Yes this! I hate when people say biology supports their trans/homo/ect. phobia when in reality it absolutely does not
Transphobic people must really hate frogs.
And many kinds of fish! Like clown fish : ]
I am trans and love toads
Which doesn’t prove the above statement but it hints towards it.
How do you feel about trans fish?
Edit el
Especially the gay ones.
I think those are called amfibiphobes
i don’t think transphobes are educated enough to know frog biology. and if they are they suffer from a “humans are not animals” kind of mentality and put humanity on a pedestal of not being like the other
girlsliving beings on this planetWe aren’t like other animals though, we are the top species when it comes to resource usage and waste per capita!
It’s 1st grade biology!
Yes, it is. Advertising the fact that you only know biology up to a 1st grade level is not the flex you think it is.
Taxonomy isn’t biology, though. It’s a man-made classification system. And at the species level it’s much closer to binary definitions than spectrums. So maybe not the best analogy to make.
As is gender:
A man-made classification system
So I’d say it fits perfectly
But taxonomy aims (even though it sometimes fails) to classify organisms into rigid categories, which is exactly the thing you want to avoid with gender, right?
Just like how we understand that species at a real level are actually a spectrum, we do the same thing with our (self-identified) genders. We feel a certain way about ourselves and find the closest available definition to provide to others. It may not be a 100% exact match to you and you will likely have nuance, but so do species.
It actually is helpful, too because it lets others know how you’d like to be treated in a word.
I like this, chihuahuas and wolves are the same species, but are very different morphologically.
Rigid: inflexible, unmoving
Ridged: has ridges (like Ruffles)
ha, thanks!
No problemo
So biology isn’t man made but god inspired?
I’m not quite sure how you got there, but you can check my reply to dustyData in this thread. I think that should clear up your question.
You seem to see taxonomy as separate of biology and by devaluing taxonomy as man made, you heavily imply that biology isn’t
It’s likely easier for people to learn to love trans people than understand there are no fish… If that tells you anything.
Gender: fish
Is that you, Gil?
Is that you, Mr. Limpet?
Nice to meet you, MrMcLure
:: ice cream: ________
31 Flavors
I prefer smizmar
Just gonna swing by and drop this little grenade:
If you believe “race doesn’t exist”, then this post also applies to you. If you can refer to different genders while also understanding that at the individual level definitions are fluid and blurry, then you can refer to different races while also understanding that at the individual level definitions are fluid and blurry.
Got it, fish are racist confirmed.
Of course some fish are racist, especially humans.
Fish absolutely exist cladistically, OP just didn’t want to admit they’re a land dwelling fish. You believe the implications of cladistics or you don’t, cowards.
I’d also argue it’s relatively easy to separate fish-fish from land fish from land fish that became sea fish again to bully the fish fish.
You sound exactly like a specimen from the Dunning-Krueger clade
I’m not gonna lie man this one sounded better in your head
Considering that you misspelled the name of a common term and that’s not a biological classification I’m going to stand by what the doctorates who taught my zoology courses said.
Is fish just another name for vertebrates ?
Nah. You could have a fish that evolved out of having a spine (see: Chuck Schumer) but you can’t evolve out of a clade.
Seems so. Wikipedia tells there are seven classes of vertebrates:
- Agnatha (jawless fishes, paraphyletic)
- Chondrichthyes (cartilaginous fishes)
- Osteichthyes (bony fishes, paraphyletic)
- Amphibia (amphibians)
- Reptilia (reptiles, paraphyletic)
- Aves (birds)
- Mammalia (mammals)
So yes, fishes is the same thing as vertebrates.
Probably because if you were a vertebrate living in the sea, you needed some sort of gills and fins and such. And those are what makes people assume something is a “fish”.
Diogenes strips naked and does a cannonball into the pool
“Behold! A fish!”
I wonder if that guy did shrooms.
even Ancient Egyptians enjoyed some psychedelic lotus, so it’s pretty likely. Psychedelic drugs have been a staple of human fucking around since forever
Fish do not exist because of pedantic technicalities? Reality isn’t real
It’s more that biological classification is tricky and linear, and vertebrates went in and out of the ocean a few times
Aha okay. That makes me feel better, thank you.
Have you heard about birds?
It’s worse.Birds also don’t exist, it’s all government drones.
I mean they’re just dinosaurs, which are also reptiles, which are also fish.
Birds, surprisingly, are just air fish.
Birds are the fish of the sky soup.
This is like bemoaning the fact that doctors don’t treat “the humors” anymore. We gained knowledge that invalidated what we thought we knew, so we’ve updated our understanding. Unless you’re a taxonomical marine biologist, it’s really very unimportant anyway, I wouldn’t worry about it.
At least I can stop worrying about the fishmen abducting me in my sleep, they don’t exist anymore because of this classification revelation
Yeah, they never existed to begin with, sowwy
Please.
Please daddy.
