You must log in or register to comment.
In this economy?
There’s gotta be at least six figures worth of eggs in this photo
4 x 3 containing 30 eggs = 360 x 6 layers per pallet = 2160 x 4 pallets = 8640 / 12 per dz = 720 dozen eggs x $5 a dz = $3600. Considering these are brown eggs, they may be selling as free range organic bullshit for like $10 / dz so maybe $7200.
Nothing makes a joke funnier than using math to poke holes in it lol
So it’s six figures if you include the places after the decimal then ;-)
Or if you sell eggs for $140 / dozen.
And to think I was upset about my eggs costing about $3.50 / dozen with treats included. Oh well, the little raptors are fun.
Look man I know that my taxonomy doesn’t work… but have you considered that it was created with the intent to work?
A woman is one of those things where know you one when you see one. Doesn’t have to be any more complex than that.
Like Jiminy Cricket said, “Let your conscience be your guide”
That’s what I initially thought, too, but there are people who identify as a woman who 100% look like a man to me. It’s rare, but it does happen, and I’m not going to argue with them about it.
If you say you’re a woman, then you’re a woman, and it shouldn’t be any more complex than that.
Unless you’re underage, in which case you’re a girl. Women must be sapient adults.
I’m having trouble finding anyone born with intention. Neither biology nor evolution have plans or intentions. We are fundamentally lipid based sacks of water.
Just being the devil’s advocate here, but do instincts count as intentions? They’re powerful and we’re born with a lot of them. Like, we’re all born to not starve, but also some birds are compelled to pick up large stones and roost them as eggs indefinitely, and others to perform migrations. “Born to survive and reproduce” is biology’s motto but I think it goes beyond that to “born to do as others do”. And if we extend that to gender roles, I can see how with the inherent variation in biology some people will be born to perform an alternative gender role just like I’m compelled to pursue the same gender.
They’re arguing from a religious perspective that understands God as providing intentionality
Which is a self-defeating argument, because if it were true, then women who don’t have eggs are functioning exactly as “intended,” and don’t fit this definition of “woman”
They said “without excluding” not “without including”
Oh, believe me, they don’t want this egg selling man to be called a woman.
I know, but that’s on them. They should’ve been more specific.
☝️🤓
Ah, I can see Diogenes has made an impact on people.
A woman is when a guy crosses the line. You say “Wo! Man!”
My understanding was that current consensus was that humans with ovaries are born with all of the eggs already created - waiting to be released - and no more are created after that. So you’re either born holding eggs or you ain’t, and intention and capability don’t come into it.
But that still doesn’t define “woman” though
It also excludes women with certain kinds of infertility.
The social/political definition of women should just be believe what people say they are because otherwise you’re creating a genital/dna inspector.
As for the biological definitions, we should teach more people biology. There are like 6 definitions of species so biology has trouble answering “what is a human”
There are like 6 definitions of species so biology has trouble answering “what is a human”
We don’t need biologists to define what a human is, though. We have known since the time of Plato that a human being is a featherless biped with broad flat nails.
It also excludes women with certain kinds of infertility.
That was my “main” premise for lack of a better word, but i agree with what you said :)
I find the phrase “Born with the intention” in itself worthy of head-scratching.
I think its meant sort of as physical intention aka the body doesn’t have the ability to “hold eggs” (jfc) yet but will try to develop the capability in the future. A sneaky way to try and include infertile cis women but it still excludes many of them as there are various reasons for infertility. Interestingly the phrasing also excludes all women post menopause but that’s to be expected given the amount of representation those usually get (the amount being zero).
Women are born with their eggs, but that’s not true for women who are born without ovaries, which has got to be possible, so this is a dumb definition anyway
Also post-hysterectomy if it includes the ovaries. Sorry bitch, still a woman.
Personally my definition of a woman is anyone subject to misogyny.
I suppose it’s wrong, because attacks on transmen are also rooted in misogyny, but that’s the misogynists’ fault.
For the religious: “Sometimes God puts a soul into a body that doesn’t match. The soul is sacred, and until it can be released from the body permanently, we owe it to those souls to recognize and help them. God doesn’t make mistakes, it’s us He’s testing.”
Technically, it doesn’t even need to include the ovaries if the bigots are defining the womb as the ‘holding eggs’ bit.
Jesus, we need better mandatory biology classes. (That’s aimed at the people defining women as egg holders, not you.)
I don’t agree with it, but the reason this religious argument (and most challenges of religion) falls flat, is because, to the true believer, their God is infallible, and so the idea of God making a mistake like that is on direct conflict with their core beliefs.
