchangeably or perhaps the ability to do that is not universal, which would lead to having several different functional sexes.

No this isn't what I'm confused about, I asked that question on purpose. Like yes we could imagine a completely different definition, but given your definition starts with "a category" what are other related categories? If I said "red is a category of balls", and you said "Sorry, what are some other categories of balls?" I would say "white, black, and green are examples of other categories of balls".
edit:
I'm coming to the conclusion you meant "a categorization" is that right?

twodot fucked around with this message at 20:13 on Nov 29, 2017

# ? Nov 29, 2017 20:09

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

twodot posted:

No this isn't what I'm confused about, I asked that question on purpose. Like yes we could imagine a completely different definition, but given your definition starts with "a category" what are other related categories? If I said "red is a category of balls", and you said "Sorry, what are some other categories of balls?" I would say "white, black, and green are examples of other categories of balls".
edit:
I'm coming to the conclusion you meant "a categorization" is that right?

Oh, I... think so?

Sorry yes so you interpreted it as saying that "sex" is a cateogory you can apply to a phenotype, in which case if I were to list other categories I would list "size" "colour" etc.

So I guess yes I think categorization would be more grammatically correct.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 20:18

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

OwlFancier posted:

Oh, I... think so?

Sorry yes so you interpreted it as saying that "sex" is a cateogory you can apply to a phenotype, in which case if I were to list other categories I would list "size" "colour" etc.

So I guess yes I think categorization would be more grammatically correct.

Awesome, sorry for the confusion.

How many categories are in this? From your earlier post, I'm gathering it's "as many as a particular species needs".

# ? Nov 29, 2017 20:28

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

twodot posted:

How many categories are in this? From your earlier post, I'm gathering it's "as many as a particular species needs".

Yeah, I would guess. Apparently as Cingulate posted there's already people doing that in biology for more unusual species.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 20:31

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

twodot posted:

But according to you that person isn't male. Like why is it important to you to both define male as having a penis and also call people without penises male? (edit: Scratch that, it's not actually relevant why this is important to you. If you have a definition of a set, but also insist you should include things in that set that violate that definition, you just have an incoherent definition.)

A car is a personal transport vehicle with an internal combustion or, more recently, electric motor, with four wheels, or five if somebody has stapled another wheel on top, or six if somebody added two wheels, or 3 if somebody stole one wheel, and if you have a car and remove the motor, it's still a car, and if it's driven by a robot to move around furniture, it's actually still a car, and if we build emodrives that run on envy instead of gasoline and paint them gold and use them to drive around, that'd also still be a car. So you see, there are no cars.

Insects, to quote wikipedia, "have a chitinous exoskeleton, a three-part body (head, thorax and abdomen), three pairs of jointed legs, compound eyes and one pair of antennae". If you cut off an antenna, they stop being insect and become tomatoes, or cars.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 20:34

wateroverfire: Jul 3, 2010

Cingulate posted:

Now here is my fear.
The kind of thing twodot is going for is actually turning away people from the cause. I speculate there is a significant number of people who'd in principle be perfectly willing to respect and tolerate trans and inter and whatever people. But then they encounter verbal judo combined with a fanatical unwillingness to consider the existence of scientific biological literature, and they say, screw that, I'm instead gonna deny climate change and gently caress my hummer.
Maybe there's only 30 or 3 or 0 people like that, but maybe it's 50.000 or 5.000.000.

The only place I've ever run across this kind of thing is on SA so I'm not sure how much it happens in contexts where people aren't looking for it. I'm pretty sure the 5% of internet activity that isn't looking for porn is all pedantic forum arguments and you kind of know what you're getting into when you go in, so maybe it doesn't matter so much.

twodot posted:

It's >99% accurate to call all humans cisgender, but we shouldn't do that, and if biologists are doing that, they should stop, authority be damned.

It wouldn't be 99% accurate to call all humans cisgender, though. It would just be wrong to say that. Not fuzzy or incoherent or good enough in an approximate way - just plain wrong. In contrast, talking about males as a category without acknowledging all the possible variations could be fine depending on whether those things are important in context. Like...I get your point and I agree sometimes it's better to be specific, but I don't understand why you're so hung up on always being specific. Most of the time it doesn't matter.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 20:43

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

wateroverfire posted:

The only place I've ever run across this kind of thing is on SA so I'm not sure how much it happens in contexts where people aren't looking for it. I'm pretty sure the 5% of internet activity that isn't looking for porn is all pedantic forum arguments and you kind of know what you're getting into when you go in, so maybe it doesn't matter so much.

Well, the far right seems to really get a lot of mileage out of "political correctness gone mad!". In Germany, they're worried about "Genderwahnsinn" (gender madness), which is essentially "they'll gay marry us to dolphins" all over again. I'm sure they'll try to force this kind of debate, and I think having a twodot on your side might be bad for your chances of not losing that one.

