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.

The objective metric is how high and long you can draw out notes.

Doesn’t that unfairly favor states at higher altitudes?

What’s the math on Ukraine blowing up Russian oil refineries and a loss for Russia drying up the campaign funding for the people blocking climate solutions?

If you have a couple of Alexa devices

…then you have a couple too many. Why do you want Jeff Bezos listening to your fuck?

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.

No they aren’t.

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?

Threads will essentially become a giant billboard for the Fediverse and receive nothing in return.

No it won’t. You are either a fool or a liar.

Clearly Threads is seeking federation. Do you think Meta would seek out something bad for them?

“Give Meta what they want because they are foolish and don’t realize their desires will hurt them” seems to be your (terrible) argument.

I don’t think letting people interact with you without leaving Meta hurts Meta, no.

Building something bad actors aren’t allowed to access and telling people about it without letting Meta play middleman is how you get people off meta,not throwing open the doors to Evil.

This didn’t work, sadly.

How much are those relationships worth then?

And it doesn’t work because such platforms make you think that they are the default

You make Meta seem more like the default by allowing contact with you through it. Be something they can’t access while associating with evil.

I’m happy for you, or sorry that happened.

You are infinitely safer interacting with a Threads user here than by actually using Threads itself.

You should not be interacting with Threads. No one should be, and you should not legitimize it’s use.

You will not convince people to leave threads by letting them stay on threads and still talk to you.

I’m against it sounding like “Threads” i.e. as though it’s something Meta owns and controls. For all I know your use came first and the thing I hate is Meta appropriating it, though.

I apologize. I will be(e) nicer and kinder the next time someone spreads falsehoods about why giving genocide enablers a chance is good, actually.

I would hate to be responsible for negativity.
Mass death, after all, is no excuse for uncouth words.

You did not explain how federating with Meta hurts Meta. You could not have because it does not.

Facebook is not (yet?) negatively impacting the fediverse. Fediverse users are.

Meta negatively impacts everything by being Meta. You should not cover for nor defend them.

If that’s true, I hate it.

that’s why you have to get as many people here before the last e phase ;)

You are arguing for drinking gasoline before the spark comes rather than setting out a sign banning flammable liquids.

You cannot out Meta Meta or use their desire to hurt you against them. You can only oppose them with hard walls and hard lines.

I dislike Facebook, so that’s why I am here. But if the only way to stay in touch with people I know irl is on Threads, so be it.

Do you see how they are already using their size to control and negatively impact the fediverse? The very fact you are arguing that.

If you know them IRL, you can tell them IRL to get off of facebook.

If they won’t well, either keep talking to them IRL or reexamine who your friends are.