Christians famously don’t think children can get cancer or the plague, because “God doesn’t make mistakes”. Blind children and children in wheelchairs? A hoax by the devil, clearly.
As I said, it’s not a mistake, it to test us, to be sure we’re following His edicts to love one another and judge not.
Of course to the false “believer,” hating and judging has become second nature and their “Christian” lives are the deepest blasphemy.
But to a decent person who’s already beginning to question the false doctrine in which they’ve been raised, it opens a chink in the wall.
Why does God need to test us? Doesn’t he already know whether or not we’d pass?
I don’t disagree with you myself, but remember the apple? According to Godologists that was just the first of thousands of tests, including your impure thoughts last week. It’s kinda his thing. So I see no problem using it to get through to them.
Wasn’t even an apple. It was literally “the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
So, basically, before eating that fruit, Eve could not have possibly known right from wrong. So how is it her fault?
Why would god make that tree in the first place? Why would he make that tree, and then insert it into his perfect paradise? Why would he make the tree, insert it into his perfect paradise, but then forbid the humans from eating the fruit, and thus gaining the understanding of good and evil? Why wouldn’t he want humans to have that knowledge? Why would he allow the serpent (who never told Eve to eat the fruit, btw, he just said it was something that was possible for her to do) to exist there in the first place?
And lastly, if he’s all-knowing, why the fuck would he be surprised by any of this?
Because “god works in mysterious ways.”
That’s the most you’ll ever get.
You’re right, and that whole argument is sidestepping the fact what they really want is a separation between men and women so that they can attempt to force a safe space for women that appeals to their sensibilities of women being born weaker than men with lower bone density and testosterone while not allowing glaring loopholes. Which is how they really view women as an infantile subset of our species that needs protection from a minority of opportunists that would take advantage of them.
Born with the intention to chew bubblegum & Rock n’ Roll.
I was born with the intention to be wild, but I got busy and haven’t had the time.
AND I’M ALL OUTTA BUBBLEGUM
Diogenes would be proud here
My first thought too.
To anyone unaware, plato defined man as “a featherless biped” so Diogenes brought a plucked chicken
You can’t spell genius without Diogenes
Diogenius
I wonder how Plato would have defined man if he knew kangaroos existed.
featherless tail-less biped? then we could have a story about Diogenes fighting a kangaroo to cut off its tail
Why does it always come back to chickens?
Because they couldn’t figure out what to make chicken taste like, which is why chicken tastes like everything.
“It’s just business”
He was so much more polite after Amos.
There’s hormonal, chromosomal, and gamete definitions of biological woman/man and you’ll want to be specific about which youre referencing and why it is even relevent for the text.
Hormonal woman with XY (“male”) chromosomes and no eggs: Complete Androgen Insensitivity
Chromosomal woman with no eggs and low hormones: Swyer Syndrome (born without ovaries)
Men who have eggs: Chimeras, probably, and this guy: https://www.yahoo.com/news/chinese-man-shocked-learn-ovaries-202311718.html
One internet search later:
https://patient.info/forums/discuss/born-without-ovaries-634173
There are cis women born without ovaries.
Thus Lea the bigot is disproven.
Bigots will just say they’re not true women. That goalpost has legs.
But what’s between the goalposts legs? If it’s got legs then it’s somehow my business what’s going on between them.
I think she already knew, why else would she mention the people born with the intent of holding eggs (whatever that means).
That man is moments away from financial disaster
That man is 100% in Germany. He’s fine.
I once dropped 6 eggs while working and cried
From a biological perspective, this question has been answered already as it’s really not that hard.
Many people apparently just don’t like the answer.
Actually more complicated than that. Sex is broken up into a bunch of factors. Phenotype is the word used to mean the grouping of characteristics we associate with either male or female. So that roughly covers genitals, secondary characteristics (boobs, body hair, build differences etc)… But it’s actually wild.
-
Chromasomal sex - On it’s own means very little. If you have say an XY chromasome but for the sake of example an androgen insensitivity you develop as (phenotypically) female in the womb.
-
Horomonal Sex - Is the mix of horomones that impact development. Whether you develop to appear male or female starts in the early stages of development in rhe womb and then kicks into high gear as puberty and can change unexpectedly. This means for example that there’s people who were born appearing entirely female and yet naturally develop along male lines later and vice versa.
-
Internal reproductive Anatomy - This one gets crazy where individuals don’t always have internal organs that match their chromosomes. You can have opposite, none, both.
