Thread by @FondOfBeetles

Hello @seanmcarroll

Can you explain why this chart places unambiguous males (testes, vas deferens etc, prostate, penis, scrotum) as “more female” than females with ovaries, uterus etc, vagina and an enlarged clitoris?

https://twitter.com/seanmcarroll/status/1592168158865281025

Do you think an enlarged clitoris (owing to a hormonal adrenal issue) is “sufficiently male” to judge females with them as “more male” than, well, actual males with actual penises?

I assume you recognise how 🤢 that is?

Further, why does the chart place males with unambiguously male phenotypes as “more female” than other males with ambiguous, occasionally female-typical, external genitalia?

I mean, huh? 🤯

Why does the chart map males with high testosterone who don’t have a DSD (although they may have other medical issues) to a pathway that says they have normal ovaries/uterus/etc and might suffer irregular periods.

I mean, huh? 😂

Why is low sperm count on the “more female” side of typical male? We trying to cast low fertility/infertility as making someone less of a man?

Jesus. More 🤢

Why use one box when you can use five to generate the illusion of complexity?

Why use straightforward arrows with rational box placement when you switch things up to generate the illusion of complexity?

Gotta get those crossed arrows in, otherwise people might realise it’s more simple than you want them to believe.

Why use straightforward arrows when you can use random placement of boxes to permit swooshy ones to generate the illusion of complexity?