Can someone explain how the board members changed? Board members of a nonprofit don't have owners to report to, they don't just magically get exchanged with people of different viewpoints.

(Why do reporters just casually drop facts like this without explaining them? Did they think nobody would ask that question?)

I don't know what he's talking about, Hixie was on the front lines of running Embrace, Extend, Extinguish over HTML, with the goal of turning Web browsers into a proprietary operating system. He's the figure primarily responsible for Google abandoning the W3C (the organization that standardizes most Web media types and other layers above HTTP, including XML, HTML, CSS, EPUB, PNG, and scripting APIs like WebRTC, DOM, and IndexedDB).

He went so far as to personally write a competitor HTML spec, the WHATWG spec, chock-full of scripting APIs that have nothing to do with HTML and only implemented by Google to this day. You say you liked "don't be evil" but I just can't believe you, Hixie

The specific numbers don't matter and I purposefully wasn't being precise because it doesn't matter. Not only are you being pedantic but you're assuming the most malicious possible interoperation, when maybe I'm just trying to point out that some intersex conditions leave people effectively pre-pubescent their whole lives. (The only thing wrong with my paragraph is that man/woman implies sexually mature adult.) The fact remains, only one man and one women produces children, and all of evolutionary biology makes this assumption, and no science that we invent will change evolution.

The whole point of Ship of Theseus is that at the end of the experiment, you wind up with two ships, both plausibly called the "Ship of Theseus". This isn't true of your thought experiment.

I made no such change. Male is the sex that produce small gametes. Female is the sex that produce large gametes. Just about all of the differences between men and women stem from this, including virtually all of the physical differences and the vast majority of social differences (including why we prefer to protect women and children over men).

Then from this, a man is an adult human male, a woman is an adult human female. Sometimes there's a laundry list of exceptions you have to add if you don't want to be misleading but it will never be the case that the terms are meaningless and you can by all measurements be an average male and then call yourself a woman, any more than I could claim I'm four years old.

This has no bearing whatsoever on the point I'm arguing. It sounds like you agree with my larger point and you can't bring yourself to do anything but argue irrelevant nuance?

The whole point of women's sports is that if sports were a giant open category, then women would represent none of the top athletes. Not every person is cut out to be an athlete, maybe we could do without the Paralympic games. But knowing right off the bat, it is a statistical certainty that a very visible half the population will never make it to the winner's podium, that seems a bit excessive doesn't it? Give them a chance to compete if they want to.

Now if you're one of the one thousand men who's better than the fastest women sprinter in the world, suppose tomorrow that all of them decide they're women, how much muscle mass do those sprinters have to cut out of their body before it's fair to the other athletes in the women's category, those who are healthy and produce large gametes?

In before >But what about women who produce testosterone.

So what? Rules that exclude or benefit small numbers people who are naturally strong are still fair, this isn't any different in men's sports. Almost all of these inane questions can be answered by >can/will/did you produce sperm? If yes, enter the Mens or Open category.

Read literally the part after the semicolon, I tell you straight up how age impacts things. Are you even trying to understand me here? Why do I even bother replying at this point?

It doesn't make a difference. You can piece by piece make men more woman-like in numerous respects (and vice-versa), sometimes even enough to fool other people, but that's all you can do. You can bet if a woman tries to get this procedure, that someone in the healthcare bureaucracy will raise their eyebrows, because that would be redundant. Likewise a man with your hypothetical procedure will never be able to fairly compete in woman's sports because he will still have all of the physical advantages of being a man.

My point is and remains: Words exist to describe things, and the most accurate, most complete, best description of this person will always be "male human with numerous female traits".

And don't lecture me about "moving the goalposts" when this isn't a competition. Once again, the larger point being argued is that a man can't walk into a Woman's locker room just because he "feels like a woman"—and pointing out the existence of intersex people doesn't change that (as an ancestor tried to argue, which is what I come here to argue against). Just because women's sports qualifications sometimes has grey areas doesn't mean it's OK for Mike Tyson to enter the women's boxing competition, that's how any of this works.

If you pair a random man and a random woman and they have sex for a month, three quarters of them will wind up with a child; and the one-quarter that don't will overwhelmingly be pre-pubescent or post-menopausal. You don't have to do anything special, this is inherently how biology works.

Now contrast this to: "what if (with a great amount of labor and effort) we could produce an egg from a man." That this requires a great amount of labor and effort only supports the observation that there is a binary difference between male and female: If you were trying to get an egg from a woman there is nothing special you would have to do.

Now fine, suppose we manage to develop an egg from a man (otherwise sperm-producing), maybe it would be more biologically accurate to call this egg the "mother" as far as the zygote's ancestry is concerned. But this would change nothing else about the man's biology, and he will continue to be described by and ruled by all of the trends and laws that to govern men instead of women. But words exist to describe things in meaningful ways and you don't get to walk into a women's locker room just because you "feel" like a woman one day. That's not how these words work at all.

Absolutely not. Consider how being an adoptive mother doesn't disprove the notion of motherhood (just because you're not genetically related to the child), it means you're only filling the child-rearing aspects of motherhood that's expected among almost all mammals.