The precursor of trans medicine involved a lot of case studies seeing how naturally occuring variation in biological sex worked and the more it was studied the more scientists began to panic because they realized that the model of sorting into two strict sexes was flawed. There’s a lot of people out there who live practically their entire lives only to realize at the doctor’s office that they have surprise characteristics quietly existing hidden just below the skin. This lead to scientists realizing that for the most part the idea of phenotype and indeed a strict definition for biological sex is actually pretty wishy-washy.
The reason you weren’t taught this in high school is more or less that they just don’t prioritize it because they have to coach a group of students, many of whom are not scholarly material, through an overview of stuff. High school biology is basically all technically wrong because it’s been simplified to give you a taste of the discipline. If you start going to med school the first thing they do is tell you to light everything you think you know about the body on fire, throw it in the trash and start from scratch because half the stuff you were taught is going to need be unlearned. “Chromosome = sex” is one of the things that goes in the burn bin.
-
Ther is literally no definition you give that will not exclude any cis women at all.
I don’t even think they have a definition. The closest they’ve gotten to one in this thread was “males take care of food, protection and territory defense (if applicable) while females give birth and primarily take care of children,” but then later in that same comment they said that there are exceptions. It’s an even worse definition than the adult human female thing, because that at least tries to make a box that every woman fits in
I think the overarching definition needs to go a bit abstract and fuzzy. Like, a woman is a role that society defines and associates with certain acts, activities,. expectations and looks, blah blah blah. This is the approach some medicine takes when defining drug abuse. What’s drug abuse? According to a nursing textbook it’s what society defines it to be.
Yep, it’s a very complicated topic because gender roles and expectations change depending on time and place. What “society” considers a “woman” differs from place to place and person to person. Even the very prominent “adult female human” definition isn’t sufficient, because all three of those words are arguable to certain degrees.
Personally, I think the best definition is “a woman is a person who identifies as a woman.” It perfectly includes every single person who I consider a woman, and excludes every single person who I don’t consider a woman, and it doesn’t disagree with anyone’s interpretation of their own identity.
Buying groceries makes you a male, and taking the kids to school makes you a female, clearly.
Lmao
Why do I get the feeling the “answer” you’re talking about is just chromosomes
This is such an insane statement. In biology almost any kind of sexual behavior has been observed including male species who carry the young in their body (sea horses), species that are both male and female, species that change gender during a lifetime, species without gender etc etc. Literally anything goes in the biological world.
Literally anything goes in the biological world.
While true, there are some established standards. And amongst mammals, the standard is always that males take care of food, protection and territory defense (if applicable) while females give birth and primarily take care of children. Are there exceptions? Absolutely. But for most of the existence of the human species, it was just like that - males were taking care of food and protection, while females were doing the “safer” jobs, like childcare of gathering.
Yes, biology is complex, but the case of humans is rather clear-cut. The only reason why we argue about this is because we have evolved to a point where we’re no longer that reliant on biology - that does not change the fundamentals tho.
Are there exceptions? Absolutely.
Exceptions imply that these roles are not strictly inherent to animal (including human) behavior. If colonizing countries weren’t all patriarchal, I’m sure we would’ve seen many more exceptions.
These exceptions exist for a reason, whether or not they fit your personal worldview.
But for most of the existence of the human species, it was just like that - males were taking care of food and protection, while females were doing the “safer” jobs, like childcare of gathering.
This is just a bad argument, and has been used to justify all kinds of awful things. why would the fact that humans have always done things a certain way imply that that’s a good thing? Is slavery a good thing? rape? colonization? genocide?
Rigid gender roles have only truly served half of the human population. Even so, men have also suffered in other ways because of them. Why shouldn’t we work to better everyone’s lives, in as many ways as we can manage?
Yes, biology is complex, but the case of humans is rather clear-cut.
This is demonstrably false. Biologists have known as much for… quite a while. Please consider informing yourself before making claims about important topics.
These exceptions exist for a reason, whether or not they fit your personal worldview.
Yes, these do exist - but that still doesn’t mean it’s a counterpoint to the fact that the “status quo”, if you will, is what I described earlier.
This is just a bad argument, and has been used to justify all kinds of awful things
Okay, but that doesn’t mean the argument doesn’t hold in this particular case.
why would the fact that humans have always done things a certain way imply that that’s a good thing?
