These kinds of charts are usually used to compare things that, in this case, wouldn’t be science, but humourously could be considered science if given a chance

But the other guy is right-if you don’t follow the scientific method and don’t try to describe your findings in ways that attempt to better understand the universe, then that’s not science. That’s bias

I feel like the only person in the world who dislikes oreos

After Ublock, its easily my favourite addon

Librewolf be like:

I agree that English is a constantly changing language, with many words meaning the same thing or single words meaning multiple different things. It’s the case with the male man, derived from werman, as is such with many other words

But your point ignores what I was trying to say

Anybody who feels the need to specify gender with such limited information is simply being sexist. Neither male nor female should be assumed in this instance

This goes for people other than those in the post; scholars and students should be held accountable alike

Whether these historic individuals were male or female is irrelevant. Only their creations truly matter

I’m confused by this quote - no sane person would assume a male did something just because we say man did it. In this instance, man would simply be referencing humanity

The want to define whether a male or female did it without any evidence is simply sexist