#bisexuality is not a modifier. it is a whole sexuality in of itself | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

villains4hire · 3 years

Text

(Inside Job)(Reagan Ridley)

Disclaimers:

(This bios contains heavy spoilers for starters along with the character, you have been warned)

1. I suggest blocking the tag ‘shadow manager’ if making fun of conspiracies, taking the piss out of politics or rich celebrities' such as Jeff Bezos getting eaten by a Kracken is uncomfortable for you. As this show does make fun of a lot of it and is inherently political. I will be doing my best to do what would be considered ‘rp acceptable’ while keeping the feeling of the show. I came up with the tag to avoid people searching up ‘deepstate’ or ‘reagan’.

2. Lizard people while a critique on the whole conspiracy itself, I will rework them into ‘deep ones’ or some kind of Eldritch horror or demon people in the populace instead. Mostly as I realize how offensive some of the Jewish community finds it and while I have some ties to such a background? I feel as though it’s prominent enough to address for the sake of comfort of other people. Cthulhu is canonically involved as a figure in the ‘Deepstate’ along with presumably Satan considering the blood sacrifices to them. So it works, as RP canon isn’t more important to me than actually not being a dickhead on something I don’t feel I have a place on addressing.

3. Feel free to have supernatural muses interact with Reagan, as she is beneficial to them and would work with them as part of her job. To either cover up their existence from the populace or to help appease their needs or demands. Granted this would have to be higher beings such as Cthulhu or Satan or even Angelic ones to appease them or some kind of ‘wealthy benefactor’? It depends really. Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Horror-esque ones and more are all fine. Feel free to discuss with me.

Do I want them to die: I am fine with a ‘version’ of her dying that she has in her place, but Reagan Ridley herself dying for the main body is a no go. Will I have/get icons: I have a lot of them. Tag: shadow manager - Pure Canon Verse, this pertains to her being more true to Inside Job’s already rather crazy universe. forever vacation - Reagan’s tag after the events at Cognito Inc? Has transcended multiple levels when it comes to technological capability and becomes open to Space Travel, Multiverse, etc. Think like Rick n’ Morty, but I’ll just say she’s more flexible in this verse. This verse was planned from the start when I had more info for how to proceed after the show ended? But it seems I’ll be able to just say a certain group of individuals is just ‘dead’ without spoilers or whatever, leaving Reagan with this since her show is no longer a thing that reached a conclusion. I’ve technically rped this verse as apart of Shadow Manager, but I’ll keep this tag specifically. She is now heavily open to plotting alternate canon/new canon to continue onwards. Age: 30 Sex: AMAB Gender: Trans Female. (This isn’t to justify myself, I do what I want. But she does have an androgynous fem body type. I’m aware cis women can look like that, but it’s heavily trans-coded and people often make fun of her for her looks. Along with the fact her name is Reagan as her dad most likely wanted a boy to begin with. I’ll also say and admit her body-type is inconsistent in how it’s presented at times so eh, whatever I guess) She’s fine with she/him, goes by multiple terms if asked. Race: She’s at least Asian-American and Caucasian in terms of lineage with her mom and dad. (Might be Japanese American? It was never fully confirmed as much as I can remember. Will update as needed)(It might be important to note that to some degree, I don’t really have her entirely human with how much she’s modified herself. I thought I’d have this here to make that more clear) Primary Species: Human (Previously and for pure canon verse), Full Synthetic Cyborg, (Currently for ‘Forever Vacation’ verse) Sexuality: Canonically Bisexual at the very least (Considering her ‘matches’ for the romance episode included women and men) Personality traits: Loyal. Lies. Loving in her own, awkward way. Has an aversion to touching unless by someone she likes, this is to the point compulsively punching someone so be warned. Flies off the handle a lot when angry and can become extremely violent. Will abuse her power as needed. Is not above committing atrocities or unethical practices. Is socially awkward at times. Is incredibly repressed sexually but has shown to be pretty horny at times? It depends. At times selfish. Has self-image doubt along with self-doubt, a bit of self-loathing thrown in there. Is often contradictory in morals or values at times. Is a rule stickler at times depending. Doesn’t really seem to see herself as evil, but is heavily cynical about how the world and people work. Is disappointed by the people around her constantly in not appreciating her or efforts. Is rather ruthless if pushed to the brink or just is at times. Sees herself as better than most. Is gullible to people she loves. Incredibly hard working. Often throws herself into her work instead of dealing with her emotional trauma or problems. Stubborn. Can often enter self-denial with her problems and resorts to the above. Ambitious. Dominating. Can be fun and is rather millennial-esque in terms of humor. Likes booze. Weird. Can sound out of her mind. Can be incredibly unstable. Stressed as fuck at nearly all hours of the day. Constantly making things efficient. Likes fast-food and snacks. Mental traits: Has ADHD, potentially autistic and or is on the anti-social disorder spectrum. (Sociopathy) or both. Has forms of heavy PTSD. Has the brain of a super genius from being heavily experimented on as a child or (embryo) along with her memories being pretty jacked up. (This part I’m just presuming considering the lengths of what her dad is willing to go to such as controlling her memories of her friends and family when she was a child). Has a near robotic mental state but a personality/flaws and problems, I base this on the comments of her own AI creation. Physical traits: Weighs around 141 pounds. Is around 5′5. Has a slightly prominent hooked nose. She does have breasts, but they’re not exactly that big. Her body-type is androgynous and has some hips and thighs but not a lot. It is there though however. Has weak endurance despite any augments she may have. Often wears a scrunchie. Has varying degrees of bags under her eyes. Powers:

Has MacGyver like abilities and can transform average objects into deadly weapons or turn trash or garbage into things she needs or otherwise. I’ll try not to abuse this or at least have a heavy downside to it at times.

Has incredible calculations on the fly along with able to create technology or understanding it nearly in a moment’s notice if given it and allowed to examine it. So while limited by the current level of tech that Earth has? She has shown able to create advanced AIs from scratch along with nanomachines.

Has nonmagnetic internal nanomachines inside her body to do as she needs or pleases. This is why she can stay up at weeks at a time and has demonstrated them before when using them for her ex-boyfriend. This still takes a mental toll however.

Has nonmagnetic implants and biological augments, though most of them are non-combative. It’s mostly to help with her reflexes, mental calculations along with physical capabilities at times. Mostly to explain her abilities within the show while also giving a touch of depth. Along with the fact she seems to be able to shake off drugs or booze. It wouldn’t be a surprise to me if she had artificial organs as well for some of it. It depends, as she can’t run for shit despite demonstrating some super human abilities. Uses mostly gadgets and such to compensate or her himbo friend ‘Brett’ for physical needs.

Being a super genius in able to analyze most forms of tech and re-engineering or modifying it to her needs on the fly.

Motivations: To be appreciated for her work and efforts and reach her goals. To destroy her enemies or people that cross her. To solve the worlds’ problems. To be loved. Backstory:

(Heavy Spoilers as mentioned)

Basically the Co-Manager of the Shadow Government Company in running the Deep State for the CEO of it and Shadow Elites known as ‘The Robes’. She’s been raised for this since a child, has been abused, manipulated or controlled in her memories or outright mocked by her father. Being isolated from her friends or other family other than her mother or outright abused and made to kill her own pets after accidently giving them cancer while trying to give them super powers. There’s probably more to it and I’m willing to say that more messed up stuff has occurred down the line. It is what it is. Then while a lesser offender, both her mother and father have been pretty ableist toward her and making their problems together hers in being an incredibly toxic and unstable family. So while sympathetic, likable and comedic at times? She does have a lot of problems and is a complex character rather than being reduced to one nuance of being Saturday cartoon evil. So it’s mostly dealing with the world and companies problems on a day to day basis while dealing with near apocalypses on a rather month by month basis. Then juggling the appeasement of the Shadow Elites, or Elites in other sectors while also maintaining some form of ethical conduct as best as she can or wants to at the time.

#villains #ic #shadow manager #bios #save #repost #forever vacation

8 notes · View notes

colorisbyshe · 4 years

Note

Look, I 100% agree asexuality isn’t inherently LGBT, but is the homophobia, biphobia, lesbophobia, and transphobia found in the ace community different from, say, a lesbophobic bisexual being serotophobic? Or a straight trans man being transmisogynistic? That’s what I don’t get. btw, one of your posts made me go down a rabbit hole and holy shit, batman, the ties the ace community has to radfems, swerfs, and terfs are no joke. I also found nazi and pro-ana shit. Why is nobody talking about this?

I mean I’ve said it before and I guess I’ll say it again, yeah, every community has bad actors. I would never ever pretend the LGBT community is free from awful people or ideologies or that those issues haven’t been present from the very start.

The difference is there is at least some... movement to address those things? Drop the T was like... something anyone could easily say in like 2009 with very little push back. “Yeah, focusing on trans issues is holding us back from gay marriage” is something people... genuinely did say. Without getting stabbed!

When nonbinary identities became more... known to LGBT people (don’t know how else to phrase that but like when language around transness began to explicitly include language baout nonbinary people specifically), bisexual people went, “Hey, just to clarify, the bi in bisexual doesn’t mean we can’t be attracted to nonbinary or be nonbinary ourselves.”

You see the LGBT community (not all of i t, not even necessarily most of it) react and there’s a general trend of getting better.

With the ace stuff, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Attempts to correct the ways some ace rhetoric is INHERENTLY anti-lgbt (sex positive/favorable aces, split attraction model, insisting it’s a sexual orientation and not a modifier, the ace spectrum, etc) are seen as attacks on the ace identity as a whole and shut down.

