StringJunky

You are banned! LOL So, what do you reckon to what's been said?

2 + 'defective'.

A man that covers his eyes cannot see...

"Co-written with Lee Perry, "Big Muff" originated when Martyn and Lee were having breakfast with Blackwell and his girlfriend Marianne with tea cups shaped like animals.[15][27] Martyn recalled: "Scratch is going, ‘Boy, look at the muff on that!’, looking at this horse. ‘Now put this with the pig, see? Now boy, this is one big muff!’ And he was going on about his big muff, and how it was going to get away with the powder puff and everything. That guy’s sense of humour is in the song. It’s silly, Jamaican silly."[27] The pair wrote the lyrics together at the breakfast table while Martyn later added the song's simplistic chords.[15] Described by critic Vivien Goldman as resembling "a new musical form, jazz-dub" -Wiki

I suppose the idea is the total number of photons that impact an area, rather than per time. I guess 1 photon could initiate harm.

When one has peace of mind.

I wasn't aware of the difference there. Cheers.

Cheers. Would it be fair to say that the distribution could be as though the variations fall on a continuum? If the continuum was expressed as a line graphically and we plotted all the points, each equating to a person, one can predict the status anywhere, and inbetween, on the line, even if it's not filled with a sample? Just because we don't have an infinite number of samples doesn't necessarily mean that the variation is not continuous. Is that logical? A rainbow looks discrete from a distance but it isn't when you look closer. E2A some more clarity and precision

If the sex and gender categories are continuums, how can one delineate them? It's like saying 'How many temperatures are there in temperature?'. It has occurred to me be, albeit belatedly, that the basic premise of the OP is incorrect.

To paraphrase something @MarkusHanke said: A model is a map of the territory, and not the territory itself. I think this thread highlights the difference between experts and novices: The more you understand nature, the more nuanced one finds it.

Yes. We have preset frameworks stored in our minds and we try to fit things to them, like the 'square peg in round hole' analogy iNow mentioned earlier.

Is a photon a wave or a particle? It depends how you measure it. Is a clownfish male or female? It depends (probably) when you measure it. You don't have any problem with the former, do you? @Endy0816 Yes, it would have added a new dimension to the movie.

Here's the process.:

Someone like the supermodel Hanne Gaby Odiele, who had hers removed because it was assessed that she should be a girl. If she had been allowed to keep hers, she would have been a candidate for testicular cancer. Would you like a spade?

https://www.breastcancer.org/research-news/men-at-high-risk-benefit-from-mammograms

The problem is our definitions are becoming increasingly out of date with new data.

That's what are they are called today: disorders. That may well change.

Would DI/distilled water help as well?

On this subject, most people are entrenched, naturally, because that is what we have been taught and exposed to. Most adults are a lost cause in accepting this, I think, and the educative focus should lie with guiding the impressionable generations. Change comes through children, not adults... that's why change takes such a long time.

This explains the different systems used in nature: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2016/im-xy-know-sex-determination-systems-101/

Aye. Focus on the outliers is not the best use of resources.

They were originally designed to measure those with severe cognitive issues and brain damage to see where their abilities lie and provide focussed assistance. It was meant for a limited set of disabled people, not to look at the full gamut of human abilities, which of course is vast. A fish that can't climb trees is not 'unintelligent'. It annoys me greatly that millions of people likely erroneously label themselves as thick, and others who attain high scores as 'better' overall than those with lower scores. MENSA is a vanity organisation imo.

Maybe you are not so hot on the skillset that's being measured, which is very narrow. Your strengths likely lie in other skills and abilities that are not covered in those tests..

You aren't so clever today! Just kidding. Online tests are a toy without professional evaluation for the right reasons. I would give them a wide berth.

If you were introducing the wines of France to someone, you wouldn't suggest them all at once, would you?