Dumb Questions Thread

[Famine]

A woman is a human adult born with two X chromosomes.

Period.

Transgender men are not women, no matter how much they want to be, no matter how much hormone treatment or surgery they have received.

If a human has a Y chromosome, whether it's paired with an X chromosome or whether they have extra chromosomes in XYY or XXY combination, they are male. A male with XYY may go his entire life unaware of the xtra Y chromosome as it produces no developmental issues. A male with an extra X chromosome will probably show developmental problems such as near or total sterility, poor genital development, even breasts, but they still carry a Y chromosome, have a penis and not a vagina, and are still male, and cannot grow up to be a woman.

I expect to be flamed for this viewpoint, but seriously... this isn't difficult. A woman has 2 X chromosomes.

Interesting.

How would you class a human adult born with one, unpaired X chromosome?

Or a human adult born with one X and one Y chromosome but androgen insensitivity syndrome?

For reference, both have female external genitalia - a vulva (not a vagina, that's the internal structure), not a penis.

 

[Liquid]

A woman is a human adult born with two X chromosomes.

Period.

Ironically enough, not all women do have periods.

 

[TexRex]

I expect to be flamed for this viewpoint, but seriously...

My favorite category of victimhood: preemptive.

 

[UKMikey]

No one ever said trans men were women, though.

 

[Scaff]

A woman is a human adult born with two X chromosomes.

Period.

Transgender men are not women, no matter how much they want to be, no matter how much hormone treatment or surgery they have received.

If a human has a Y chromosome, whether it's paired with an X chromosome or whether they have extra chromosomes in XYY or XXY combination, they are male. A male with XYY may go his entire life unaware of the xtra Y chromosome as it produces no developmental issues. A male with an extra X chromosome will probably show developmental problems such as near or total sterility, poor genital development, even breasts, but they still carry a Y chromosome, have a penis and not a vagina, and are still male, and cannot grow up to be a woman.

I expect to be flamed for this viewpoint, but seriously... this isn't difficult. A woman has 2 X chromosomes.

Tell me you don't know the difference between gender and sex without telling me you don't know the difference between gender and sex.

 

[TexRex]

Stop flaming them!

 

[TexRex]

So, Hee-Hawley struggled with this one, initially saying someone who can give birth is a woman. Someone with a uterus. He said it didn't seem that complicated. The reporter to whom he gave this answer apparently asked in a follow-up if those who have had their uterus removed, such as having done so as part of cancer care, would be disqualified. "Yeah. Well, I don't know, would they?" Hee-Hawley responded. "I mean, women have vaginas, right?" The latter would suggest he considers anyone who has transitioned completely from male to female, including all relevant surgeries, to be a woman, but somehow I don't imagine he actually would. It might be more complicated than he'd like to admit.

I have a dumb question:

Why is the conservative bitchfit over what makes a woman?

I gather it's steeped in culture war grievance and moral panic, and I know it recently came to a head when that little idiot woman(?) Marsha, Marsha, Marsha Blackburn solicited Ketanji Brown Jackson during the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, but is that all there is to it, or is there anything even remotely resembling a rational foundation for it?

Tangentially, how big a piece of **** mother****er do you have to be to wilfully misgender someone or otherwise refuse to acknowledge how another wishes to be addressed? What compels one to make that an issue?

No one ever said trans men were women, though.

This didn't register immediately. I love it.

 

[Brett]

Tangentially, how big a piece of **** mother****er do you have to be to wilfully misgender someone or otherwise refuse to acknowledge how another wishes to be addressed? What compels one to make that an issue?

This is by no means a complete answer, but I think it explains some portion of the "reasoning". Misery loves company. They are miserable and want everyone else to be miserable with them.

 

[Chris30]

Hey, I just noticed this forum, so what would be a good question for me to ask here as I don't want to get off-topic. Ok, i'll give it a try.

Question: How are plasma TV's different from analog TV's?

 

[Dotini]

Only one definition can: anyone who identify as a woman is. That's the only one that encompasses all.