Nobody talks about it being good. I have made zero judgement about if that is a good or bad thing - it’s just a thing. But I feel that the “old times”, where humans were much much less self-conscious and organized, is a solid indicator to how we would act if we were more living off of instinct instead of societal pressure.
Rigid gender roles have only truly served half of the human population. Even so, men have also suffered in other ways because of them. Why shouldn’t we work to better everyone’s lives, in as many ways as we can manage?
I don’t think you understood my comment. I’m not saying that gender roles are a good thing. What I AM saying is that it is, from a biological standpoint, very easy to determine who is a woman and who is not. I’m not saying that every woman should do “womanly” things and every man should do “manly” things.
This is demonstrably false.
No, it’s really not, but I do agree that finding factual information regarding this topic is nearly impossible these days as it’s a topic completely enveloped by political bias and everyone tries to bend the facts as much into his desired direction as possible. However, from my viewpoint and some discussions I had with people who are very well versed in that topic, the human is a rather traditional mammal that also behaves like one - including that only women are able to give birth to children.
You are just making this up as you go along. I can disprove your theory by the animal living in my house: cats live solitary lives and therefore do not divide tasks between genders. The idea that females primarily take care of children makes no sense since in most species (incl. most mammals) kids grow up pretty quickly. In most animals there is no sharp distinction of tasks between males and females.
cats live solitary lives and therefore do not divide tasks between genders
??? No they’re not? Cats do raise their young what the fuck. The female is also the only one that can ensure the kitten survive as she’s the one producing the milk which is necessary. Male cats usually don’t give a fuck about the kitten and just bring food for the mother.
The only exceptions to this is lions (which is sorta a cat), where females do everything and the males are just lying around.
The idea that females primarily take care of children makes no sense since in most species (incl. most mammals) kids grow up pretty quickly … In most animals there is no sharp distinction of tasks between males and females
Very cool you think so. Yet it’s the case. I don’t know how I can prove something that obvious to you. Just pick any common mammal you might find outside and there’s a 95% chance that the female animal will take care of the child.
You seem to misunderstand me (deliberately??). Obviously female cats carry and nurse the young, but they also hunt, protect their territory etc (I.e. all the tasks you ascribed to males in your previous posts), because they live solitary.
The standard is always X. Are there exceptions? Absolutely.
Then the standard isn’t always X lmfao
Are you trying to seem more stupid than you are right now? Is a human with two arms not the standard because there are a small amount of people with more or less? Is a cat with a tail no longer the standard because there are cats without tails?
A standard is a standard if the majority of cases fit it. If 95% of all humans had brown hair, that would be the standard. Period.
Stop coming up with these dumbass arguments.
You didn’t say it was the standard, you said it was always the standard. If there are exceptions, then it isn’t always the case.
That’s female, not woman, but it was a nice try
I know you probably don’t want to hear this, but from a biological standpoint, it’s the same thing. Different female animals have their “own” names aswell, like Ewe (female sheep), Sow (female Pigs), Hen (female Chicken), Doe (female goat), Mare (female horse) etc. Same thing for humans - we just happen to call the female ones “Woman”.
That’s not a “biological standpoint” it’s a social one. We invented the names for animals. And there’s more than one word for female horse because it was useful for us to differentiate foal/yearling/filly/mare, and males get an extra one if they’re castrated.
Speaking of inventing names for things: biological sex is not the same concept as gender even though they are very often aligned and used interchangeably. It’s just people who don’t know enough about anthropology and biology lack the full context to understand that.
foal/yearling/filly/mare
Those are different things tho, mostly seperated by age.
Foals are baby horses (roughly equal to “baby”), yearling are young horses (roughly equal to “kid”), fillys are young female horses (roughly equal to “girl”) and mares are adult female horses (roughly equal to “woman”).
biological sex is not the same concept as gender
That’s why I specifically said “from a biological standpoint”. I’m well aware that some people may choose the opposite gender so it differs from the biological sex.
From a biological standpoint, there is no such thing as a woman, just like there is no such thing as a fish or a vegetable from a biological standpoint.
“From a biological standpoint” you’re still wrong because the real world isn’t simple. There’s more chromosome options than XX/XY. There’s various disorders that can cause people to develop in ways contrary to their sex chromosomes. There’s chimeras, intersex, people born missing parts of their body.
“Biological sex” is a convenient simplification like “there are three phases of matter” or the concept of tidy electron orbitals.
There’s various **disorders **that can cause
Exactly. And that’s what they are. Disorders. That doesn’t mean it breaks the status quo. If 100 people are born with two arms and one person is born with three, we don’t go around saying “humans can be born with 2 or 3 arms!”. No, we still say that humans are born with two arms.