Of course, we’re in really early days of the ace community (it became mainstream less than 10 years ago and only began forming around when AVEN was created), so there could be a change but.. not until the defensiveness is gone.

Not until the entire thing stops being about being LGBT or “LGBT enough” and starts being about ending rape culture, misogyny, and misdirected homophobia which is all of the social issues affecting aces.

The discourse to positive on the world ratio for the ace community isn’t looking too hot right now. Like at least among all the fucking bullshit hte LGBT community has come up with... some social good has come of it.

So far the ace community has Yasmin Benoit saying weird shit about queerness that she shouldn’t be saying at all and almost all of what she has done is “You can be sexy without wanting sex” which is like... rudimentary feminism. So... the net positive of the ace community is just regurgitating feminism older than the ace community itself (NOT THE ACE IDENTITY, ACE COMMUNITY)

anyways no more ace discourse asks y’all i do not fucking care.

7 notes · View notes

arospecsyourblockdudes · 4 years

Note

hey there! I was wondering what you were mad about for that “omniromantic homosexual” and such post from soft sapphic love, I’m not very educated in discourse and such so I was curious. Thank uuuu have a nice dayyy

Hey no problem!

As a lesbian, what makes me mad about is that it applies the split-attraction model to non-ace/arospec sexualities which doesn’t really work. An asexual person can be romantically attracted to people, and an aromantic person can be sexually attracted to people. The two aren’t mutually exclusive.

But the whole bi lesbian thing doesn’t work out like that. The one thing every lesbian has in common is that we are not attracted to men in any way, shape, or form and that’s that. “Bisexual homoromantic” and “homosexual biromantic” just...don’t work together. Most likely, whoever started this was either a bi woman with a preference for women or a lesbian suffering from internalized lesbophobia/comphet.

The whole concept around it is extremely lesbophobic and biphobic. Bisexuality is a whole and complete sexuality in and of itself, it doesn’t need any modifiers. If a bi woman is sexually attracted to men and women but prefers to date women, she isn’t a lesbian. She’s bisexual. Just like she wouldn’t be straight if she preferred to date men. Bisexuals dont “switch out” what they are depending on preferences or who they’re dating/having sex with at the moment. Bisexuality is complete as is.

Also, the insinuations that any lesbian could be attracted to men is disgusting. If men who fetishize lesbians catch wind of this shit, they’re gonna keep on hitting on lesbians, asking “well are you one of the lesbians who still likes guys?” If a person enthusiastically has enjoyable and consensual sex with a man, they aren’t a lesbian. If a person enthusiastically enters a happy and fulfilling romantic relationship with a man, they aren’t a lesbian. Full stop.

I’m not going to sit by and let people take the one actual bit of lesbian exclusive culture we’re allowed to have, the label lesbian itself, (unsure your stance on who’s allowed to use butch/femme and such so I’m not going to get into it just for sake of staying on topic) for the sake of not invalidating an identity. Not everything is valid! I mean, hot take, but quite honestly you should give a good hard think about things and listen to other people’s opinions before you mindlessly repeat that whatever-the-fuck is totally valid! Countless lesbians and bi people have said that the whole concept of bi lesbians is lesbophobic and biphobic and yet the shit is still happening! It isn’t valid, it’s just purely based off of biphobia and lesbophobia. That’s why I get so upset over it and to be frank if you listened to us, you ought to be too

#sorry if i sound aggressive in the last bit #i get worked up over this stuff #its more of a general ‘you’ than being exclusively directed at anon #sorry if it comes across like that #angry lesbiab stereotype i know jdjdjdd #bi lesbian #bi lesbian discourse

29 notes · View notes

supernovabrain · 6 years

Text

defining asexuality

a huge problem with discussion of asexuality on this site is that nobody can agree what asexual means, and use the word to refer to multiple non-identical groups

consciously or not, a huge number of people switch between different interpretations of the word as they see fit - and in arguments these same people will tell me that i don’t understand asexuality, because i’m using a definition that they also use but doesn’t currently support their angle

(for context i’m coming at all this as someone who identified as asexual for several years, and while i have since dropped the label, very little about my experience of sexuality has changed)

orientation vs. modifier

when i first came across asexuality, i knew it as a standalone orientation in the same class as “gay” “straight” or “bi”, a statement of which genders you were attracted to (regardless of how that attraction manifested). so in the case of an asexual, the genders in question would be “none of them”

but i quickly discovered some people use it to describe the way they are attracted to people - take for example, a man who is attracted to other men exclusively, but does not consider his attraction sexual*. he is gay and also asexual, because of the way his attraction to other men manifests. in this case, the term is used as modifier alongside an orientation - it is not in the same class as “gay” or “straight” because it no longer refers to who, but how

[* more on this later]

an asexual in the orientation definition would be considered an aromantic asexual under the modifier framework - the word “asexual” by itself would not communicate their orientation.

likewise, the gay asexual man from the modifier definition would not be considered asexual by the orientation definition, because does experience attraction (to men)

an alternative version of the modifier definition is the split orientation definition - asexuals is still an orientation, but it refers specifically to sexual orientation, where “sexual” is interpreted as sexual feelings (rather than sex as an outdated term for gender). in this framework, the gay asexual man from before is now a homoromantic asexual man - his romantic orientation is towards men, and his sexual orientation is towards nobody. he may not even be considered gay anymore, as under this framework “gay” “straight” and “bisexual” are generally redefined as referring specifically to sexual feelings

this not only redefines sexual orientation (to the point that some people will claim this has always been its meaning), but also insists on compartmentalising ones orientation into discrete and independent categories. this framework may also assert the existence of platonic, aesthetic and sensual orientations

these days i see it mostly used as a modifier or split orientation in an identity context, but referenced as an orientation in discussion. if we accept that the use of “asexual” is contextual, this means that when discussing asexuality we need to identify which meaning is being used

for example, when you say kids should be taught about asexuality, are you referring to asexuality the orientation, as in ”it’s ok to not like anyone!”, or asexuality the modifier/split orientation, wherein you need to specifically refer to sexual feelings to communicate its meaning? is the definition of asexuality you choose here different from the one you generally use in online discussion?

in my experience, people may switch between these definitions depending on context - the same person may argue that asexual is an orientation in the category of being gay, bi, etc (orientation) and also state that asexual people can have romantic attractions (modifier).

leaving behind asexual as an orientation and focussing on asexual as a modifier/split orientation, there are still two distinct ways of defining what being asexual entails

relationship with sex vs. sexual attraction

many asexuals use asexuality to refer to a relationship with sex, even if contrary to the definition of asexual they would give when asked. “cake is better than sex”, “aces don’t give a fuck ;)”, equating asexuality to disgust/apathy/confusion regarding sex and adjacent behaviour (e.g. flirting), jokes about asexuals not needing to worry about STDs or contraceptives, lauding a fictional character who says they don’t like sex as canonically asexual.

this clashes with the well-quoted AVEN definition: “not experiencing sexual attraction”, where sexual attraction is emphatically stated as separate from high libido, wanting sex, enjoying sex, experiencing arousal, having/wanting sexual partners, and any other sexual behaviour or desire. being asexual can lead to a disinterest in sex, but not necessarily or by definition. sexual attraction is considered a discrete component of attraction, alongside romantic attraction (and sometime other forms too)

someone who considers themselves to experience sexual attraction (thus not asexual by the sexual attraction definition) could be considered asexual in their relationship to sex, potentially for reasons such as trauma, mental illness, dysphoria and internalised homophobia

likewise, someone can have a positive and enthusiastic relationship with sex including any kind of sexual behaviour and desire, but still be considered asexual if they evaluate themselves as not experiencing sexual attraction

this obfuscates many discussions surrounding asexuality. the same person may switch between interpretations depending on the situation, stating that talking about sex makes a space unsafe for asexuals (relationship to sex) and then stating that asexuals can want/have sex (sexual attraction)

i think the majority of people of tumblr (even those who do flit between these usages interchangeably) would, if asked to pick one, choose the modifier/split orientation definition (where asexuality refers specifically to sexual attraction, not attraction as a whole) and the sexual attraction definition. which brings me on to my next point

what is sexual attraction?

a lot of the above definitions hinge on the definition of sexual attraction. so what is it, exactly? the most common offhand definition i see floating around asexual communities boils down to “looking at someone and thinking “i want to bang them”. typical example:

[photo of a scantily clad woman lying on a bed]

so in a room a sexual, a demi/semy/grey, a repressed sexual and an asexual all see the above picture and say sexual...I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse demi/semi/grey...I would fuck that all day long and ride her like a race horse..as long as i knew her well enough first and i liked her repressed sexual...I aint looking asexual..ooo nice bed linen

these are usually phrased comically but also genuinely meant to communicate sexual attraction as having explicit thoughts/fantasies in response to seeing an attractive stranger. this is obviously a huge oversimplification and also not necessarily a common experience of people who do not identify as asexual

a more formal definition is:

Sexual attraction - Seeing someone and not only finding them attractive, but thinking you'd like to have sex with them, like fantasies and such. It's attraction to another person that at it's end wants to be physically intimate, as opposed to being attracted to someone in a way where you think, "I'd like to get to know them" or "I want to be their best friend" or "I want to be close to that person"

but as detailed above, wanting to have sex/sexual partners is not considered to be in conflict with asexuality, nor is wanting to/engaging in partnered sex. how can a person want to engage in physical intimacy with a person, but also classify as not wanting to engage in physical intimacy with that person?

the definition of “sexual attraction” remains nebulous and ill-defined, varies depending on who you ask, and is often in conflict with the proposed bounds of asexuality itself

when you have a community of people very narrowly defining a thing they claim not to experience, this pushes a lot of assumptions onto other people and misrepresents what is actually a normal and common experience as being an outlier

additionally, sexual attraction definitions often aim to isolate themselves completely from other forms of human connection. “wanting to have sex with someone because you love them” may for example not be considered sexual attraction, but romantic attraction at play. clinically dividing complex interpersonal feelings into distinct, mutually-exclusive experiences is not a healthy way of evaluating ourselves

compartmentalising attraction

[wip]

4 notes · View notes

heartofaquamarine · 7 years

Text

“Every model is wrong, but some are useful”

The title of this post comes from the statistician George Box, and discusses how the mathematical models we use to analyse and predict the world cannot, by their nature as an understandable simplification, provide an exact model of the world. That is to say, they are “wrong”. However, the errors can be small enough that we can use the models to make predictions that hold up in real life, such as how much weight a bridge can carry. That’s where the “useful” part comes in. A good example of this is the ideal gas law. No actual gas follows this law, but under certain conditions, their behaviour is close enough that it doesn’t matter.