In postmodern reality, this is the best answer.

 

[daan]

The wind is doing 20mph and reaches a wind farm. It goes through the wind farm, turning the blades on the turbines. When the wind reaches the other side of the wind farm, is it still doing 20mph, or has it been slowed down any by the action of turning the blades?

 

[Chris30]

Or maybe the wind blades haven't moved at all or either they were cutting through debris. I don't know.

 

[TexRex]

The wind is doing 20mph and reaches a wind farm. It goes through the wind farm, turning the blades on the turbines. When the wind reaches the other side of the wind farm, is it still doing 20mph, or has it been slowed down any by the action of turning the blades?

I'm given to understand the generative capacity of downwind turbines in large scale farms is reduced, so I would imagine it's been slowed. Or at least the energy contained in the wind itself has been reduced.

 

[p78]

Here's a dumb question.
Does it matter what makes a woman or a man?

 

[wfooshee]

Some of the energy has been lost. The total volume of air is reduced by an immeasurably small factor. I couldn't begin to estimate how much energy is in an air mass moving across the continent at a given average speed, but the loss to drive the turbine is, I would think, not a significant fraction. That's certainly the assumption of those pushing for it as "free" energy...

 

[HenrySwanson]

Why is the conservative bitchfit over what makes a woman?

It's a gotcha question. Define it scientifically and it excludes transwomen (and a host of other women based on their genetic makeup)...refuse to answer and you sound like you're pandering to transwomen and not accepting reality.

At the moment it's a big issue in the UK

That's why, I believe, there should be an answer that can accomodate all who identify as a woman (or man, but that isn't as controversial probably because of the history of women's rights).

 

[TexRex]

A woman is a human adult born with two X chromosomes.

Period.

Transgender men are not women, no matter how much they want to be, no matter how much hormone treatment or surgery they have received.

If a human has a Y chromosome, whether it's paired with an X chromosome or whether they have extra chromosomes in XYY or XXY combination, they are male. A male with XYY may go his entire life unaware of the xtra Y chromosome as it produces no developmental issues. A male with an extra X chromosome will probably show developmental problems such as near or total sterility, poor genital development, even breasts, but they still carry a Y chromosome, have a penis and not a vagina, and are still male, and cannot grow up to be a woman.

I expect to be flamed for this viewpoint, but seriously... this isn't difficult. A woman has 2 X chromosomes.

In hindsight, the preemptive victimhood and ****** meme at the end of the post probably should have been interpreted as an indication that one would refuse to address any responses to it. I failed to interpret them as such, and that's my fault. However, I can't fault others for responding to the post as they did.

It's a gotcha question. Define it scientifically and it excludes transwomen (and a host of other women based on their genetic makeup)...refuse to answer and you sound like you're pandering to transwomen and not accepting reality.

That doesn't explain the bitchfit. Why do the rat ****ers need anyone to be excluded or have anyone's supposed biases outed? Also, scientific definition and "reality" have proven difficult to pin down in any meaningful way.

 

[TheCracker]

The wind is doing 20mph and reaches a wind farm. It goes through the wind farm, turning the blades on the turbines. When the wind reaches the other side of the wind farm, is it still doing 20mph, or has it been slowed down any by the action of turning the blades?

The structure, the blades and the post supporting the turbine structure, will cause drag, but as wind is just air moved by the difference in air pressure between two locations that causing force isn't affected by the turbine. its like placing a pole in a river or stream, it causes some localised distruption to the flow but the speed of the stream/river isn't affected other than that. Any slow down in speed is short lived as the force that caused the flow in the first place just carries on once beyond the object. Thats my GCSE level of physics understanding of the process.

 

[HenrySwanson]

That doesn't explain the bitchfit. Why do the rat ****ers need anyone to be excluded or have anyone's supposed biases outed? Also, scientific definition and "reality" have proven difficult to pin down in any meaningful way.

I should have put "reality" in quoatation marks, true.

