Exactly? As in, I identify as gender fluid not because my gender defines me, but precisely because the binary “male” and “female” genders don’t directly apply to my identity, so a new term that better aligns with how I feel is useful.
So if it’s “silly” to “create” a “new” gender, what do you suggest as an alternative?
Which is why so many people struggle to empathize. But I agree, just because most people can walk, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t build more access ramps.
Gender≠Sex
"We could define two colours: Reds are all wavelengths longer than 600nm Blues are all that are 600nm or shorter.
Or we take the amplitude of the intensity of light and sort it from brightest to dimmest.
We could go by genetics. Then we only have a handful of colours (blue, red and green)
What I am saying is: we’ve already defined what it is and the discussion is very simple. By all definitions, colour means different things to different people and by trying to fit them all in a predefined box all you’re doing is limiting yourself to seeing only in black and white."
You don’t genuinely believe the US cares about Israel and doesn’t just give out trillions of their defense budget so they have a strong foothold in the middle east to prevent the caliphates from uniting, do you?
Yeah, I agree that OP’s explanation right above is precise and short.
Obviously every culture has their own definition of things (same way Japanese people considered blue and green to be the same colour) but that doesn’t mean either is right, they’re both made up to serve a purpose.
Eg. It’s useful to break down the gender spectrum as it allows us to be more precise and descriptive with our language, same way it can be useful to differentiate between blue and green. Still, if you’re blue-green colour blind you probably don’t really care if someone else has two words for what you perceive to be the same colour…
Oh oh, are we on Jeopardy! I’ll take “Brutal Middle Eastern Imperialistic State” for 500, Alex!
I’d prefer if someone doesn’t murder me because they think murder is bad
Yeah, that does make you a bigot. Just because the christian status quo wants to uphold strict gender roles and outdated puritan values doesn’t make those beliefs any less hateful. As a self proclaimed bigot, please tell me what do you think is so sinful about anal sex or cross dressing? And do you really think enslaving people because of those things is somehow less sinful? If that’s what your god calls justice I really don’t think we should take their hateful judgment seriously.
It’s because the concept of a particle having definite properties like position and momentum doesn’t hold in the quantum world. Until a measurement is made, the particle is in a superposition of all possible states but with different probabilities, these are described by its wavefunction, which encodes what the various particle variables (position, spin, momentum, etc.) could be.
So, it’s not a measurement issue that introduces the uncertainty; it’s already there as a fundamental property of the particle’s quantum state.
Measurements merely “choose” one of the many possible outcomes, collapsing the wavefunction and in turn making exact measurement of other complementary properties impossible (because the mere act of measuring one variable causes the system to transition into a new state with its own set of probabilities and uncertainties for all variables)
And because these are inherent limitations dictated by quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle, even if we could know the current state of every particle in the universe, we still couldn’t accurately predict the future because of that fundamental uncertainty.
Ha ha, what if we pretend to build houses on bombed people’s land. that would be funny i think.