It is not “pointless nitpicking”. It is very important holding fast against allowing very determined forces of hate any foothold whatever.

I argue 3 things:

1. Irrespective the truth value of your claim you should not forward that position as there are forces of oppression who will latch onto any conceit of inherent differences between cis and trans people and claim that is the oh-so-important difference around which they claim the need to organize the oppression they are rabidly looking for excuses for
2. Your claim is not true under the commonly understood nor scientific consensus of what “sex” is
3. Even under your claim—which I consider simplistic and reductive—that sex is mere reproductive capability via sperm or eggs your assertion remains false

although it can be lost

No one “in casual conversation” considers someone “sexless” when they lose their gonads to cancer, nor do you know the “sex” of anyone to whose sex you have referred in going on high-90s percent of cases by your ridiculously narrow definition—I can’t imagine in those cases where you find yourself considering using either term you jam the person with a needle or jerk them off into a cup and bust out a microscope to check motility.

Finally I’m not sure what you hope to gain by your pedantry—they’re never gonna let you into the car.

Being trans myself, I will gladly tell you no one can change their biological sex yet

This is wrong.

“Sex” is determined by myriad inter-related physical and chemical factors which are absolutely capable of changing.

The view you are adding whatever credence being trans gives you to the discussion not only is incorrect it is adopted and propagated to back-justify oppression.

Do not do that.

A woman who was assigned female at birth and later lost her uterus to cancer wouldn’t stop being referred to as “female, late 40s” when her chart is being filled out by EMTs. The distinction you are attempting to hold up is meaningless to how “sex” gets used socially and epidemiologically.

Could say the same about your birth we looked at the compound odds.

Is “you’re defensive” suppose to influence me like “imagine” was?

So rather than defending what you purport to be a valid use you’re just going to attempt to leverage social rejection by implying no one else holds the same opinion I do?

That supposed to make me feel bad and lead to my changing my position?

It won’t.

Every single person on the planet save me could have to opposite view I dol that would just mean everyone else but me is wrong.

Until either I acquiesce to “beg” meaning “raise” or I die “beg” as in “prompt” will remain an incorrect usage because there will be someone holding the line saying “This far and no farther.”

Since you don’t appear interested in arguing FOR the meaning you claim the phrase should (and does not) have, I hope you’re prepared to kill me.

The rhetorical equivalent of pointing and laughing won’t get you what you want.

Begging the question means something. It does not mean something else.

“Imagine”?

No single individual is an evolutionary pressure,

Every single individual is an evolutionary pressure; fuck do you mean?

Wait till you hear about the two different uses of the word “literally”.

“literally” doesn’t mean “figuratively” either. Showing another mistake is not proving any point you think it is.

Language evolves.

And individuals which are eaten do not contribute to future evolution.

I view it has by duty to stop the reproduction of errors around “begs the question” and so long as I am around to fight it “begs the question” is not a synonym for “raises” or “prompts” the question.

You’re damn right it evolves and I am an evolutionary pressure.

what does it mean?

To offer as proof of an assertion something requiring as much if not more proof than the thing for which it is offered as proof.

Here’s an articular about it. Ignore the section about “vernacular use”. That should properly read, “Wrong fucking use, by jackasses.”

Lemmy users finding out phrases can have multiple meanings

One, I don’t use fucking lemmy, and two there is a difference between “multiple meanings” and “incorrect meanings”.

“Begs the question” means something and misusing the phrase destroys that meaning.

It doesn’t beg the fucking question.

That isn’t what that fucking means.

Already happened in 2018

And they didn’t make a deal out of it. 🤔

Don’t know how they handled it in '56.

You do you as we live in a free world.

You don’t know where I live.

The only thing I would be concerned about it if it was illegal to cover your camera

You not concerned about the possibility of someone spying on you? Regardless, treating cameras as eyes is damn good practice.

That’s not the point. The point is “linux” is not reason to inherently trust a system.

Cover your cameras (as a compromise to ripping them out with a soldering iron).

The Fediverse is the Fediverse by not being Meta. You are arguing for destroying the Fediverse for everyone by waving Meta in.

Why do you keep putting my and others’ @ in your messages? If that’s a your instance thing it’s weird.

Why would you give them that extra inch though? Cover your cameras.

Removed by mod

that’s not how the perception of the masses works, though.

How can allowing access to everything on something people start out viewing as the defualt make it seem like less of the default?

Only by things existing outside of threads can people realize it it not.

people hate Facebook. Or Meta.

I agree; people rightly hate facebook and meta

I never said that people should use Threads to join the Fediverse. I said that people who already use Threads can be more easily convinced to join this place.

How will you convince them if they can get everything the fediverse offers without leaving Threads?

Removed by mod