Science! Very sciencey science!
You just divide the Transgender Women’s Importance of Pronouns Scale by the Narcissism of Transgender Women’s Timewasting Scale and BOOM, there’s your total rock-solid non-falsifiable proof that Transgender Women’s Luxury Pronouns matter more than anything else in the entire universe. That’s SCIENCE.
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on Mile-high semi-free press.
They were unfamiliar with the concept of people who had pursued so-called sex-change drugs and surgeries but later regretted these interventions and sought care to help remedy the results.
You’ve taken one side of an issue, but haven’t researched the issue enough to realize its full ramifications and fallout? You’ve been reassured by reliable sources that the other side is made up entirely of genocidal, Nazi bigots, so you don’t have to listen to what they’re saying at all. That’s a good look for journalists. I guess this sort of thing is bound to happen when you outsource your ethics, morality, and values to “reliable sources”. Like that bartender. You’re hostage to the integrity and thoroughness of those you’re letting do your thinking for you. It’s all about quality control; if you never visit the factory, how can you be sure just what they’re putting in those cans with your name on them?
Here’s another thought: perhaps something they haven’t heard of before might make a good subject for, oh I don’t know, maybe A NEWSPAPER STORY? Maybe they’ve only been reading their own paper and that’s why they’re so ignorant
I said, because people aren’t getting the whole story. Worse, there’s a concerted effort to stifle discussion about detransition.
DINGDINGDINGDING! LOOK, A STORY NOT BEING TOLD! You work for NEWSPAPERS!!! PUT TWO AND TWO TOGETHER!!!!
If Paley and Cohn are not transphobes, why do people online accuse them of transphobia?
“If Joe Biden is not a baby-eating, glue-sniffing Communist, why do people online accuse him of being a baby-eating, glue-sniffing Communist?” Jesus, the question answers itself. Dig deeper, look further; it’s only YER GODDAMN JOB.
Also why does the bartender get to intervene in a discussion of that kind?…Who, in short, the fuck asked him?
Maybe they were doing the whole “Undercover Boss” or “The Prince and the Pauper” thing, and the supposed underling was actually secretly in charge of everything. He felt so passionately about the issue he was compelled to break cover to put the Evil TERF in her place.
Or, maybe the janitor wasn’t available.
He accused them of manufacturing…
Yes, Paley and Cohn invented the whole idea of so called “detransition” and hired crisis actors to play “detransitioners” complete with fake mastectomy scars.
…and profiting from controversy…
Yeah, and doctors offering “gender-affirming care” do it for free out of the kindness of their hearts. They only have the very best interests of their patients at heart and are very careful to screen them to ensure that only those very few people who actually need it are rushed into life-long medicalization given the life-saving treatment they so desperately need.
and accused me of trying to conceal this “fact.”
A trans activist upset by someone concealing facts?! HAHAHAHAHA, ha ha, hoheh. Well!. Oh that’s a good one! Your movement has declared reality itself to be “transphobic” and unmentionable, and you accuse someone else of suppressing facts! Wow. Are you altogether sure exactly which side of the bar you’re on? Sounds like you’ve been sampling a good few of the wares you’re supposed to be serving. Leave some for the paying customers!
Yascha Mounk on Hamas and idenniny:
…the reaction to the worst murder of Jews since the end of the Second World War has continued to range from oddly muted to openly celebratory. Reacting to Hamas’s massacre in its immediate aftermath, Rivkah Brown, an editor at Novara Media, wrote that “today should be a day of celebration for supporters of democracy and human rights worldwide”. The Chicago chapter of Black Lives Matter sent out an invitation to a solidarity rally with Palestine that featured a picture of the Hamas fighters on paramotors who murdered over 250 people at a music festival.
During the following weeks, hundreds of prominent artists and writers, actors, academics and medical professionals, including Tilda Swinton and Steve Coogan, signed open letters in publications such as Artforum and the London Review of Books. Virtually all singled out Israel for criticism without bothering to condemn Hamas or calling for the release of the 200 hostages the group still holds.
The reasons are several and complicated, he says, but one stands out.
It is rooted in the rise of a new ideology that insists on seeing the world through the prism of simplistic identity categories. And it now gives many people a highfalutin excuse to indulge in their basest human instincts even as they claim to fight against injustice.
Simplistic identity categories, but not all simplistic identity categories. Jews need not apply, nor need women.
By the summer of 2020, a vulgarised version of what I call the “identity synthesis”, most prominently championed by the bestselling authors Robin DiAngelo and Ibram X Kendi, was being parroted by senior politicians and the chief executives of major companies, by directors of the world’s most renowned cultural institutions and in the pages of its most widely read publications.
…
The “identity synthesis” claims that the key to understanding the world is to examine it through the prism of group identities such as race, gender and sexual orientation. It argues that supposedly universal values and neutral rules — like those at the core of liberal democracies — serve to obscure the ways in which privileged groups dominate those that are marginalised. This explains why we have (supposedly) failed to make any progress in the fight against racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination. And it concludes that the only way to build a better world is to adopt norms and laws that explicitly make the way the state treats each citizen — and the way citizens treat each other — depend on the identity groups to which they belong.