Likewise, sex is a fractal of related concepts that have evolved together over literally billions of years which our biology makes deep assumptions about to an extent we will never fully appreciate. If someone manages to produce a baby from two eggs, that doesn't mean you win the argument, that just means you've found yet another way to divide concept of what it means to be male vs. female, but the fact will remain that creating a baby from two women will be and will always remain a vastly more complicated and expensive process than simply man and woman having sex, so much so that binary sex will remain a useful concept in biology.

Overwhelmingly these distinctions are clear from context and don't need to be distinguished, and you shouldn't demand such rigor when talking about sex either.

Look I think most everything you said is technically correct, but I'm not going to go on detailing the specific conditions of being one sex or the other when it would fill up entire books, and in any event, a reasonable person should be able to figure out the nuances with five seconds of thought.

Whether any living person can trace their ancestry to something other than an egg and a sperm is neither relevant nor applicable

The fact that no person can trace their ancestry to something other than a zygote (the cell formed by an egg and a sperm) I offer as evidence that sex is binary with exceptions, rather than a spectrum (be it normal or bimodal). Is that a fair way to put it?

I made no such implication that gamete production is necessary to being male or female, I did not mean to imply that and I think you're wrong to jump to that conclusion.

Sex implicates a fractal of characteristics, like secondary sex characteristics and gender roles; but the largest and most important aspect is the ability to produce offspring as we owe our existence to this fact and our whole evolution and all of our biology revolves around binary sex. I never said ability to reproduce is strictly "necessary", have you considered instead the point I'm making is that billions of years of evolution and all of Mammalian biology has settled around the fact that sex is binary and immutable and those people who think they can change their sex by decree are going to be in for a hard time.

But even if you're sterile, it still overwhelmingly useful to describe people as male or female, (1) because in many cases, we can isolate a cause of infertility which is often very minor compared to the differences between men and women; and we can even cure many of these causes, and (2) because "female but infertile" or "female but expresses a preference for male classification" is still overwhelmingly a better descriptor of someone than "male but has XX chromosomes, has a uterus, produces eggs, and physical characteristics of height and strength of those statistically associated with those with XX chromosomes"

I agree that there's very few conditions that are strictly binary (in fact, being pregnant and having Down's syndrome are the only two that come to mind). You are wrong however, in that sex can in any way be non-binary. There is no person alive who can trace their being to a 60% egg/40% sperm and a 70% sperm/30% egg. It does not exist. Sometimes we talk of non-binary or intersex persons and this might make sense when speaking in a context of chimeras or gender expression or secondary sex characteristics, but do not assume from this that sex itself can be nonbinary.

If you want to say "This is mostly right but I think it's worth pointing out..." then fine: but here you're just being obtuse.

You're not refuting the point: Presumably you agree that that men who have XY chromosomes and produce small gametes are not women. Yes, intersex conditions and chimeras exist. That doesn't mean that men can become women. If you produce sperm you're not a woman, and if you produce eggs you're not a man.

Yes, you can portray yourself as the opposite sex and sometimes even do it well enough to the point where most people won't care. But for purposes of human sexual reproduction, for which every single human on this Earth owes their life, you cannot switch sex, and you're being a dimwit and you know it.

[Citation needed]

I look at your claim, then I look at what Trump actually said, and these are two totally different things. Trump said he won the election because of election interference (sounding an awful like Democrats in 2016), and encouraged his supporters to peacefully protest. That's it.

He literally inspired a guy to shoot up the Congressional baseball game, wounding Rep. Steve Scalise.

I don't actually like this line of reasoning (blaming one person's attempted murder on another politician's speech), but if you get to use it then so do I.

Well then don't pick on the study, pick on the headline. Sometimes we're confident there's an effect, but we're not sure the magnitude, or how it compares to other phenomenon.

Uh, you're going to have to connect the dots there. According to their 2021 financials, they have less than a billion US Dollars in money on hand.

$66B is their market cap, and that number has actually fallen to $57B. That's from shares of stock that other people own: they can't actually convert that to money. The owners of those shares would receive the money from selling it, not the company.

What in the world are you talking about? Have you even used JavaScript?

> console.log(1 + anUndefinedVariable);
< Uncaught ReferenceError: anUndefinedVariable is not defined

Do you understand what a 64-bit IEEE floating point is?

Is it possible this might be the movie studios fault, or the law's fault, for not providing a non-revocable license to their movies?

Normally when you sell then watch a DVD, you only need a license to press the disc. When you're a streaming service and your customer begins watching a movie, the streaming service has to have a license that covers time you stream the movie. Copyright law considers each of those streams a separate copy.

I would like to propose one possible confounder that us greatly under-appreciated: age.

If men have been in the profession for longer on average (which is plausible), then of course they will have more authorship credit, because that comes with more experience.

I don't know if this is true in this case. But age confounders appear everywhere. In America, the single biggest correlation to wealth is your age. And the average age of White-Americans is double that of Asian-Americans, which in turn is double that of Hispanic-Americans; hence, if you didn't control for age, there appears to be a huge wealth disparity caused by race (when in fact, it's confounded by age).