An important thing to understand is you can have multiple models to describe the same thing. There are a vast array of different climate models, for instance, and while they broadly agree with each other there are important differences in the details. Some of these are due to limitations on computing power and time available, some are focused on certain aspects such as aerosol production, and some are simply using a new method of modelling the world. When we are dealing with subjects as complex as human sexuality or the climate, we need to simplify them somewhat to allow us to grasp, if not the whole concept, as much of it as we can. All of these models will lose some important details, hence why they are all wrong, but some retain enough of the information that we can use them to understand the world.

Quite a few other statisticians have issues with this aphorism, but that’s not what I want to talk about here. I want to talk about gender and sexuality, and how we think about them. A common comment, when we look back at history and retroactively apply certain traits and sexualities to them, is that they wouldn’t have chosen those terms because their internal models are entirely different. Parts of Greece and Rome, for instance, are said to have defined the roles in male-male sexual encounters in terms of who is being penetrated and who is doing the penetration. Nowadays we would define both partners as homosexual, but they used a different model to understand their interactions than we do now. Different people at different times, different places and in different circumstances will use different models Someone using a different model of sexuality and gender to you is not inherently bad, or a judgement on you. I say not inherently because there are absolutely models that fail that include various points. I’m going to use asexuality here as an example because that’s my own experiences, but I think the general points could be modified slightly and applied to most sexualities. Incomplete models, that is, ones that cannot handle the idea of someone not being attracted to anyone, fall into two catagories. The first is the “innocently” incomplete model; it is not that the person disbelieves in asexuality, but rather the idea that there is a gap in their empirical model of reality just hasn’t occurred to them. Contrast this to what we might call the “active” incompleteness model, where the model actively denies the existence of asexuality. I’ve encountered both of these kinds of incomplete model, as I suspect a lot of people have, and while the models are superficially similar how they react to the addition of an asexual person, or at least a person who claims they are asexual like myself. I put the “claims to be” part in there not as a way of throwing suspicion onto myself, but rather to acknowledge that people will claim I am lying or mistaken, that it is not possible to not be attracted to someone (you can insert “attracted to your own gender”, “attracted to more than one gender” or any other phrase you like there). Both models are wrong in the same way but the second model has a built in mechanism to avoid expanding the model to take into account an aspect of reality it had been lacking. The other thing about models is that, once you get beyond a certain point, adding more detail doesn’t help unless you are using a model for a particular purpose that takes that detail into account. The various terms and models of sexuality that we classify as being on the asexual and/or aromantic spectrums are important if you are in a situation that requires the distinction to be made. Usually this means you are, or are interacting with, someone under that umbrella or wish to compare the model to your own experiences to see if you might be under that umbrella yourself. For most people most of the time, adding this detail just adds more mental computing power, and it is enough to acknowledge that, yes, you might need to increase the resolution on your model when dealing with that particular area, just like a meteorologist looking at one particular region will increase that resolution, but for now your model is wrong, but useful in that it acknowledges the existence of the asexual spectrum.

A really good example of this is the romantic/sexual attraction divide. This is a really important distinction in the ace community, between romantic asexuals and aromantic asexuals, and it is also useful for people outside of it (for example, there are bisexuals who are only romantically attracted to one gender), but is useless if your romantic and your sexual attractions line up. It can even muddy the waters by introducing an alleyway that might not lead you to a helpful option. That being said, the mere fact that such a model is not useful to everyone does not make it useless, merely that we need to shift our discussions about such models from “this is how the world works” to “here are mental tools to help understand the world and your place in it, and here are some possible limitations to them”. I think gender is even more complicated to model than sexuality just because frankly I think the boundaries we have set on our concept of gender are incredibly fuzzy. The less well defined something is, the more difficult it is to model accurately, and we are really bad at defining gender. I think the three main models are as follows: biological gender, which states that someone’s gender is predetermined by their biology, usually chromosomes or genitals, social gender, in which gender is defined by the range of social expectations allowed with in it, and individual gender, in which gender is a property of each individual, that must be defined by each individual and social gender dynamics grow out of these definitions and their statistical distribution. Notably I have listed this in increasing order of immediate complexity. Biological gender claims to be less an explanatory model and more an empirical observation; these are the two types of people. I’m not fond of it for a couple of reasons. Firstly it doesn’t actually position the information in a new or useful way; it is merely a description of biological factors, and the distribution curves for what it tries to predict are large enough and include enough other factors that breaking it down this way doesn’t add anything. Secondly, it fails to account for intersex and non-binary people. The two ways it handles these are either to ignore them as edge cases, which works up until you need to include them as part of the model, or to outright deny their existence, which again, reduces the model’s effectiveness at describing reality. To make matters worse for this mode, it isn’t actually a particularly useful model day to day; when choosing what pronouns to apply to someone (a process that in itself is a conceptual model; there are languages with only one, non-gendered third person pronoun), you don’t ask for a karyotype test result or compared genitalia, but rather make the assumption from visible signifiers which don’t inherently match the biological sex.

The second one, social gender can be useful in examining social mechanisms and constructs, but in doing so creates a lot more edge cases. Now it isn’t just intersex and non-binary people that must be accounted for, but gender non-confirming people who, by definition, are edge cases in the model. The social model of gender becomes particularly dangerous, rather than simply incomplete to an alarming degree, when it becomes prescriptive instead of descriptive. To paraphrase a certain first century carpenter “The model was made for the people, the people were not made for the model”.

The final model, the individual model, essentially simply increases the resolution as high as it can go, and relies on people’s internal definition of gender. Full disclosure; I am agendered, so I don’t actually understand what it means to have a particular gender, but some people I know have very clear internal definitions. Some of these are based on physical sex or social norms; I think there’s quite a few cisgendered people who lack an internal definition like myself, but don’t have a reason to use a definition other than the biological one. We could call this being cis by default. Other definitions of gender are highly idiosyncratic, and to be honest I think this is inevitable just because, like I said above, the initial parameters that we are trying to model are really badly defined. What do we mean by gender? What weighting do we put onto different aspects of it? And that’s before we get into the question of working out the mechanisms that give rise to it; untangling biological and social influences is difficult enough given we can’t isolate and raise babies in a controlled lab because ethics is a thing and is important. As such, I think the best way to proceed is to find your own model, but acknowledge that it is not universal and accept other people’s own models of their gender. It’s unsatisfying, but at this point, what else can we do?

#long post #gender #sexuality #agender #asexuality #aromantism #George Box #Statistics #models #heterosexuality #homosexuality #gender models

91 notes · View notes

megapotatosaurus · 7 years

Text

Here we go again guys, @rebelbaze replied once more. I hope you’ve all been enjoying the show. For those of you wondering when it’s gonna end, the answer to that is right now. This will be my final response.

Full comments on this post.

“Yeah, dude, you’re LGBT because you’re pansexual. Not because you’re demi. […] YOU are just as pansexual as any other pansexual out there. You aren’t a watered down pansexual. Aren’t less of a pansexual. Which means cis straight aces aren’t any less cis or straight han their peers. And that means they share exactly zero meaningful experiences with me. I share as many experiences with a man who likes to be pegged by his wife as I do with cishet aces.” -rebelbaze

Well, I sure am glad to hear that I'm not a watered down pansexual. That sounds terrible! Painful, even.

However, I'm also cis. Am I oppressing you? Because obviously I'm no less cis than any other cis person. Ain't no watered down cis any more than a watered down pan. So why do I belong in your group, but not a cishet ace?

And who knows, maybe you do share some meaningful experiences with a guy who likes pegging. Maybe you both like the same brand of tea. Maybe you've both terrorised 'outsiders' on the internet. Who knows.

“Asexuality isn’t a sexual orientation, it is a modifier to sexual orientation the same way “kinky” or “polyamorous” is.” -rebelbaze

So asexuality is a 'modifier' now. What does it give, +1 to Wisdom? +5 to Empathy? Oh wait, that's impossible, because you're ace too apparently.

And when you say that asexuality isn't a sexual orientation, you're extending your attack from just cishet aces, to all aces. Sooo... that whole thing about not being aphobic? If it walks like an aphobe and talks like an aphobe, it's an aphobe.

“You do realize I’m not a single individual claiming cis straight aces aren’t LGBT right? Like, I am drawing on a four year degree studying LGBT history and have realized that there aren’t ANY mentions of ace people in the LGBT community before 2015?” -rebelbaze

I don't know what the fact that you studied LGBT+ history says about the “edcuation” system over there, but whatever you learned about history, it sure hasn't informed your present very well.

