Mass shooting at south Minneapolis church

[ANNEE]

Ignorance is your bliss and you prove it every day by cherry picking your sources to prove a non existent point

And you don't?

Everything with you is Blue vs Red.  Not exactly non-partisan.

"There are such things as blue cities in red states......get a clue buddy"

Just because you don't like particular statistics or how they're calculated -- does not make them wrong.

[Unknownparadox]

Wake up, man.

Mass Shootings by State 2025

And I just showed you this morning where they are blatantly counting what they want and ignoring what they want.

[BeyondKnowledge]

A video of some more of this shooters background just showed up in my recommendations.




It seems they had multiple problems with their life. Not the least of which was not getting help or the right help.

[PorkChop96]

And you don't?

Everything with you is Blue vs Red.  Not exactly non-partisan.

"There are such things as blue cities in red states......get a clue buddy"

Just because you don't like particular statistics or how they're calculated -- does not make them wrong.

I've never claimed to be "non-partisan", not sure why you would even bring that up. But, I am also going to call out each side for things they are doing wrong. 

In this case, they are looking at a state crime rate, when most of the crime is being done in one or two cities. Take Missouri for example, 99% of Missouri is a Red state, but a very large majority of crime is done is Kansas City and St. Louis which are both Blue cities.   Want another? Take Texas, 90% Red state, and again most crime is done in Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin, which are Blue cities. 

But, the link and statistics given by that member, were calling out the states with the highest crime rates, not calling out the cities. They are not looking at the actual numbers, they are cherry picking the data that helps them make a point that isn't there. Out of the top 10 most dangerous cities in the US, there are only 2 or 3 that aren't Blue cities. 

It's not that I don't like the statistics, which I don't because they are incorrect, it's that they are not looking at the correct data.

[chr0naut]

 I think the answer to that question is pretty obvious. But I don't have any facts to back it up, and neither do I care to research it. Let me counter your question with 2 questions. 

Why do we now need the term "CIS" male? Since the trans are born in the wrong body, they would be "CIS" gender. Since gender now means what sex you think you are, not what sex you are.

And why do we need the trans term? You can not transition, transform, transfer, to the opposite sex. Either you are a transsexual or you are not. AKA a person living as the opposite sex, even though they were born the opposite sex.

If over complicating this stuff is suppose to make it real. It isn't working.

The thing is, while the usual expression of human DNA has two sexes, humand sexuality is a dynamic thing, changing over time from birth to death, and also there are significant numbers born with indeterminant sex. This is because there are many separate and independent biological systems that determine both gender and sex.

Human sexuality isnt binary. It is a spectrum.

Even in ancient religious writings, such as the Bible, they speak of eunuchs that are born that way, as well as those that are made.

It has been estimated that 1 in 100 people born in the US are intersex of some sort.

The current right-wing psuedo-religious belief that there are only ever two sexes just shows that they don't know their Bible.

[Unknownparadox]

The thing is, while the usual expression of human DNA has two sexes, humand sexuality is a dynamic thing, changing over time from birth to death, and also there are significant numbers born with indeterminant sex. This is because there are many separate and independent biological systems that determine both gender and sex.

You forgot to add plastic to that list. 
 

Human sexuality isnt binary. It is a spectrum.

Even in ancient religious writings, such as the Bible, they speak of eunuchs that are born that way, as well as those that are made.

It has been estimated that 1 in 100 people born in the US are intersex of some sort.

The current right-wing psuedo-religious belief that there are only ever two sexes just shows that they don't know their Bible.

There are only 2 sexes. Intersex is not a new sex. And you can probably thank plastic for that high number these days, as there is no doubt, plastic causes genital birth defects.

[chr0naut]

You forgot to add plastic to that list. 
 
There are only 2 sexes. Intersex is not a new sex. And you can probably thank plastic for that high number these days, as there is no doubt, plastic causes genital birth defects.

The male chromosome is very vulnerable and accumulates errors over time and the degradation is provably heritable. This means that within the next 100,000 years, the human male chromosome will become biologically inviable.