OwlFancier posted:

Yeah, I would guess. Apparently as Cingulate posted there's already people doing that in biology for more unusual species.

It seems the "fungi have 21 sexes" is both an over- and and under interpretation I got from reading pop sci. Digging around, it seems with fungi, scientists stop calling them sexes and call them mating styles, of which there are indeed thousands upon thousands. (I'm just digging this up and I'm not a biologist.)

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1749461315000391

quote:

Sex in humans and many other animals is determined by the X and Y sex chromosomes, in which individuals with XX karyotype are female and those with XY are male.

Ok ...

quote:

But other fungi have much more exotic sex lives, and have a more complex mating-type determining system in which there are literally thousands and thousands and thousands of different mating types ... Because there are thousands of different mating types, most encounters between isolates in nature will be fertile, and this drives the frequency of outbreeding to >99 %.

I.e., amongst fungi, while there are sexes, within a species, almost every fungus can mate with almost every other fungus.

quote:

Why two sexes?

Why are there most commonly two sexes? We do not know the answer to this seemingly simple question, but hypotheses abound (Haag, 2007; Schaffer 2007). 1) It may be to increase the efficiency of mate recognition and fusion. 2) It may serve to restrict outbreeding compared to populations or species in which there is one universal mating type that can mate with anyone. 3) Having two sexes may be also to restrict inbreeding compared to one universal mater that can mate with itself as well as with anyone else. 4) Having two mating types or sexes may have evolved as a response to conflicts between nuclear and mitochondrial genomes, or between mitochondrial genomes, and thereby given rise to uniparental inheritance of mitochondria and chloroplasts. 5) Having two defined mating types or sexes may have enabled specialization of gametes and differential contribution of resources, giving rise to certain development outcomes that we observe such as the transition from isogametic species to anisogametic ones. 6) Two sexes might have served to enable the development of sex specific and sex antagonistic traits. 7) Finally, having two mating types or sexes may serve to enable organisms to know when they are diploid, as they will be heterozygous rather than homozygous for sex determinants contributed by each haploid parent. These possible functions are also not mutually exclusive, either with each other or with other possible functions not considered here.

In the context of considering why there are most commonly two sexes, it is worth remembering that there are examples in which there are more than two mating types or sexes. These include the basidiomycete fungi we have discussed that have literally thousands and thousands and thousands of different mating types (multisexual) including Coprinopsis cinerea, the slime mold Dictyostelium with its three mating types (trisexual), and the ciliate Tetrahymena with seven (septasexual) (see Fig. 1). These may seem exceptions, but considering what is shared and what is distinct between closely aligned species with two sexes vs. those with more, or those with only one (unisexual, to mean �uni� as in one sex, or �universal� as in pansexual and capable of mating with any other member of the population as well as itself), may prove enlightening.

I am reading this this way: to these biologists, our species has two sexes in the same way we have two legs, a mean IQ of 100, and live to around 70, 80 years of age. Sure, some of us are neither or both of these sexes or something else, or only have 1 leg, or live to be 110, or have an IQ of 70 or 150. But, our species has two legs, two sexes, and a mean IQ of 100.

And I really don't think this will stand in the way of us providing a hospitable and accepting and humane environment to those of us diverging from any of these normal states in any way.

Cingulate fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Nov 29, 2017

# ? Nov 29, 2017 20:47

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; Can't post for 8 hours!

On topic for thread:

Debate advice

Pedantic long tangents about linguistics and science instead of "sex and gender are different and people should listen to what people want to be used" are generally a bad sign. The least bad option of which is a stunning lack of self-awareness.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 21:23

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Cingulate posted:

Well, the far right seems to really get a lot of mileage out of "political correctness gone mad!". In Germany, they're worried about "Genderwahnsinn" (gender madness), which is essentially "they'll gay marry us to dolphins" all over again. I'm sure they'll try to force this kind of debate, and I think having a twodot on your side might be bad for your chances of not losing that one.

I don't think twodot or I or any of the other posters involved would actually argue these specifics this in-depth anywhere other than [certain sections of] SA though, since everyone here is probably at least familiar with this already if not in 100% agreement with it. In other places like twitter I tend to tone it down and heavily simplify stuff to appeal to people who aren't the correct levels of ~woke~ yet.

I guess there's always a risk of people like /pol/ or SomethingSensitive finding the thread and sharing quotes from it as an example of how craaaAAAAaaazy those darn SJWs are, but I don't think their opinions of us would be particularly different regardless.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 21:39

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Also as horrible as the reality must be in Germany the term "gender madness" is pretty great, like some modern version of "female hysteria" :allears:

# ? Nov 29, 2017 21:45

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

ate all the Oreos posted:

I don't think twodot or I or any of the other posters involved would actually argue these specifics this in-depth anywhere other than [certain sections of] SA though, since everyone here is probably at least familiar with this already if not in 100% agreement with it. In other places like twitter I tend to tone it down and heavily simplify stuff to appeal to people who aren't the correct levels of ~woke~ yet.