If you knew anything about LGBT+ history, and the present trends, you would know that you are not on the right side of it. You're not on the right side at all. It's only going to become broader, more open and welcoming, more intersectional. That's the way we're driving it. Because while there are angry and toxic and very vocal members who want to shut out those who 'do not belong,' they are very fortunately in the minority still.

And I assume if there aren't many mentions of ace people before then, it's because that's when they began gaining more awareness. A lot of the literature I've seen on asexuality has been dating from around 2014, 2015, 2016. But it certainly was a thing before then. Brotto et al.'s piece on asexuality dated from 2010, and had certainly been in the making long before that.

But more than that, just because these things weren't commonly known doesn't mean they were never a thing. It could well be that ace people have never been able to identify themselves as such until asexuality was coined and gained more presence. This is why visibility is so important. If bisexual, ace, pan, genderfluid, trans people are visible, then others will discover themselves, too. And these people deserve a place in the movement that fights for all forms of sexuality and gender identity. And they deserve to take that place safe in the knowledge that no one is going to pounce on the chance to tell them that they don't belong.

“Me loathing cis straight aces isn’t internalized aphobia. I don’t hate them because they’re ace. I hate them because they’re cis and straight.” -rebelbaze

And I'm very sorry to hear that. Ultimately, your hatred helps no one, and hurts you. I noticed that on your blog you reblogged some quotes from Carrie Fisher earlier today, including: “Resentment is like drinking poison and waiting for the other person to die.” The more you continue with this way of life and mindset, the more it will sit like poison in your stomach and eat, eat, eat away.

Let me tell you something. Your hatred is not hurting cis straight people. Cis straight people are fine. Cis straight people don't care about what LGBT+ people think about them, they aren't impacted by it.

Your hatred is hurting ace people.

I know it's hurting ace people, because in the few short hours I've been making posts here debating with you, I've had them approach me and tell me how brave I am, what a good job I'm doing, how they've battled with you and others like you for so long and are so tired of fighting.

Please, rethink your stance.

------

I'm going to stop conversing with you now. Just a few final points. Many people use the image of talking to a brick wall to describe how it feels to talk to someone who will never listen, who won't even consider your thoughts or opinions. I say to you now that talking to you has not been like conversing with a brick wall – it's been like kicking around a piece of gravel. An obstinate, ultimately irrelevant little piece of stone. The kind of stone that gets stuck in your shoe for a while, then you hammer it out and forget about it.

Stop making yourself irrelevant. If you would stand up beside your fellow aces, it would only make the movement stronger. As it is, you're barely even weakening it. People are just frustrated, and won't engage with you after a while.

Finally, a favourite quote of mine, attributed to St. Augustine: “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose, it will defend itself.” I promise you, with all certainty, that anyone who has read this exchange between us with a reasonable mind, some compassion in their heart, and an interest in enacting true social justice has agreed with my points, not yours.

I really do hope for your own sake, as well as everyone else's, that you will learn to look inside of yourself, confront your destructive emotions and eventually find peace.

#rebelbaze #ghiraheeheeheem #aphobia #asexual #asexuality #gatekeeping #lgbt

20 notes · View notes

kimabutch · 7 years

Text

Revolutionary Girl Utena Headcanon Survey: Results!!!

Thanks so much to everyone who responded to my survey! There were a few troll responses, but those have been deleted. The results are below. May be spoilers — proceed with caution!

Other responses:

Queer

is into women, not sure if bi

Lesbian, but society have influenced her to view men as attractive (princes) as shown by how she forgot Anthy through the change in the "fairy tale".

Series: Kinsey 2—predominantly heterosexual, but she does seem to have feelings for Anthy. Movie: straight-up Kinsey 3 bisexual.

Other responses:

Bi, but prefers girls because men tend to abuse her

ace lesbian

Too hard to say without seeing her after being out of abusive situations for a while.

I dont think it is knowable, to herself least of all.

Bisexual but also, bisexual is Not the same as pansexual. Pansexual is liking all genders. Bisexual is liking same gender + other gender, ie a person can like the same gender + nonbinary, but not male/female, thus making them Not pansexual. They're two completely different orientations so please don't erase bisexuality/pansexuality by combining them

Utenasexual

Demiromantic/demisexual

Series: demisexual/single-target sexuality on Utena; movie: bisexual/pansexual

Questioning but def into girls

Other responses:

Lesbian. She has never been attracted to that blue haired manipulative sexual harassing senpai of hers.

Demisexual

Other responses:

Not straight but Very Confused

Ace lesbian

Demisexual

Nanami seems a bit too immature to know her own sexuality yet—see: Nanami's Egg

Other responses:

Queer

She does what she wants

Bisexual, not pansexual.

Straight, but totally willing to make out with a girl for attention

Other responses:

Some flavor of queer -- I see her as falling heavily into compulsory heterosexuality without realizing it

She's gay but it's gonna take her a few years to figure that out

not sure if straight or bi

Bisexual, not pansexual.

maybe bi-curious?

Other responses:

Heavily closeted lesbian

Dr. Jekyll/ Mr. Bi

bitch

Other response:

Bisexual. It's heavily implied that she was the previous Duelist before Utena. She might have had a relationship with Anthy, which makes Anthy hate her even more after because she chose Akio.

(Neither Tokiko nor Keiko have any other responses.)

Other responses:

Queer, but mostly uses sex for power and not intimacy or gratification

Scum

who the fuck cares

asshole

Yes.

Hedonist

Pansexual but abusive/pedophilic. Is attracted to people not for their gender but for the extent of control he can wield over them.

rather than "no preference" can i put "no orientation" whatsoever because he is a bad manipulative man and attracted to revolutionary power alone

the devil

Toxic masculinity—sexuality is a weapon that he uses against women and men alike. I don't think attraction or orientation has anything to do with it. So maybe aromantic and pansexual?

Evil

Queer

Bad

Power that can be gained from their partner. Either over the partner or because of the partner.

He'd describe himself as Heterflexible

Biromantic asexual. He acts sexual throughout the series due to Akio's manipulation, not of his own desire to attract others sexually.

Other responses:

Queer

Hatefucksexual

Bisexual, but for the same gender attraction, he's very closeted and insecure about it.

Frustrated

Other response:

Mikage = Gay / Nemuro = Straight

Other responses:

Straight trans man

Trans lesbian

Greysexual

hyper-repressed trans lesbian

gay trans girl!!

Other responses:

He's Just A Kid Dude

He's prepubescent, so it's hard to say for certain

Other responses:

I Don't Even Remember This Guy

Likes girls, at least, but is so weird in approaching this that might be trans.

Other responses for the survey in general are under the cut!

I think that the entire purpose of trying to fit these characters into specific sexualities goes against a lot of the point of the show. I see the show as very much a queer (and queered) narrative, and a lot of the characters would fall onto the queer spectrum, and it seems almost incompatible with the project of calling into question pre-received categories of self that the show itself has to even have a survey with questions like this.

I only gave their sexual orientation based on the interactions I saw during the series. All of the men are straight because I didn't see (or remember) them interacting with other men in a romantic/sexual way. I didn't base their sexuality on their appearance or their(especially touga's) flamboyant personality.

A lot of the heterosexual relationships in this show are explicitly shown to be Fucked Up so like, idk. Like, I don't really have a hc for Tsuwabuki bc his romantic involvement with Nanami was just Bad and I don't really see it as indicative of an actual preference and more of like, a vulnerability to manipulation? And I feel like that's true for a lot of the characters, like their really manipulative or abusive relationships can't be taken as like an actual indication of preference. Especially the incestuous ones.

chu chu is gay

I love my gay dueling kids

Some of these people's orientation is 'bitch/asshole' if you ask me.

Chu Chu is clearly gay. Come on.

???lol utena isnt straightttt

fuck akio ohtori

Literally everyone is bi in the Utena universe. Nice and simple. It allows for ease of storytelling, being able to explore gender/sexuality themes without getting all label-y in a narrative that doesn't really use (or need) labels. I like Utena specifically because it focuses on the more interesting storytelling aspects of romance and heterosexism without unnecessary diversions of "am I gay or straight? oh no I can't decide!" (But then again some people think of that as the driving question of the whole series! I think everyone just pulls out themes they relate to.)

this show made me realise i was a lesbian. also dont ever ask me abt chu-chu's sex life again

everybody thats a douche is straight i don't make the rules it actual canon

Chigusa Sanjouin - bi

Shaddow Play Girls - sexualities indiscribable in our lowly human language

We Are All Wlw

you fool. chu chu is the Ultimate gay representation

chuchu is bi too

It's odd how I just assumed some of the characters e.g. Tatsuya and Keiko are straight just because they don't show attraction to anyone of the same gender in the show but honestly I don't care

Aro/Ace should be a modifier and not it's own category

Although I marked some down as straight, no one's really straight on this show. I can see everyone make exceptions, although they're still primarily what I marked them down as (as far as headcanons go)

I imagine that Utena, Shiori, and Saionji are on the closeted side of things at the beginning of the series.

STOP CHU-CHU ABUSE (also juri and miki are both aroace and platonic soulmates bc not everything has to be about romance i think)

Chu-Chu's orientation is frog.