As to your question, I don't really know why people can accept the LGB but not the T (or others that can't accept any of those groups). The rationale that's frequently spouted is that it's to stand up for women's rights (which may be true for some feminists), but that doesn't explain why it's acceptable for the PM to make an anti-trans joke at a dinner function. Maybe they're just not nice people?

 

[Chris30]

I should have put "reality" in quoatation marks, true.

As to your question, I don't really know why people can accept the LGB but not the T (or others that can't accept any of those groups). The rationale that's frequently spouted is that it's to stand up for women's rights (which may be true for some feminists), but that doesn't explain why it's acceptable for the PM to make an anti-trans joke at a dinner function. Maybe they're just not nice people?

They're probably mean!

 

[TheCracker]

Maybe they're just not nice people?

Sadly, the simple answer is that people fear what they can't comprehend or just any concept that challenges their idea of the norm.

 

[TexRex]

As to your question, I don't really know why people can accept the LGB but not the T (or others that can't accept any of those groups).

I don't need LGBT individuals to be accepted. Maybe some of them ("them" as in both the undefined collective pronoun and the specific non-binary singular pronoun) have that need, and I guess that's okay but I'd maybe think they should examine why they have that need. I want (it's a strong desire, admittedly) equal treatment under law. Sort of bringing us back to the confirmation hearing, definitions are explicitly unnecessary for equal treatment under law.

I don't accept Dane Cook. Just...in general. And that's okay. I'm not about to throw a performative tantrum over it. I suppose it doesn't matter anyway because he sort of just went away, but there was a time when he was absolutely ****ing everywhere and I managed to not have a bitchfit about it. But I digress.

The rationale that's frequently spouted is that it's to stand up for women's rights (which may be true for some feminists)...

I don't get this at all. I don't see rights as entering into it one bit.

...but that doesn't explain why it's acceptable for the PM to make an anti-trans joke at a dinner function.

It is acceptable. It's also not. It sort of depends on the audience (in the broadest sense, not limited to those in attendance at the dinner function). I recognize that it's a joke and I can appreciate that, but I'd maybe want a world leader to show more tact. It's a peculiar appeal to hypocrisy you've offered, is what I guess I'm trying to say.

Maybe they're just not nice people?

I'm not a nice person, and that's okay. I mean...what is a nice person? I can be nice. I can be polite, respectful, caring, helpful, giving...all sorts of things supposed nice people are. I'm also a dick. Does my being a dick disqualify me from being a nice person? I think my gorgeous wife is a nice person. She's all of those things I listed except for the last one...or rather the gender-specific pejorative that I will never direct at women (which is to say anyone who identifies as such, regardless of chromosomes, genitalia or childbearing capability), but will absolutely direct at men who are bitches. I also think my amazing daughter is a nice person because she [thankfully] takes after her mom despite the role I played in her upbringing; I think maybe I subconsciously put an emphasis on the other things.

Sadly, the simple answer is that people fear what they can't comprehend or just any concept that challenges their idea of the norm.

But that also doesn't explain the bitchfit phenomenon. I gather it's in part pandering to the base, but equally confounding is how that's a desirable quality for public (not necessarily governmental) representatives.

 

[Blitz24]

The wind is doing 20mph and reaches a wind farm. It goes through the wind farm, turning the blades on the turbines. When the wind reaches the other side of the wind farm, is it still doing 20mph, or has it been slowed down any by the action of turning the blades?

On average it has likely slowed down. But not all of that loss has been converted into wind power energy for the turbines.

"Betz's law shows that as air flows through a certain area, and as wind speed slows from losing energy to extraction from a turbine, the airflow must distribute to a wider area. As a result, geometry limits any turbine efficiency to a maximum of 59.3%."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz's_law

 

[HenrySwanson]

I don't need LGBT individuals to be accepted. Maybe some of them ("them" as in both the undefined collective pronoun and the specific non-binary singular pronoun) have that need, and I guess that's okay but I'd maybe think they should examine why they have that need. I want (it's a strong desire, admittedly) equal treatment under law. Sort of bringing us back to the confirmation hearing, definitions are explicitly unnecessary for equal treatment under law.

