Alyssa Nguyen
@alyssa3467.bsky.social
Now with 20% more Emotional Damage™
So you couldn't find any that are exactly as you say they are. Unsurprising.
November 13, 2025 at 1:50 PM
So you couldn't find any that are exactly as you say they are. Unsurprising.
Reposted by Alyssa Nguyen
You are absolutely right. At all stages of the criminal justice system victims suffer further trauma, and it starts at the very beginning.
www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/only-1-in-10...
www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/only-1-in-10...
73% of rape survivors say police treatment worsened their mental health | End Violence Against Women
The second survey of rape survivors’ experiences of policing has been published today, 12th November 2024, finding that police responses are improving for those who have reported rape and sexual assau...
www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk
November 13, 2025 at 7:17 AM
You are absolutely right. At all stages of the criminal justice system victims suffer further trauma, and it starts at the very beginning.
www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/only-1-in-10...
www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/only-1-in-10...
You don't understand why your question is irrelevant even though it has been explained multiple times.
November 13, 2025 at 12:42 PM
You don't understand why your question is irrelevant even though it has been explained multiple times.
Do you know what the word "assumption" means?
November 12, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Do you know what the word "assumption" means?
Which makes it an assumption
November 12, 2025 at 7:08 PM
Which makes it an assumption
Anything immutable would have to be theoretical (e.g. universal constants), magical (supernatural would also fall in this category, in my opinion), or just plain fictional. Nothing in the real world is.
November 12, 2025 at 6:25 PM
Anything immutable would have to be theoretical (e.g. universal constants), magical (supernatural would also fall in this category, in my opinion), or just plain fictional. Nothing in the real world is.
tl;dr: "Will you accept my assumptions at face value?"
Trying to deflect again, I see…
No matter what I answer, it wouldn't change the fact that you didn't do anything to support any of that, much less what I said about individuals not able to fill any reproductive role.
Trying to deflect again, I see…
No matter what I answer, it wouldn't change the fact that you didn't do anything to support any of that, much less what I said about individuals not able to fill any reproductive role.
I do, but you don’t. You are gender critical. You believe that sex is supernaturally ordained, immutable and strictly binary. This is religious nonsense.
November 12, 2025 at 6:19 PM
tl;dr: "Will you accept my assumptions at face value?"
Trying to deflect again, I see…
No matter what I answer, it wouldn't change the fact that you didn't do anything to support any of that, much less what I said about individuals not able to fill any reproductive role.
Trying to deflect again, I see…
No matter what I answer, it wouldn't change the fact that you didn't do anything to support any of that, much less what I said about individuals not able to fill any reproductive role.
None of that is true. 🤣 You just pile in assumption after assumption and have addressed none of them at all.
November 12, 2025 at 5:58 PM
None of that is true. 🤣 You just pile in assumption after assumption and have addressed none of them at all.
He can't answer questions directly while accusing others of exactly that.
How do you think the data is being recorded? Depending on the subject matter, they're not going to be simply writing "male" or "female." They're going to be much more specific, recording what structures are *actually present*.
November 12, 2025 at 5:39 PM
He can't answer questions directly while accusing others of exactly that.
I was asking about an observer who knows absolutely nothing about birds. You just make assumption after assumption, consistent with what I said earlier about your ideology.
November 12, 2025 at 4:37 PM
I was asking about an observer who knows absolutely nothing about birds. You just make assumption after assumption, consistent with what I said earlier about your ideology.
![A screen capture of a query to Microsoft Copilot. The title reads "Understanding Assumptions in…"
There are three thumbnail images that appear to be screenshots. The query reads "Give a simplified response so that quackometer may understand.
The response reads:
Here’s a simplified version of Alyssa’s point, tailored for clarity:
> If you see just one bird in a cage, and you don’t know anything about birds, you can’t tell what its reproductive role is. You don’t know if it lays eggs, mates, or does anything reproductive. You only see a bird.
>
> To say “this bird is female because females lay eggs” assumes you already know something about the species. But Alyssa’s point is: if you truly know nothing, you can’t make that call. You’d have to say “I don’t know.”
It’s like seeing one soccer player standing on a [end]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:oai7watg3xrhhlmff273f3up/bafkreidl5drtqehdnk262drwkkitl3gn4uhlws4axhvm7ut6agqv6vtsxy@jpeg)
![A screenshot that is a continuation of a conversation titled "Understanding Assumptions in…"
The response:
It’s like seeing one soccer player standing on a field and trying to guess their position—goalie, striker, defender—without seeing them play or knowing the rules. You can’t. You’d just say “unknown.”
Want me to map this into a decision tree or protocol-style logic? I think that might help reinforce the distinction Alyssa’s making.
[end]
The user has responded "Yes". The response to that is cut off.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:oai7watg3xrhhlmff273f3up/bafkreihee2ulvvbzsw6mkdrpls252s5ytky7c2qbu6qbdp2bq4l2hq3sxq@jpeg)
November 12, 2025 at 4:28 PM
Not at all. You responded to my pointing out that you repeatedly ignore the possibility of individuals being unable to fill any reproductive role whatsoever by showing me a bird in confinement. That doesn't address what I said at all. Then you described things that cannot be seen with only one bird.
November 12, 2025 at 4:04 PM
Not at all. You responded to my pointing out that you repeatedly ignore the possibility of individuals being unable to fill any reproductive role whatsoever by showing me a bird in confinement. That doesn't address what I said at all. Then you described things that cannot be seen with only one bird.
Not when all they see is that one caged bird.
You're still ignoring any individuals in the group not participating, whether they're unwilling or unable. Showing me a caged bird doesn't address that in the slightest.