What about the Shadow Players??? (Kidding)

Bisexual and pansexual are two completely different orientations. Please do not erase the two by combining them.

utena is very much in the closet and by the end of the series she comes to terms with being a butch lesbian thanx

Everything is lesbians

lesbean

Chuchu is chusexual (attracted to frogs).

nanami's orientation feels more complicated than straight but i feel like she'd live her life that way and say it as straight to simplify for people (and herself)

Didn't ChuChu date a frog?

honestly i dont really have an orientation hc for keiko either i was just really aware of the fact that i hadn't put "straight" for any of them and i was like "yea she's probably a straightie" but you dont need to factor that in to your results or anything its just a fun fact, a piece of trivia i chose to share here :-)

fuck i love these gays

chu chu is gay and i love him

#revolutionary girl utena #shoujo kakumei utena #rgu #long post

238 notes · View notes

genderheaven · 3 years

Note

Hey!! We just sent a WHOLE bunch of asks on the identity feedback doc and wanted to say that we might've forgotten to hit the anon button a few times, please don't publically post our blog! We haven't finished setting it up yet. Also we hope we could help a bit!!

hey, i really appreciate your help. i'll try to update everything with the information you gave me as soon as possible. i'm apparently missing parts 2 and 3, but i do have some comments other people made on some of the other stuff in that doc, so it might be covered in those. additionally, if you'd like to help out there's a discord server dedicated to that over here!

(pg. 1) I'm gonna send a few asks about things on your second opinions doc, they're all separate just for text length reasons but I did some research and wanted to share. I suggest you take these off your doc if you feel they've been resolved. Also I'm on desktop so I'll put parentheses inside all my links, just copy the link and remove the parentheses.

(pg. 4) For Inersgender, Apagender, or Anvisgender, I think the wording may just be a bit confusing. Perhaps it has to do more with not caring much to find any gender labels or feeling pressure to do so, but using some anyways. Maybe it has to do with not caring to find any other gender labels besides the original label for not caring to label one's gender much or at all. I think the terms could still be valuable, maybe if altered just a bit, but that's my opinion.

(pg. 5) I think Multi-Slider is a unique gender in and of its own right, one of my headmates uses it and they describe it as "having many static genders that all fluctuate in intensity, rather than being fluid between genders, as if there were 4 sliders for 4 different genders that all stayed the same but increased or decreased in intensity" which I think fits the original definition and is distinct enough from genderfluid to be its own label.

(pg. 6) I think what the coiner meant by describing kakogender as "dangerous" was that it felt dangerous, or they had some sort of "dangerous" gendered feelings. This could just be my personal interpretation, but I've seen other labels phrased this way and I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with it.

(pg. 7) I think transitional identities and modifiers can be genders in their own right, but it depends entirely on the person using those labels and in what ways they use them. I think it would be fine to include them as regular gender labels, considering they might be helpful for some people to use in that way, even though they might be redundant. (This is in response to your comment on perigender.)

(pg. 8) We use personagender! As a system we consider ourselves a personaboy/personaman since we all tend to skew masculine/male and we present ourselves outwardly as a man in public, to strangers, and in general. We find this term very helpful, since it specifies that we have a very complex and nuanced identity underneath our surface-level outwardly presented gender. That's just our personal experience, but it might be helpful.

(pg. 10) As for the DPD related orientations, I am speaking from a place of having a close loved one with DPD who I discussed these labels with but I myself do not have it. It's true that some labels could potentially encourage harmful behavior, but they also could describe legitimate and valid experiences of sexuality for a-spec people with DPD. We came to the conclusion that it's probably best to keep the labels for those who need them but specify they must be used in a healthy/responsible way.

(pg. 11) The comment you made on dwin-, respectfully, seemed a little misguided. Aromantic and asexual experiences are more than just not wanting to date or have sex. A-spec identities that fluctuate are more than not wanting to date or have sex sometimes. They have to do with attraction. The orientation label "dwin-" could describe wanting to take a break from dating in the same way "aromantic" could describe not wanting to date. It's more than that. It's a legitimate orientation/attraction.

(pg. 12) You made no comments on the "feu-" or "somnio-" orientation labels, but listed them. If you don't mind, I'd love to hear more about why they're listed or what confusion you have about them.

(pg. 13) One of us actually uses "dissociate-" and we understand why you're confused. Obviously one shouldn't be engaging in activity that harms them and makes them dissociate. We've actually discussed the term with our therapist, though. We use it because some of us dissociate whenever we think about or are exposed to romantic content we don't seek out, which makes it hard for us to know our orientation. Another label we think should be kept, but have warnings to use in a healthy/safe way.

(pg. 14) I absolutely agree about "aliquis" being panphobic, and it's also incredibly acephobic and completely misunderstands both pansexuality and demisexuality. Absolutely a term I think should be dropped.

(pg. 15) To us, "-flexible" as a label just describes the intensity or frequency of attraction. It feels very strange to make the assertion that the label is somehow a way to placate internalized homophobia. Technically, the same thing could be said about bisexuality, but there are also actual bisexual people who use that label because they're actually bisexual. Yes, a label can be used for the wrong reasons or due to internalized oppression, but that doesn't make the label itself wrong.

#tba #🌲.txt

1 note · View note

margdarsanme · 4 years

Text

NCERT Solutions for Class 12 Biology Chapter 1 Reproduction in Organisms

NCERT Solutions for Class 12 Solutions for Biology Chapter 1 Reproduction in Organisms

QUESTIONS FROM TEXTBOOK SOLVED

1. Why is reproduction essential for organisms?Ans: Reproduction is the ability of living organisms to produce a young one similar to itself. It ensures continuity of a species generation after generation. Reproduction introduces variation in the organisms. Useful variations are essential for adaptation and evolution. Therefore, it is essential for organisms.

2. Which Is a better mode of reproduction: sexual or asexual? Why?Ans: Sexual reproduction is a better mode of reproduction than asexual mode because the former contributes to the evolution of the species by introducing variation in a population and occurs much more rapidly. Variation in a population occurs because of the fusion of male and female gametes (sexual reproduction) carrying different sets of chromosomes.

3. Why is the offspring formed by asexual reproduction referred to as clone?Ans: Asexual reproduction is a type of reproduction in which a single individual is capable of producing offspring. These offspring are not only genetically and morphologically similar to one another but also similar to their parent. Clone is the term given to individuals that are genetically and morphologically similar. Thus the offspring produced by asexual reproduction are called clones.

4. Offspring formed due to sexual reproduction have better chances of survival. Why? Is this statement always true?Ans: The offspring that are produced by sexual reproduction are not genetically identical to their parents. They exhibit variations because they receive chromosomes from two different parents. Since they show variation, they are highly adapted to the changing environment. Asexually produced organisms are genetically identical and all organism show similar adaptations. So, during any calamity, there is a possibility that the whole generation would destroy leading to extinction of species. However, this statement is not true always because of some inborn genetic disorder due to which organism have a risk in their survival, e.g., Haemophilia.

5.How does the progeny formed from asexual reproduction differ from those formed by sexual reproduction?Ans: Production of offspring by a single parent without the formation and fiision of gametes is called asexual reproduction. It involves only mitotic cell division that gives rise the daughter cells which are genetically identical to the parent cell. Sexual reproduction is the production of offspring by two parents, male and female. It involves meiotic cell divisions producing haploid nuclei which on fusion produce offspring that are genetically different from their parents.

6. Distinguish between asexual and sexual reproduction. Why is vegetative reproduction also considered as a type of asexual reproduction?Ans: The difference between asexual and sexual reproduction are as follows :

In plants asexual reproduction is called vegetative reproduction because vegetative plant parts like rhizome, runner, sucker, tuber, bulb all are capable of producing off springs These parts give rise to daughter individuals without the involvement of two parents.

7. What is vegetative propagation? Give two suitable examples. Ans: Vegetative propagation in plants is a method of asexual reproduction in which the parts other than seeds are used as propagules. In fact, it is a method of propagation in those plants which have lost their capacity to produce, seeds or produce non-viable seeds (e.g., Banana, seedless Grapes, Rose, Pineapple, etc.) Among flowering plants, every part of the body, such as root, stem, leaf or bud takes part in vegetative propagation. Modified tuberous roots can be propagated vegetatively when planted in soil (e.g., sweet potato).Underground modified stems such as rhizomes (e.g., Ginger, Eichhornia or water hyacinth, etc.), corms (e.g., Colocasia, Banana, etc.), bulbs.(e.g., Garlic, onion, etc.), etc.

8. Define:(a)Juvenile phase(b)Reproductive phase(c)Senescent phase.Ans: (a)Juvenile phase : All organisms have to reach a certain stage of growth and maturity in their life before they can reproduce sexually. That period of growth is called juvenile phase. However, this phase is known as vegetative phase in plants. This phase is of different durations in different organisms.(b)Reproductive phase: The end of juvenile/ vegetative phase marks the beginning of reproductive phase. During this phase, the organisms produce offspring. In higher plants, this phase can be easily seen when they come to flower but in animals, the juvenile phase is followed by morphological and physiological changes prior to active reproductive behaviour. The reproductive phase is also of variable period in different organisms like some plants, flower throughout the year while others show seasonal flowering. In animals like birds lay eggs seasonally “but when in captivity (as in poultry farms) can be made to lay eggs throughout the year. Placental female mammals, undergo cyclical changes in reproductive organs during this phase.(c) Senescent phase: It begins from the end of the reproductive phase. During this phase of life span, there is progressive deterioration in the body (like slowing of metabolism, etc.). Old age ultimately leads to death.

9. Higher organisms have resorted to sexual reproduction in spite of its complexity. Why?Ans: Higher organisms have resorted to sexual reproduction in spite of its complexity because sexual reproduction results in multiplication and perpetuation of species and also contributes to evolution of species by introducing variation much more faster than asexual reproduction in a particular population. Sexual reproduction enables higher organisms to survive during unfavourable conditions.