Trying to extend definitions to include every possible whim of nature is completely futile.
If 100 people are born with two arms and one person is born with three, we don’t go around saying “humans can be born with 2 or 3 arms!”.
What? Yes we do. Only about one out of every hundred people is born with red hair, and we definitely say that humans can be born with red hair. If one out of every hundred people was born with three arms, we would absolutely say that some humans are born with three arms. We certainly couldn’t use having two arms in our definition of human
You can’t help but say a wrong thing in every single comment
I’m well aware that some people may choose the opposite gender so it differs from the biological sex.
Nobody chooses their gender. That’s kind of the whole thing with dysphoria. If a trans person could simply choose to be the gender that matches their sex, they wouldn’t have dysphoria
Okay, you’re getting kinda annoying here. I was talking about biological genders and you start talking about dysphoria, which has absolutely nothing to do with that. I just have the feeling you are trying to derail the conversation to bitch about things I never even talked about.
I’m not going to respond to any other comments of you, but I do wish you a nice evening. :)
You brought up the concept of people being able to choose their gender. You think dysphoria has absolutely nothing to do with the interplay between a person’s gender and biological sex? Hey by the way, “biological sex” is the thing that you talk about for a person’s physical body. If you feel that people are misunderstanding you, maybe you should use the right words.
You can always choose to simply not leave comments about things you don’t know anything about. I highly recommend it
deleted by creator
Same thing for humans - we just happen to call the female ones “Woman”.
You still haven’t defined “female,” you’ve just written paragraphs and paragraphs of behavior that you usually associate with female animals, while acknowledging that there are male animals that also exhibit those behaviors.
How do you define female?
And from a linguistical standpoint on the other hand…
… which I’m not talking about.
It is deeply confusing to me why people think they can define a word in a way that covers all it’s meaning and no additional ones and make fun of those who admit they can’t.
Challenge for anyone, define “to eat”. Remember, you have to cover eating soup but not drinking tea, or smoothie. But obviously, that isn’t everything.
It shouldn’t be that confusing, considering this is literally the challenge lawmakers (honest ones, as rare as they are) face.
There’s a great blog post by Neil Gaiman (despite recent revelations about his misconduct) that talks about “why we must defend icky speech”.
Long story short, the law is a blunt instrument. If you cannot clearly and accurately define the terms being used in the language of the law then you wind up with a law that can be applied beyond the intended scope. Like when you write laws about freedom of religion and then wind up with The Satanic Temple erecting statues of Baphomet in court houses. Or banning the Bible from library because it contains depictions of violence and sexual deviancy or promiscuity
These issues aren’t just academic. They have real-world consequences. Like, there have literally been legal rulings made based on the presence or absence of an Oxford comma
Is that kind of pedantry useful to the average conversation? No, of course not. But there are people trying to make laws that target women, or trans women, and if they can’t accurately define what a woman is then the law can be used to target people they didn’t want targeted.
Which is one of many reasons why trying to target trans folks with legal authority is a fool’s errand
What shouldn’t be confusing?
In this particular case the available words are easily found in a dictionary, and if it comes to law you can easily write about cisgender women and transgender women.
The problem is people that want the word women to not include trans women. They want to say trans women are not women, while also saying trans men aren’t women, and that’s why to them it is gets confusing talking about what gender is. Because once they realise they are basically saying trans people are not people, they subconsciously know they are morally wrong. And it’s confusing when you think you are doing something that is morally right, while knowing (maybe only subconsciously) you’re not.
Honestly, I don’t know what you are trying to tell me. I am not trying to be rude, I just don’t understand. But I have a point that I understood and disagree with.
Defining words isn’t the “challenge” of lawmakers. Most words used in most legal systems are undefined within it and the rest are defined by words which aren’t defined. E.g. the American legal system is built on that acknowledgement. That is why they work with case law. (Also I wasn’t talking about defining words in a legal setting. So not sure why we talk about it like this)
That’s because historically what we call drinking has less to do with the contents and more to do with the container
I am not disagreeing with you (while I am not convinced by your claim) but can you imagine how the “what is a woman?” Crowd would lose their marbles when you would say “whether it is eating or drinking, depends on the container and we 100% artificially decided what container is for eating or drinking” they would 100% claim that you don’t know what it means to eat.
When I was a kid and got hungry before dinner was ready, my solution was to pour a bowl of water to eat it with a spoon. I don’t know why I put some things on the internet.