I guess there's always a risk of people like /pol/ or SomethingSensitive finding the thread and sharing quotes from it as an example of how craaaAAAAaaazy those darn SJWs are, but I don't think their opinions of us would be particularly different regardless.

Ok, I'm not gonna act as if I had some actual numbers on this. And, I don't know, maybe it's perfectly inaccurate and it makes no difference, or a positive difference.

ate all the Oreos posted:

Also as horrible as the reality must be in Germany the term "gender madness" is pretty great, like some modern version of "female hysteria"

It's actually just really really embarrassing and boring (like all things German).
So in Germany, nouns have gender ("are gendered"). So if I say "politicians", I have to specify if I mean male politicians or female politicians (Politiker or Politikerinnen). And it's speculated, and there is some evidence for this, that picking the male form reinforces the image that only men are politicians etc. So some people try to use an inclusive form (Inklusive Sprache) like "Politiker und Politikerinnen" or, cause that's long, things like "Politiker*innen" or "Politiker_innen" (the so-called "gender gap", which is an English word that only exists in Germany).
Student*innen. Sportler*innen.

And all of these are a bit awkward to use, but then, it's just attempts to be inclusive right?
But our right and far right are in hysterics over this. It's the sign of the end times!

So that's what counts as 'madness' here.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 22:06

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

Also, Germany just (this month, IIRC) introduced a third or undetermined sex for all things official.
And we legalised gay marriage recently, but due to software bugs, my gay friends cannot become "woman and woman", they have to (temporarily) become "man and woman" cause the software only accepts that as input.

It's a riot.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 22:09

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

In English it's extremely funny that people used a compound noun to express their hatred of other people trying to devise gender neutral nouns :v:

# ? Nov 29, 2017 22:10

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

in general rhetoric, i would tend to say that the more radical your viewpoint, the more you will be expected to justify that viewpoint, which is really fairly reasonable imo

which is all well and good if that radical viewpoint is accurate and what you truly believe! but it seems reasonable to make the point that very radical positions may make it more difficult to win over "the middle ground" of uneducated and mildly bigoted petit-bourgeois quasi-liberals, from a purely pragmatic point of view - so unless one wants to spend a lot of time discussing the fundamentals of one's arguments for some reason (again, perfectly legitimate!) - that is, if your interest is in winning the argument as it were - it's a good idea to take the most "moderate" stance acceptable

# ? Nov 29, 2017 22:29

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Cingulate posted:

I am reading this this way: to these biologists, our species has two sexes in the same way we have two legs, a mean IQ of 100, and live to around 70, 80 years of age. Sure, some of us are neither or both of these sexes or something else, or only have 1 leg, or live to be 110, or have an IQ of 70 or 150. But, our species has two legs, two sexes, and a mean IQ of 100.

If you have two legs, you have an above average number of legs for a human being. Why are you so hostile to sticking in "generally" or "most" or some other qualifier in there? So many of these examples are one word away from being actually right.

quote:

And I really don't think this will stand in the way of us providing a hospitable and accepting and humane environment to those of us diverging from any of these normal states in any way.

Describing these states as normal is hostile to, what you would describe as, abnormal people.

wateroverfire posted:

It wouldn't be 99% accurate to call all humans cisgender, though. It would just be wrong to say that. Not fuzzy or incoherent or good enough in an approximate way - just plain wrong. In contrast, talking about males as a category without acknowledging all the possible variations could be fine depending on whether those things are important in context. Like...I get your point and I agree sometimes it's better to be specific, but I don't understand why you're so hung up on always being specific. Most of the time it doesn't matter.

We're either buying into the concept of 99% accuracy or not. I would prefer that we not use that concept and agree that statement is just wrong, but I think that also implies things like "males have a penis" is just wrong.

OwlFancier posted:

Yeah, I would guess. Apparently as Cingulate posted there's already people doing that in biology for more unusual species.

Ok, so this seems compatible with my earlier "biological systems of sex work fine as long as you have a lot of categories".

# ? Nov 29, 2017 22:45

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

twodot posted:

If you have two legs, you have an above average number of legs for a human being. Why are you so hostile to sticking in "generally" or "most" or some other qualifier in there?

I'm not- I'm perfectly happy with you saying "in general, humans have two legs" or "in general, humans can be divided into two sexes".
What I have a problem with is this: lions have manes, sheep eat grass, cars have four wheels, chocolate has a brown-ish color, tomatoes are red. This is how language works. If you insist on me putting an "in general" in front of all of these, that's not you being accurate, that's you not getting how language works.

And then you have biologists who say "males have XY and women XX chromosome sets".