10. Explain why meiosis and gametogenesis are always interlinked?Ans: In sexual reproducing organisms, meiosis occurs during gametogenesis to reduce the diploid number of chromosomes (2n) to haploid number of chromosomes (n) in the gametes. Thus, gametes are formed as a result of meiosis so that their chromosome number.

11. Identify each part in a flowering plant and write whether it is haploid (n) or diploid (2n).(a)Ovary ———————— (b)Anther ———————— (c)Egg ———————— (d)Pollen ———————— (e)Male gamete ———————— (f)Zygote ———————— Ans: (a)2n (b)2n (c)n (d)n (e)n (f)2n

12. Define external fertilization. Mention its disadvantages.Ans: When fusion of the gametes takes place outside the body of the organisms, it is called external fertilization or external syngamy. The external medium like water is required for this form of fertilization. This form, is found in many aquatic animals like fishes, amphibians, majority of algae.In this, parents release eggs and sperms in the surrounding water, then fertilization and development of offspring occur externally. Disadvantages of external fertilization:(i)if occurs only in aquatic medium.(ii)A chance factor is involved requiring synchronous release of gametes nearby and absence of turbulence of water.(iii)There is no protection to young ones. They are vulnerable to a number of predators.

13. Differentiate between a zoospore and a zygote. Ans: Zoospores are Ihe microscopic, flagellated (motile)special asexual reproductive structures found in certain members of the kingdom fungi and simple plants like algae whereas zygote is a diploid cell formed by die fusion of male and female gametes. The zygote is usually nonflagellated.Zoospores are the structures that give rise to new organism whereas zygote is formed after fertilization which develops into a mature organism.

14. Differentiate between gametogenesis from embryogenesis.Ans: Differences between gametogenesis and embryogenesis are as follows :

15. Describe the post-fertilization changes in a flower.Ans: In sexual reproduction, events that occur after the formation of zygote are called post-fertilization events. In flowering plants, the zygote is formed inside the ovule. After fertilization the sepals, petals and stamens of the flower wither and fall off. But the pistil remains attached to the plant. The zygote develops into the embryo and the ovules develop into the seed. The ovary develops into die fruit that develops.a thick wall called pericarp which is protective in – function. After dispersal, seeds germinate under favourable conditions to produce new plants.

16. What is % bisexual flower? Collect five bisexual flowers from your neighbourhood and with the help of your teacher find out their common and scientific names.Ans: Flowers in which male and female sex organs (stamens and carpels) are borne on the same flowers are called bisexual flowers. You can observe following bisexual flowers in your kitchen and colony gardens :(i)Brassica (sarson) – Brassica campestris(ii)Onion – Allium cepa(iii)Garden Pea (Edible pea) – Pisum sativum(iv)Petunia – Petunia hybrida(v)China rose (shoe flower) – Hibiscus rosa- sinensis.

17. Examine a few flowers of any cucurbit plant and try to identify the staminate and pistillate flowers. Do you know any other plant that bears unisexual flowers?Ans: The male or staminate flowers of cucurbits bear bright coloured petals and a prominent group of stamens. Male plants or staminate flowers do not bear fruits. The female or pistillate flowers bear fruits. In a fertilised young pistillate flower very small fruit is visible below petals and sepals. Some unisexual plants are : Papaya, Mulberry and Date-palm.

18. Why are offspring of oviparous animals at a greater risk as compared to offspring of viviparous animals?Ans: In oviparous animals, the development of the zygote takes place outside the body of the female parent whereas in viviparous animals, it takes place inside the body of the female. Because in oviparous animals, the fertilized eggs are laid in the open environment where they are not protected from the predators. Thus their survial rate is very less as compared to offspring of viviparous animals.

from Blogger http://www.margdarsan.com/2020/09/ncert-solutions-for-class-12-biology.html

0 notes

book-of-torments-blog · 6 years

Text

However more interesting and perhaps more pressing subjects present themselves as deserving of a more detailed discussion (the likes of which this blog purports to host), this fanatical obsession some have in regards to ‘pronouns’ and their supposed ideal usage in so-called progressive and politically correct circles bothers me to such an extent that I am forced to dwell on it a while.

Those of us begrudgingly associated with the ‘LGBTQIA+’ disaster of a monolith are well acquainted with the trend of seeing people who are not, in fact, gay or lesbian intrude upon our spaces, our debates, our lives, and co-opt our cause in their favour – that is how, indeed, a simple, already much too ambitious acronym transfigured itself into the aforementioned mess of ‘LGBTQIA+’ and its varieties, like the equally preposterous ‘MOGAI’ or ‘QUILTBAG’ denominations one sometimes stumbles upon while browsing Tumblr. It is a mystery that some will still refer themselves to ‘the gay community’ when it has been completely overrun by self-proclaimed ‘queers’, whose interests have no common points with those of actual homosexual people. Already when the ‘community’ was only about gay men and lesbian women there were issues of principles and priorities – and the deference was always to homosexual men’s needs, as one would expect in a misogynist society, for the link of oppression on the basis of sexuality (or any other, in that case) is evidently not enough to unite men and women under the same flag. Our sex is a barrier that, it seems, cannot be overcome. So if there was already a divide between homosexual men and women in the same movement, it is no wonder that the addition of ‘other sexualities’ and ‘genders’ as well as completely unrelated groups such as polyamorous straight people would only serve to fragment and confuse the movement and its objectives even further.

Compared to the larger implications of this entire process of decay, the pronoun mania seems relatively harmless, but the insistence upon modifying and bending language to the sole benefit of all these non-homosexuals over that of actual homosexuals has quite the impact on our lives. It is detrimental to homosexuals, women, and, most markedly, the intersection of these two groups: homosexual women.

It is also a problem that walks hand-in-hand with a whole bunch of other matters. The very denomination ‘queer’ serves as hindrance to female and gay needs and interests, as it erases the differences between sets of people who have very little in common to create the idea of homogeneity where there is none. A collectivity defined by non-definition is perhaps functional and cute in purely abstract debate to those who take pleasure in speaking of what does not exist for the purpose of pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation, but it serves for nothing in the real world. Rather, it serves to weaken the cohesion and limit the scope of political action the group in question could propose itself to pursue. The discussion of the emergence of ‘queer’ as an ‘umbrella term’ encompassing homosexuals, bisexuals, transgenders and all other groups deeming themselves ‘gay enough’ (or, worse, ‘gayer than’!) to belong as well as the effects it has merits an essay of its own. For now, suffice it to say that the manipulation of language done within a self-identified ‘LGBT’ community by those who are neither gay or lesbian – and with the naive support of gays and lesbians – is destructive and antagonistic to the very ideals that inspired the creation of a ‘community’ in the first place. It is destructive and it is divisive. How many hours have been spent in argument about the ‘validity’ of asexuals or demisexuals or straights who are ‘queering sex’, how much anonymous hatred spewed, how many women threatened for their views when we could have been focusing on securing better lives for gays and lesbians?

For something that sells itself off as extremely homogeneous to the point of believing a single word can translate the experiences of a fuckload of different people, the ‘queer community’ is also extremely invested in promulgating an infinity of micro-identities to those who fashion themselves its members. It presents the paradox of one word meant to represent gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders and the never-ending list of made-up sexualities as well as a plethora of imagined words allotted to each, both as an identifier of sexuality as well as of ‘gender’. Basically, a collection of (as has already been pointed out in some posts circulating the Tumblr-verse) socially-stunted narcissists with self-esteem issues wanting to belong to something that will make them look ‘cool’ and important when they themselves have no characteristics of their own to stick out from the bunch. Even negative attention counts as attention, of course, so the sheer absurdity of their project isn’t a problem – rather, even if people mock them, they’ll get the attention they so crave.

It takes a very sad and bland or very disillusioned and confused person to actually believe that being called ‘xe/xir’ is an inalienable human right or related to radical revolutionary praxis in any way.

Let us suppose, for a second, that a microcosm of, say, forty students in a higher education classroom decides to state their ‘preferred pronouns’ so that their teacher and colleagues can refer to them as they would like – in third person, meaning, when these students aren’t even a part of a given conversation since it’s uncommon to refer to someone in the third person if they are standing right in front of you. Suppose a nice portion of them goes by fantasy pronouns, these ugly products of fancy that have no foundation on any kind of grammar. Suppose the same teacher has another seven classes to teach, containing around forty other students each and the same percentage of individuals who go by completely unique, fabricated pronouns. Do people deem themselves really this important to want to hang a teacher who might slip up and call the tall and bearded, deep-voiced and nut-scratching queer aplatonic pansexual wolf-kin student a ‘he’ instead of ‘furself’, or – and I recoil just to imagine it –, ‘she’?

Our brains do not, unfortunately, possess unlimited storing space. Memorising the ‘preferred pronouns’ of a handful of people who want to be seen as freakish (as if gay people haven’t been insulted with ‘queer’ precisely because considered ‘freakish’ by society at large…) simply isn’t as important as, well, anything else one might think of, really.

But this very appellation proves absurd from the start: preferred pronouns? Will we start ‘preferring’ verbs and definite articles next?