In nature there have been several possible work-arounds to this, such as asexual reproduction, and by sequential hemaphrodism, although I suspect that by then, the human species will use technological methods to ensure it does not become extinct.

I suggest that you read the book "Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men".

Also, historical records reveal that intersex was a thing before there were plastics.

There are also many plant sterols and other androgenics in the environment as well as those that are man made.

The ideas that there are only and always two sexes, and that any divergences from this are 'modern' are ignorant misconceptions.

[Unknownparadox]

The male chromosome is very vulnerable and accumulates errors over time and the degradation is provably heritable. This means that within the next 100,000 years, the human male chromosome will become biologically inviable.

So 3 to 4 hundred thousand years for humans, before they can no longer breed. Well we had a good run.
 

Also, historical records reveal that intersex was a thing before there were plastics.

Right you are. There was also birth defects and cancer before plastic/oil.  And oil/plastic causes both. You are bathed in plastic daily as you were when you were in the womb. No where And I mean no where on the planet is there no plastic. We have plastic rain. there is a good chance you're are packing about 7 grams of it in you brain.

So the idea that a well known substance that releases hormone mimicking chemicals, along with causing birth defects, specifically, genital birth defects. That you are exposed to ever zeptosecond you are alive and dead. Is in the same category as other random naturally occurring substances, that you might happen across. Is ludicrous. It's like comparing a grain of sand to a planet. 

The ideas that there are only and always two sexes, and that any divergences from this are 'modern' are ignorant misconceptions.

So what do you call this other sex in humans? I know of male and female. What is its role in the reproductive act? Clearly evolution accomplished reproduction with 2 sexes. A third would be redundant. But I would like to know what it is called and where I can see one. Along with what it does for reproduction.

[UltraBudgie]

The male chromosome is very vulnerable and accumulates errors over time and the degradation is provably heritable. This means that within the next 100,000 years, the human male chromosome will become biologically inviable.

well you know i don't really believe in science but even so in specific i'm going to want a fact check on this as it seems a sensationalized and improperly extrapolated projection.

GPT-5:

Short answer: Mostly false.

Why:

The human Y chromosome has lost many genes over evolutionary time, but current evidence shows it is not rapidly degenerating toward disappearance within 100,000 years. Estimates of disappearance (if a simple linear loss were extrapolated) historically ranged into millions of years, not 100,000.

The Y does accumulate mutations because it is largely non‑recombining, but it also has mechanisms (palindromes, gene amplification, gene conversion) that preserve important genes and slow degeneration. Several recent studies conclude the Y has been stable for millions of years.

Loss of the Y in some somatic cells (mosaic loss of Y with age) is real and associated with disease risk, but this is a cellular/ageing phenomenon, not proof the Y will become inviable in the species.

Evolutionary outcomes for sex determination vary: in some species the male‑determining function has moved to other chromosomes or sex chromosomes have been replaced; that shows multiple possible long‑term trajectories, not an inevitable 100,000‑year collapse.

Conclusion: the claim that the male (Y) chromosome will become biologically inviable within 100,000 years is unsupported by current genetics and evolutionary evidence. If you want, I can list key studies that explain Y‑chromosome stability and mosaic loss.

Also,

I suggest that you read the book "Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men".

that seems to be from 2003 and more recent research does not support that conclusion? science is finding out stuff all the time. of course most of it is tricks and lies—haha!—but still.

[Moon68]

The male chromosome is very vulnerable and accumulates errors over time and the degradation is provably heritable. This means that within the next 100,000 years, the human male chromosome will become biologically inviable.

In nature there have been several possible work-arounds to this, such as asexual reproduction, and by sequential hemaphrodism, although I suspect that by then, the human species will use technological methods to ensure it does not become extinct.

I suggest that you read the book "Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men".

Also, historical records reveal that intersex was a thing before there were plastics.

There are also many plant sterols and other androgenics in the environment as well as those that are man made.

The ideas that there are only and always two sexes, and that any divergences from this are 'modern' are ignorant misconceptions.

Citing a science fiction novel as reference to try and prove a point?

Lolololol