FTFY
Papacito
I’d say that since all men are fish-men your worries should be increasing.
That Innsmouth look.
No no, it’s that humans are technically in the fish group of evolution, even though it happened a LONG time ago. That’s what they mean by “cladistically”, there is no “clade” of fish. Look up “humans are hagfish by Clint’s Reptiles”. He explains it wonderfully
Wow. This video was great. Thank you!!
Just because we lack a definition, doesn’t mean something doesn’t exist.
It’s not even that we lack a way to define fish, it’s more that we lack a definition that isn’t arbitrary. One can define them as something like “vertebrates, except for all these ones that we don’t want to include”, but then there’s not really a clear reason to exclude all the amphibians and reptiles and mammals and such, other than that they don’t traditionally get called fish. Some of them even live in water, and a handful of fish can leave the water to a limited extent, so it isn’t even that.
So you are saying Pluto is a fish?
When it’s a grouping that we lack the definition for, then the group doesn’t really exist, even if it’s members do and we all gave a good idea of what are, for instance, fish. Basically the group ‘fish’ contains all the things you think are fish, which is problematic as someone else may have a different idea of which things belong in the group, and while that’s fine when talking coloquially, you can’t really use it when trying to discuss things in a rigerous fashion.
The vast majority of language is not “rigorous”. Colloquial definitions are incredibly important.
Which is fine as long as you don’t try to make rigid distinctions out of your arbitrary colloquia and claim to be acting logically.
You can make distinctions based on similar “fuzzy” definitions, as long as you allow room for inevitable exceptions.
Yes.
We don’t lack a definition, we actually just have so many narrower definitions that we don’t need one for “fish” anymore. The old, broad definitions become archaic and often inaccurate as we gain more knowledge.
Yeah I disagree with the idea that there is no such thing as a fish.
It’s like saying that there are no striped animals because both zebras and snakes can have stripes.
Sure, there is no common ancestor for hundreds of millions of years but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t a thing. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Scientists said the oceans would run out of fish by 2048. In fact, fish stopped existing today. Sick burn.
Unfortunately I could still read this, needs more jpeg.
I try to tell folks all the time that biology is not as simplistic as they think. It’s basically an endeavor of humans trying to make simplistic categories out of a naturally complicated clusterfuck. Some things defy labels, not everything fits into a nice, easy little box. Life is complicated. Get over it.
Bees are fish.
(in California)
Pizza is a vegetable
Things a Republican Congress will vote for are crazy man
“Gender is absolutely the same way.” - from How to Start a Vicious Online Argument
Honestly I sometimes feel like going to certain online communities and just making a single post that says “gender” and then vanishing and watching the ensuing arguments.
They called him “The Sniper”. He would strike without warning, always vanishing into the ether. No downvote could stop him. No harsh rebuke could change his merciless ways.
I was going to say ‘how about bony fish?’, but then I checked and I am technically a bony fish (Osteichthyes).
Regarding “fish” Old classification relied on “phenotype” characteristics. And yes lamprey, a shark or a cod has little in common genetically. But they still share some common traits that distinguishes them considerably from whales, sea lions and seals. I still think the term “fish” is useful, and modern classifications rely more on genetics so I would say that the argument is semi void.
They didn’t say that fish wasn’t a useful concept, they said that the more you delve into the facts, the less certain you can be that it has a definite meaning that can be pinned down scientifically.
People think the science agrees with them that the world can be divided into fish and not fish, but that’s absolutely not what the science is saying, and their understanding is superficial.
Similarly, the terms male and female are generally quite useful, but the people who think that there’s some kind of scientific and absolute binary distinction between them are just incorrect, and their understanding is superficial.
I mean there are lots of differences between male and female.
In the same way, there are lots of differences between fish and non fish.
actually no such thing as fish
ELI22 undergrad degree?
Take “Spider” for example, that is a fairly well definied term for all animals in the order “Araneae”. But that doesn’t really work for the term “Fish”. There a many dozens of completely different orders with thousands of species that are refered to as “Fish”. It’s a bit like saying “thing that swims in the water”.
My 5 year old says “thing that swims in the ocean/lake with exception of mamals is good fish”
You’ll get a lot of squids, seeweed, and all kinds of stuff with that, but not a bad start for a 5 year old. She’s way on her way to being a taxonomist :D
Then an axelotal is a fish,
When organizing the big family tree of everything that’s alive, you use clades, which means a group that all of the individuals in it have the same common ancestor. E.g. All vertebrates, wether mammals, reptiles, etc, have the same vertebrate ancestor. Mammals also share the same tetrapod ancestor, so they’re all tetrapods.
Fish doesn’t work like that, because we don’t count all the its ancestors as fish (tetrapods have a common bony fish ancestor, for example, but you wouldn’t call a parrot a fish). But you know what a fish is. We call this a paraphyletic group.
Source (Tumblr), alternate frontend