Grammar isn’t fashion, it is not a style one chooses or ‘un-chooses’ according to one’s mood on a given day. As much as we can and must debate normative grammar, there are certain structures that must be there and used in certain ways to render someone’s speech intelligible to others. Pronouns, as other classes of words, serve a specific function within sentences. Personal (I, she, he...), possessive (mine, hers, his…), and reflexive pronouns (myself, herself, himself…) have a purpose in avoiding repetition and clarifying one’s speech. They work and we understand one another because language is a code, a system we share, whose elements and knowledge we have in common as a community of speakers – of English, in this particular case; I will touch upon some other languages soon. Even if separated by social class or levels of formal education, we can still understand one another because the language we share is the same. We are free to choose the vocabulary we like and express ourselves as we like, for language is an extremely productive tool as can be seen by the variety of ways one can say roughly the same thing using different words and constructions, ranging from the most banal, day-to-day kind of discourse to the most extraordinary, surprising poetic one. That much we choose.

But pronouns? Will a trend of relative pronouns arise as well? The running ‘whom’st’ve’-type jokes are amusing, but just because some kids on the internet are fooling around with them doesn’t mean they can change the structure of the language at will, nor do they intend to. No one takes this seriously, apart, perhaps, from curious linguists investigating the creativity and possibility of this kind of construction, but no one will advocate for this to be included in a grammar book, for instance. Maybe in some good many years, if the meme catches on and becomes a part of popular vernacular, sure, though perhaps unlikely seeing as language tends to simplify itself for the sake of practicality rather than the other way around. We could talk about language change (I will avoid the term ‘evolution’ so as to not provide further fuel to the fire of linguistic debate…) throughout the years, but let us do so returning to the topic at hand.

The word ‘preferred’ already indicates that this is a very conscious imposition on the part of those who claim ‘their’ pronouns (as if someone could own a particular set of words...). It marks a desire for forced linguistic change and, while languages do change constantly, they also do remain, charmingly, constant. These aren’t concepts I’ll be able to explain to the uninitiated in the associated theories in one paragraph, but one is invited to consult the work of Ferdinand de Saussure for an introduction to linguistic problems and study, specifically his Cours de Linguistique Générale.

Nevertheless, let us resume some aspects thus: language is a system exterior to the individual but one which encompasses them; it is social and it exists in a specific linguistic community as a human creation. Its conception is ‘random’ inasmuch as there is nothing in a given object’s ‘essence’ that determines it must be called this or that. If that were not the case, we wouldn’t even have multiple languages to begin with, for all of them would call a house ‘house’ instead of ‘casa’, ‘maison’, ‘ дом ’ and so on. So, to those who say that language is all made-up and that fantasy pronouns should be acceptable on these grounds, I raise you this: yes, language is made-up, but not by you or I. Try speaking to someone using only words you have invented, paying no mind to the syntactic and semantic structures of your native language. You won’t get far.

An individual or a group of individuals do not have what it takes to transform with willpower alone what has been crystallised in centuries of a language’s existence – linguistic changes cannot be imposed by someone, they happen as the speakers of a language develop their communication. There is a dislocation in the relationship between the signifier and its signified, but that dislocation cannot be forced; language adapts as needed by its users, not as desired by a cluster of them.

(Side-notes: 1. language mutability is a much more complex phenomenon than this essay can hope to convey in a few lines and linguistic science is still taking its turns with it. I would suggest the interested reader seek out Saussure to get an initial grip on linguistics and to follow up her research by trying to access articles on the matter being published today, if the academic language does not prove too daunting; 2. the inclusion of feminine forms in grammars that do not supposedly accept them is another debate entirely that warrants another discussion altogether. The case with French, lately, is an interesting case for study, if one can keep from trying to comprehend the French situation with Anglo-Saxon eyes and sensibilities.)

Besides, to fashion oneself a creator of words to be adopted by a large number of people, one must truly regard oneself as brilliant as, say, the likes of William Shakespeare, as he gave his particular contributions to what we understand as the English language today. I am sorry to say so, but a fifteen year-old furry on Tumblr is probably as far from Shakespearian genius as religion from spirituality – or Pluto from the Sun, if I must make myself clear and unambiguous to those with religious tendencies.

Not to mention the fact that, for something as powerful as the proponents of ‘identity’ as something sacred claim it to be, it stands on very shaky ground if the mere use of a pronoun unequal to their expectations poses any sort of challenge to this certain ‘identity’. Maybe these ‘inherent’ and ‘essential’ gender identities aren’t as sturdy as they are being called after all, if they are incapable of withstanding such harmless and easy contest. If your ‘identity’ starts with words rather than apprehensible reality, then it is clearly not as stable or natural as you would like it to be.

Since we’ve touched on the question of signifier and signified and how linguistic change implies a change in the relation between the two, what this pronoun craze (and the inextricably attached to it gender-mania) does is not that; the idea of creating pronouns as well as genders to go along with them does not shift the relation, but implode it. It ruptures significance as it completely disfigures whatever lines are set – lines which have a purpose, for delimitation begets identification, which, in turn, allows for action. If that sounds cryptic, allow me to break it down: delimitation and proper description of a given phenomenon (say, of the oppression of women, for instance) permits the identification of its root causes and, most importantly, its agents (therefore, the oppression of women is classified as a by-product of a heterosexist, misogynistic patriarchy which is enacted and supported by men, for it is males who benefit from the suffering and subjugation of females), so that those who take the brunt of it can organise and fight back with appropriate targets in mind instead of hazy, abstract enemies. A movement must have a target for its actions if it desires to succeed. Remove the necessary lingo that allows for analysis, criticism and discussion in search of a viable course of action/solution and you may well neutralize the group’s impetus for justice and their probabilities of success. Pretend men are women and all of a sudden the patriarchy is created by women and they are their own enemies -- the rhetoric possibilities of perversion are endless.

If the explanation still isn’t clear enough, one can imagine a chessboard in which the pieces retain their original values but are all disguised as pawns. One may go around wasting time and take all of them down one by one, in hopes of taking the king, if one is so inclined to the effort, of course. But a serious chess player knows that the end goal of chess isn’t to take all pieces, but to checkmate the king. The former might even come about as a consequence in trying to secure the latter, but, usually, one attempts to minimise effort and save time.

Speaking of effort, apart from demanding superhuman amounts of it on the part of those willing to indulge and use heaven knows how many different sets of nonsensical ‘pronouns’ for each person of their acquaintance, this little game of creating genders and pronouns and throwing fits if they are misused does make pawns out of all pieces, but in appearance only. It enshrouds information; it hides people responsible for certain things they should be held accountable for but are not – ‘queer’ serves to disappear the lines between actual homosexuals (gays and lesbians) as well as ‘quirky’ bisexuals or straight people, establishing a false equivalence of individuals within the group. This serves as an instrument to guilt those in disagreement as if they were ‘working against their own interests’, as if they were ‘traitors’ to the group. This is how lesbians have been denounced as the bogeyman of the ‘queer community’ – firstly, lumped in together with these ‘queers’ against our will, then shunned for daring not to agree with them, considered traitors of a cause that wasn’t ours to begin with and which actively antagonises us.

The mechanism behind pronouns and gender identity, however, has overarching consequences: it gives criminal men the perfect excuse to enter female restrooms where they can assault women; it gives them the perfect excuse to beg to be sent to women’s prisons, where they will be closest to the very portion of the population they terrorise. It skewers statistical data, which ceases to be a reliable source for analysis because, all of a sudden, female-committed crime starts to spike in areas that have always been the dominion of male perpetrators. Anyone paying attention will know that women aren’t magically acting as violent as men, they aren’t raping and murdering people in male rates or with the same amount of male cruelty; these numbers are a reflection of men masquerading as women, since this sham of personal, ethereal, holy identities – the motor for pronoun-fixation – has been warmly embraced by the mainstream without a single instance of questioning and in record amounts of time.

Television shows are still afraid to say the word LESBIAN out loud, but will showcase their ‘queer’ and/or ‘trans’ characters without fear of censoring, if not in earnest hopes of being labelled progressive and awarded for it.

Yes, of course words are very much tied to how we perceive reality, but messing them up in the cause of something as stupidly and unsatisfactorily defined as ‘gender’ is in the mouths of its own champions serves no purpose other than to soothe megalomaniacal cretins and antisocial, manipulative teenagers; to further confuse young gay girls and boys already devoid of proper guidance; and to terminate all useful terminology and, consequently, praxis relating to female and homosexual struggles. Meddling with one’s discourse does not induce some sort of alchemical miracle that transforms material reality into whatever someone wishes it could be – my repeating over and over that I am rich (or that I ‘identify as rich’, to use the preferred construction) does not, in fact, have the slightest effect of increasing the value of my withering bank account in so much as a dime.

It’s hot air.

The problem lies with the consequences, as mentioned, on us all, since these linguistic atrocities and resulting social practices are being officially accepted and implemented by mass media and governments alike.

Moreover, cohesive groups exist prior to the language used to describe them. Women are biologically female and form a cohesive unit because of it despite the push for reducing women to lipstick and stilettos; gays are gays and form a cohesive unit by means of their exclusive attraction to individuals of the same sex, despite the push to redefine sexuality in terms of nebulous and volatile ‘gender’. Even if the words we use and need do end up swallowed and wholly co-opted by the trans/queer crowd and their allies, the concreteness of these groups will not cease to be, nor will their oppression, but it will be a lot harder to talk about it and for us to find one another to build actual community so we can fight back. Our best interests, as lesbians especially, are obviously not at the heart of those peddling trans/queer politics.