Then you'll hate what the leader of the Conservative party has planned for conversion therapy

I'm not saying anyone should be forced to accept all of the trans community's demands....just wondering why they are more accomodating towards others in the LGBT+ banner.

I don't get this at all. I don't see rights as entering into it one bit.

This is more what the campaigners think they are campaigning for. This is the most vocal one right now (I think...)

I'm not a nice person, and that's okay. I mean...what is a nice person? I can be nice. I can be polite, respectful, caring, helpful, giving...all sorts of things supposed nice people are. I'm also a dick. Does my being a dick disqualify me from being a nice person? I think my gorgeous wife is a nice person. She's all of those things I listed except for the last one...or rather the gender-specific pejorative that I will never direct at women (which is to say anyone who identifies as such, regardless of chromosomes, genitalia or childbearing capability), but will absolutely direct at men who are bitches. I also think my amazing daughter is a nice person because she [thankfully] takes after her mom despite the role I played in her upbringing; I think maybe I subconsciously put an emphasis on the other things.

It could be argued that Jesus wasn't nice either, but that may have been because people "needed to be saved". Conservatives in the present year though? On my Twitter feed I see people I follow leaning in two ways, and very rarely agreeing on positions. There seems to be some innate drive that leads them to adopt a position and I don't know where it originates from. With conservatives it's based on being, paradoxically, contrarion e.g. I see overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of COVID vaccines but I'll try my damndest to go against that and oppose vaccination.

 

[TheCracker]

But that also doesn't explain the bitchfit phenomenon. I gather it's in part pandering to the base, but equally confounding is how that's a desirable quality for public (not necessarily governmental) representatives.

They're outraged that people want to live in a different way to how they live and these blowhards in positions of power are willing to use their platforms to publicly express their voter's outrage and thus expose their feelings of outrage to a much wider audience. This also makes them happy because it layers a thin veil of credibility over their outdated BS.

 

[TexRex]

They're outraged that people want to live in a different way to how they live and these blowhards in positions of power are willing to use their platforms to publicly express their voter's outrage and thus expose their feelings of outrage to a much wider audience. This also makes them happy because it layers a thin veil of credibility over their outdated BS.

Yeah, I suppose that's closer to getting at an answer. If accurate, it suggests there's nothing deeper or more meaningful than culture war grievance and moral panic, and that's disappointing.

I'd suggest, however, that outrage offers no credibility, rather it likely does the opposite. Reason is absent from outrage.

 

[Liquid]

When was it first realised that oil is not a finite resource?

Not that people were dumb and used to think it was a literally limitless resource but at what point in time did it become known, to technical experts in the field and the general public, that suddenly the thinking was "Oh, we might actually run out of this one day"?

I'd be interested to know what decade of the 20th century this first became a thing.

 

[wfooshee]

Well, I'm 65 years old, and I've been hearing of it a finite resource for my entire adult life, even in high school, so at least that far! I was in high school in the early 70s.

 

[PeterJB]

My guess would be some time during the energy crisis in the 1970s.

 

[Liquid]

Why aren't there campaigns to raise the age of sexual consent?

Socially, and this is an assumption, most people have a personal minimum age of consent is 18. For a lot of people reading this thread the minimum age of consent is 16. In a lot of European countries the age of consent is 15 and even 14 in some places.

I understand the squeamishness about having sex with a 16 or 17 year old because I am squeamish about it myself but there doesn't seem to be any sort of campaign to address this imbalance between what is legally permitted and what is socially acceptable. In fact, in my lifetime the age of sexual consent for homosexuals in the country I grew up in was brought down from 18 to 16 to maintain parity with heterosexuals.

I also understand that there is an issue in that teenagers under the age of 18, and under the age of 16, will have sex anyway, usually with people their own age, so there are legal protections that need to be in place but it doesn't seem to be right that what the law says and what a lot of people instinctively feel are not the same.