Here, in contrast, is an example of an incorrect statement: biologically speaking, tomatoes are not fruit, but vegetables.

Cingulate fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Nov 29, 2017

# ? Nov 29, 2017 23:11

OwlFancier: Aug 22, 2013

There is a degree of variance to be expected in almost all use of language.

# ? Nov 29, 2017 23:14

Avian Pneumonia: May 24, 2006; ASK ME ABOUT MY OPINIONS ON CANCEL CULTURE

e: nevermind

# ? Dec 5, 2017 12:20

bessantj: Jul 27, 2004

I don't know if this is worth it, but I need the input of people smarter than I so here we go. On the weekend during a rugby match between Toulon and Treviso Toulon player Mathieu Bastareaud called Treviso player Negri a "loving human being" here's a video of the incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzwYZc-b8Ug

There have been calls for Bastareaud to receive a ban and he probably will get a ban for a few matches. I post on a rugby message board and several people in a thread about the incident have said they can't see what all the fuss is about. One poster said nobody cares who sleeps with who anymore so it's not an insult. I replied with a list of countries that have the death penalty for homosexuality. He then moved the goalposts and said he was talking about the western world so I linked some stories about people being killed or beaten up for being gay and that seemed to shut him up.

One poster seems to think that unless the Treviso player was actually gay then it's not an insult at all and so nothing should be done, it would be like one white player calling another white player the n-word totally meaningless.

I posted:

quote:

We can accept that using a phrase that insinuates "it is bad to be a gay person, don't be gay" is unacceptable in a sport where gay people are active participants. If someone had dropped the N-word when describing Bastareaud the poo poo would have hit the fan and quite right to, finding bigotry unacceptable is a good thing and shouldn't be up for debate. Bastareaud can go away, realise that he shouldn't use that phrase and come back no real harm done to his career.

I got the reply

quote:

I truly want to understand your view

But I am struggling to get how a thick hulk dude who gets continually taken the crap out of for his name sounding like he's illigitamate internationally calling someone in the heat of a game a fag takien as meaning "It is bad to be a gay person, don't be gay"

And replied

quote:

I know the word 'human being' has a few meanings but it has a common usage these days to mean homosexual I don't think you can dispute this. So when Bastareaud said "f**king human being" he was using it as an insult and there was actually quite a bit of malice in the way he said it he was using the description of a gay person as an insult insinuating that to be gay is a bad thing i.e. "It is bad to be a gay person, don't be gay".

I don't know if Bastareaud is homophobic, I don't know him well enough and I certainly wouldn't speak for the gay communities feelings on this matter especially considering we have gay posters but I do have gay friends and they have told me how they feel about that word.

Then someone else replied

quote:

I think he realises that now based on his contrition since the event. He has clearly been wounded by his his outrageous loss of control, as he considers all those people who are now saying to themselves, their friends and their families "hang on, so Mathieu called this player a human being in the heat of the moment, so being gay is actually bad - we've been misled all along. I'm going to fire-bomb Jean-Paul and Vincent's apartment".

At this point I'm thinking it's best just to walk away, but I thought I'd ask for a bit of input in case I'm missing a better argument I could make. Thoughts?

# ? Jan 17, 2018 13:55

Cingulate: Oct 23, 2012; by Fluffdaddy

What is the difference between "gay male" and "human being"? The only difference is that "human being" has a derogatory connotation that "gay male" doesn't. (Compare e.g. vagina/oval office, or feces/poo poo, black American/you know what.)
If you want to make a factual statement about a person's sexual preferences, you say "he's homosexual" (or "gay" or whatever). You use the term "human being" specifically for it's derogatory connotation. Where "you" = literally every single person who speaks English. (There are contextual exceptions, i.e. reappropriations, which this scenario clearly was not.)

I'd see if you can get them to agree on these very basic facts first, i.e., if they speak English.

# ? Jan 17, 2018 16:21

Shame Boy: Mar 2, 2010

Like yeah nobody's gonna wake up one morning and hear someone using a slur one time and go "huh guess I never thought about it before but those gays sure are evil!!!" The reason slurs like that are so harmful is precisely because they're not used "one time," they're used all the time. The more it's used the more it's normalized, and normalizing it also tends to normalize the meaning carried along with it. Having someone in a very public position like a sports team (who may even be a role model to some younger people) use it just amplifies this a hundred fold.

# ? Jan 17, 2018 16:39

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 12, 2024 07:32

bessantj: Jul 27, 2004

Thanks the two of you. I posted what Cingulate suggested but got no reply and they have been posting. I suspect they've been a bit cowardly and thought that admitting they saw nothing wrong with the word would get them dog piled and a time out from the mods.

# ? Jan 17, 2018 22:51

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's pool our knowledge: D&D helps D&D Debate and Discuss

«‹›151 »