Politics which, ironically, claim themselves progressive – anti-sexist, anti-racist, anti-homophobic (or ‘LGBTphobic’ as I’ve been elsewhere forced to read), the list goes on (to include, many times, a comical idea of being anti-capitalism when queer/trans ideology is intimately linked with consumerism – performativity demands products to showcase it; it demands reification of the self and that comes with buying these or those items to heighten the image of one’s self as a consumable good – but that is another essay entirely). Those who ‘identify with’ this world-view go so far as to say that women and lesbians (their being actual feminists or radical ones at that completely disregarded for the ‘TERF’ acronym to be freely tossed around) who so much as question them, let alone fight back, are colonialist, racist, Eurocentric, yada yada yada bigots. Because, apparently, the categories of female/male are western creations imposed on native peoples to control them… For some reason, whereas categories of masculine/feminine are essential, spiritual and totally-not-artificially-constructed or socially imposed so as to create a hierarchy of the sexes… Or, another ‘argument’ found between the defenders of ‘gender identity’, everything is deemed as socially constructed, but delusions are somehow considered more real than flesh and bones just because they say so.

The flaws in logic and in their overall rhetoric would be hilarious, if they didn’t bring about such negative consequences along with giving any sensible and thinking human being a headache.

For here’s the clincher: all this talk of ‘inclusivity’ and progress spewing from trans/queer activists is done in English. Yes, the very language that has infiltrated most corners of the known world given the colonising efforts of the British throughout history and, more recently and perhaps successfully, due to the grip on mainstream media and consciousness exercised by the United States of America. We are made to witness English speakers (native and not so!) throw tantrums when someone does not recognize the ‘validity’ of or fails to utilise something like ‘ey/eirs’ pronouns. So the discourse is constructed in a way that uses certain cultures as props (‘In X culture, there is a third gender!!!’) but at the same time derides all these non-English speaking peoples for their incapability of using a broken, and, let’s face it, horrendous English. It isn’t even a Eurocentric view (something these ‘activists’ say themselves vehemently against, to the point of blindly embracing and defending, say, the tenets of certain non-Western religious ideologies only to spite so-called Western sensibilities…), it’s a decidedly Anglo-Saxon view they espouse. ‘Queer theory’ is born in English-speaking academia and these vulgar branches of it spread amongst English-speakers who think it viable and useful to change the entire structure of the English language to amuse them when they can’t even differentiate ‘your’ from ‘you’re’ in written media a lot of the time.

See, there are, to mention but one kind, Romance languages in Europe and outside of it and these languages (the likes of French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian…) are gendered. They use grammatical genders because this is how they developed throughout the ages from their Latin roots. It’s an essential part of their mechanisms; not because Romance languages are somehow bigoted and want all trans people to die terribly in a fire, but because these languages have existed for much longer than the ideology and social practices that the trans/queer crowd defend.

In these languages, one cannot do what some of these individuals do in English, using a third person plural to signify a single, individual person (the idea that ‘they’ is a neutral pronoun). It is utterly impossible to make any sense of it in a Romance language, added to the fact that these tongues separate third person plurals into feminine and masculine forms (elles/ils in French; elas/eles in Portuguese, etc.). To attempt something of the sort would be to incur in an egregious error in using these languages and native speakers of them do not and shall not recognize these strategies as proper or practical in any way.

English is not a parameter to which other languages compare or should strive to emulate at all. ‘They’ is impossible to carry on as a ‘neutral’ pronoun in translation, so one can only imagine how obtuse it would be to try and find equivalents to ‘ze’, ‘xe’, ‘ey’ in Spanish or Italian, to speak of only two… Those writers today who include ‘nonbinary’ characters who are referred to in the story by these unorthodox pronouns, in the name of ‘inclusion’, are automatically excluding the rest of the non-English speaking world from reading it, unless they consent to having these anomalies translated into proper pronouns that reflect the target language of a possible translation of their story.

There has been pressure from self-proclaimed leftist circles to write certain words in the vein of ‘Latinx’, ‘elx’, ‘el@’ in some countries as a way to approach this concept of ‘gender neutrality’ in human language, but none of these hideous little chimeras are pronounceable. Of course, as is to be expected, those of us who recognize this difficulty in the popularisation of these forms and who refuse to partake in the collective illusion that new genders and pronouns can effectively better the world are shouted down, ostracised, and likened to right-wing sympathisers. In refusing to let our speech be contaminated by ludicrous ideas originated in other countries and languages, in other social configurations (for, needless to say, the social and material reality of an American academic making a living out of ‘queering’ literature at Berkeley is far different than that of a low class Brazilian selling fruits on the street – in fact, that American academic is already very much removed from the reality of an average American of lower income as well), we are accused of being intolerant.

So, by refusing to let ourselves be colonised by American theories, we’re being intolerant… Of whom? Sexual minorities? How can a lesbian, of all people, be charged with the crime of effacing the existence of a trans/queer person? What power does a single lesbian hold in the midst of society, what influence does she have when she is forced to express her discontent with the path both feminist and gay movements have followed by means of an anonymous blog on the internet for fear of violent reprisal? What power does she wield when all of mainstream media supports and sells trans/queer ideology hourly? How does she, in not bending to the whim of some narcissist who calls himself her equal or even more oppressed than she is, cause any violence to this person just by calling him ‘he’? How can she be accused of racism by not acknowledging a concept born and bred within the halls of North American institutions of higher education she, most of the time, can’t even dream of entering?

Identity politics are invariably tied to the language and culture that birthed them. Transplanting this train-wreck to other countries isn’t educating prejudiced whites or liberating the poor, uneducated little third-world citizens of their ignorance, it’s imposing a foreign and quite nonsensical world-view on us all. That seems much more akin to imperialism than the fact of not accepting this same ideology being forced upon us.

This world-view they want us all to adopt (in whose benefit, again?) is rooted on a very simplistic and mistaken understanding of the systems that govern society as we know it, a world-view founded upon the columns of misogyny, homophobia, neo-liberal lies and jargon meant to obfuscate its true meaning and intentions.

How naive must one be to believe that changing some pronouns around and creating a whole slew of ‘genders’ based on aesthetics and stereotypical behaviour can change the world in any way?

Or rather, how can one allow oneself to be seduced by the idea and think that whatever changes it does cause can ever be for the better? Activism is reduced to a joke, a game of scrabble, feeble discussions on the internet which are soon forgotten. Worse still, activism is done in the name of those who need it the least: men. What benefit does this zealous concern with pronouns create for actual marginalised people? What can women, homosexuals, people of colour, the poor all gain from this?

It certainly is not liberation. That does not come in the form of new shackles, as colourful and covered in glitter as they may be.

0 notes

sparksparkboom · 7 years

Text

Anon ask/submission

about that ace post. No other way to say this except I am asexual, bi. its just a modifier to me.

Last time I checked the whole ACE thing was: You can be romantically attracted to someone and not want to have sex with them. That’s asexuality. That’s why people started saying x-romantic because asexuals still feel romance.

Libido = horny, can be satisfied by masturbation OR sex with another person and is not sexuality.

Sexuality = who you want to have sex with. For the asexual, it becomes who you want to love, and all the romantic expressions that are involved with it, except sex.

(Sexual) Arousal = Sexual urges //aimed at or caused by// looking at someone considered attractive. Asexuals do not feel this.

Asexual people can have any level of libido. They just don’t feel sexual attraction(its romantic for them), or arousal.

To get even more specific, an asexual can become naturally aroused by looking at pornography, but the consensus seems to be that they never think of themselves involved in the sex act itself, and don’t want to be. Their result of becoming aroused by pornography would(might) be masturbation and not seeking out another to have sex with. Some have likened it to voyeurism. Still plenty of other asexuals aint about any of this.

There are people, who you consider to be low libido, who get grouped into the “gray-sexual” category because they almost never feel aroused, or identified as asexual until oh wait I finally felt arousal/desire at 30 years old. They might call themselves demisexual or what have you.

I wrote an essay on this and I had sources but istg I erased my laptop after graduating, so if you really want some sources I can go hunting again. Or if you want a deeper explanation I can do my best, maybe give a personal experience thing.

-----

I've read your post, but none of this really changes that asexuality is not a modifier. It does not become a modifier by people treating it like one in recent years.

This portion here is what I take issue with:

"Sexuality = who you want to have sex with. For the asexual, it becomes who you want to love, and all the romantic expressions that are involved with it, except sex."

Asexuality is the lack of attraction. Romantic attraction cannot be divorced from sexuality. If you experience romantic attraction, it is still attraction, and you aren't asexual.

I'm not saying this to be mean. This is just what the word means. Heterosexual, Bisexual, Homosexual, and Asexual are all mutually exclusive, and I am getting tired of people of all sexualities calling themselves asexual when they just...aren't. My sexuality isn't a side note. "I am asexual" should be the whole sentence. If "but I love women" "but I still like men" or "but I still have sex" come after, then clearly you're not.

#submissions #submission

0 notes

margdarsanme · 4 years

Text

NCERT Solutions for Class 12 Biology Chapter 1 Reproduction in Organisms

NCERT Solutions for Class 12 Solutions for Biology Chapter 1 Reproduction in Organisms

QUESTIONS FROM TEXTBOOK SOLVED

14. Differentiate between gametogenesis from embryogenesis.Ans: Differences between gametogenesis and embryogenesis are as follows :

via Blogger https://ift.tt/2ZHNqem

#Blogger

0 notes

margdarsanme · 4 years

Text

NCERT Solutions for Class 12 Biology Chapter 1 Reproduction in Organisms

NCERT Solutions for Class 12 Solutions for Biology Chapter 1 Reproduction in Organisms

QUESTIONS FROM TEXTBOOK SOLVED

14. Differentiate between gametogenesis from embryogenesis.Ans: Differences between gametogenesis and embryogenesis are as follows :

via Blogger https://ift.tt/2ZHNqem

#Blogger

0 notes