You're still ignoring any individuals in the group not participating, whether they're unwilling or unable. Showing me a caged bird doesn't address that in the slightest.
a soccer field with a stadium in the background that says the day radio stand
ALT: a soccer field with a stadium in the background that says the day radio stand
media.tenor.com
November 12, 2025 at 4:02 PM
Not when all they see is that one caged bird.
You're still ignoring any individuals in the group not participating, whether they're unwilling or unable. Showing me a caged bird doesn't address that in the slightest.
You're still ignoring any individuals in the group not participating, whether they're unwilling or unable. Showing me a caged bird doesn't address that in the slightest.
I've responded to your questions even more directly, and you do exactly that.
What you're doing now is refusing to recognize what information you're actually giving in your answers, and how that information was derived. You refuse to accept anything that challenges your existing beliefs.
What you're doing now is refusing to recognize what information you're actually giving in your answers, and how that information was derived. You refuse to accept anything that challenges your existing beliefs.
November 12, 2025 at 3:57 PM
I've responded to your questions even more directly, and you do exactly that.
What you're doing now is refusing to recognize what information you're actually giving in your answers, and how that information was derived. You refuse to accept anything that challenges your existing beliefs.
What you're doing now is refusing to recognize what information you're actually giving in your answers, and how that information was derived. You refuse to accept anything that challenges your existing beliefs.
You're conflating concepts.
If an observer came by knowing nothing about the bird, its species, or birds in general, they would not be able to say *anything* about its reproductive role since they wouldn't be able to observe it. If asked, the only honest answerthey can give would be "unknown".
If an observer came by knowing nothing about the bird, its species, or birds in general, they would not be able to say *anything* about its reproductive role since they wouldn't be able to observe it. If asked, the only honest answerthey can give would be "unknown".
November 12, 2025 at 3:53 PM
You're conflating concepts.
If an observer came by knowing nothing about the bird, its species, or birds in general, they would not be able to say *anything* about its reproductive role since they wouldn't be able to observe it. If asked, the only honest answerthey can give would be "unknown".
If an observer came by knowing nothing about the bird, its species, or birds in general, they would not be able to say *anything* about its reproductive role since they wouldn't be able to observe it. If asked, the only honest answerthey can give would be "unknown".
Do you see any evidence to suggest that I would? Or even that I would confirm it?
You've been dancing around the question without ever actually answering it.
What is being recorded?
You've been dancing around the question without ever actually answering it.
What is being recorded?
November 12, 2025 at 3:45 PM
Do you see any evidence to suggest that I would? Or even that I would confirm it?
You've been dancing around the question without ever actually answering it.
What is being recorded?
You've been dancing around the question without ever actually answering it.
What is being recorded?
You have to be particularly dishonest, or maybe ignorant and unobservant, by completely disregarding all of the individuals who play *no* reproductive role, or worse, insisting that they actually do have some reproductive role when there is no way for them to fill the role you've assigned them.
November 12, 2025 at 3:43 PM
You have to be particularly dishonest, or maybe ignorant and unobservant, by completely disregarding all of the individuals who play *no* reproductive role, or worse, insisting that they actually do have some reproductive role when there is no way for them to fill the role you've assigned them.
All you're doing is using a lot of words to make yourself feel smart. First you basically said sex is plumage, since you said they look at plumage & go from there. Then you dedicated an entire post to write about behavior, and effectively confirmed it by saying sex is expressed through plumage.
November 12, 2025 at 3:39 PM
All you're doing is using a lot of words to make yourself feel smart. First you basically said sex is plumage, since you said they look at plumage & go from there. Then you dedicated an entire post to write about behavior, and effectively confirmed it by saying sex is expressed through plumage.
Still nothing about what sex actually is…
November 12, 2025 at 3:23 PM
Still nothing about what sex actually is…
You clearly don't understand the difference between an observation and an assumption.
November 12, 2025 at 3:20 PM
You clearly don't understand the difference between an observation and an assumption.
The question: How do they determine what to put?
You said:
• Look at plumage
• Record "male" or "female".
Any reasonable person would conclude that you believe sex is plumage, since plumage is what they looked at. Anything else would be based on assumptions, not what you actually said.
You said:
• Look at plumage
• Record "male" or "female".
Any reasonable person would conclude that you believe sex is plumage, since plumage is what they looked at. Anything else would be based on assumptions, not what you actually said.
November 12, 2025 at 3:19 PM
The question: How do they determine what to put?
You said:
• Look at plumage
• Record "male" or "female".
Any reasonable person would conclude that you believe sex is plumage, since plumage is what they looked at. Anything else would be based on assumptions, not what you actually said.
You said:
• Look at plumage
• Record "male" or "female".
Any reasonable person would conclude that you believe sex is plumage, since plumage is what they looked at. Anything else would be based on assumptions, not what you actually said.
No. You can't even explain what is being recorded if they say just "male" or "female," yet you insist that's what's being done. Depending on what they're studying, they would record specific observations, not vague characterizations.
November 12, 2025 at 3:16 PM
No. You can't even explain what is being recorded if they say just "male" or "female," yet you insist that's what's being done. Depending on what they're studying, they would record specific observations, not vague characterizations.
So you're saying sex is plumage then.
November 12, 2025 at 3:13 PM
So you're saying sex is plumage then.
You're just demonstrating again how heavily your ideology relies on assumptions.
Answer the question. How do they determine what to put when/if they record sex?
Answer the question. How do they determine what to put when/if they record sex?
November 12, 2025 at 3:12 PM
You're just demonstrating again how heavily your ideology relies on assumptions.
Answer the question. How do they determine what to put when/if they record sex?
Answer the question. How do they determine what to put when/if they record sex?