…
Four common themes of modern-day social justice movements are particularly important. First, many activists now seem to believe that the world can be split into two clear categories: white people and “people of colour”…
Second, the world can simultaneously be split into another set of categories, which theoretically differ from but in practice overlap with those of race: settlers and their victims…
Third, we need to dispense with traditional notions of racism…many activists have gone a step further, supplanting the older concept of racism with one that is exclusively structural in nature. Since racism has nothing at all to do with individual beliefs, they maintain, it is impossible for members of a (supposedly) marginalised group to be racist towards members of a (supposedly) dominant group…
Fourth and finally, all forms of oppression are connected.
Aka “intersectionality.”
Over recent weeks, these four ideological building blocks have been pressed into the service of discounting the suffering of Jewish civilians. According to the global left, Jews are white. Israel is a European settler colony repeating the crimes once committed by Americans and Australians. Since Palestinians are people of colour who have suffered settler colonialism, they are incapable of being racist and are justified in inflicting any amount of suffering on their oppressors. And if you want to be a good feminist or environmentalist — or merely an artist or academic in good standing with the juste milieu — it is your duty to sign an open letter, join a solidarity rally and make common cause with a theocratic terrorist group that happens to be diametrically opposed to every value you claim to cherish.
See also: Charlie Hebdo. See also: some of the reactions to Does God Hate Women?
The same loss of common sense is evident in the claim that all forms of oppression are interrelated. Even if this mantra is repeated ad nauseam, it cannot succeed in beating a stubbornly messy reality into submission. No matter how often activists continue to profess their belief that such causes as gay liberation and reproductive rights go hand-in-hand with the Palestinian cause, Hamas remains implacably opposed to both. Yet when reality does not comply with one’s wishes, there’s always the option to look the other way.
But, oddly enough, not to emigrate to Afghanistan. I wonder why not.
Lisa Jones tells us about the Denver Press Club and its devotion to a free press:
On August 21, 2023, I was hunting for a small, private venue in downtown Denver for a mixer. The Denver Press Club building seemed to fit the bill. It could accommodate 50 to 100 guests, serve drinks and hors d’oeuvres, and was available for rental on the evening of Thursday, November 2nd.
On August 22nd, in an email exchange with the club’s executive director, I described the event I planned to host: an evening mixer where everyone is welcome to engage in honest and open discussion about free speech and gender identity. I said Nina Paley and Corinna Cohn, hosts of the Heterodorx Podcast, would speak at the event.
The executive director replied, “Got it. All good.” He told me I needed to join the club to rent the venue. Further, my membership would need to be approved by the board.
So she applied for membership and paid dues.
On August 31st, with a reasonable expectation that the mixer would be happening at the Denver Press Club, I toured the building. During the tour, the club’s executive director generously proposed that the club would host the mixer as a club-sponsored event open to members and guests.
On September 1st, the executive director and I exchanged enthusiastic email messages confirming this arrangement. In my message, I wrote:
“As I mentioned, Nina and Corinna are not politically partisan and are not courting controversy. However, the topic of gender identity elicits strong opinions and poses challenges regarding free speech. I’m hoping this event can be an opportunity for civil, in-person conversation (rather than online flamethrowing.)”
On September 2nd, the executive director abruptly informed me by email:
“After some research about the program, Does Free Speech Have a Gender Identity and the speakers, we have decided the Denver Press Club is not the right fit. I am sorry, but we will not be able to host your event.”
Oh is that what we’re calling it now – “not the right fit.” These shoes are too small; these gloves are too big; this subject sags at the waist.
There was further discussion. There was a meeting with the president and the executive director.
We talked about the Colorado governor’s tendency to say “transitioned” instead of “fired;” several people had “transitioned” out of his administration.
I mentioned the word “detransition.” Neither Goodland nor Segall had heard it before. They were unfamiliar with the concept of people who had pursued so-called sex-change drugs and surgeries but later regretted these interventions and sought care to help remedy the results.
This is why we need to talk about gender medicalization, I said, because people aren’t getting the whole story. Worse, there’s a concerted effort to stifle discussion about detransition.
Segall wanted to know: If Paley and Cohn are not transphobes, why do people online accuse them of transphobia?
As I tried to answer, I became aware that the club’s junior bartender was standing behind me as I spoke. Eventually, he sat down across the table from me. He accused me of lying to the club. I had discredited myself by using unethical tactics to trick the club into agreeing to host Paley and Cohn, he claimed.
Specifically, he cited my statement that Paley and Cohn “are not courting controversy.” He accused them of manufacturing and profiting from controversy, and accused me of trying to conceal this “fact.”
He vowed to write a letter to the board and solicit signatures of support from other club members to bar me from the club on account of my manipulative mendacity.
I was taken aback by his vehemence. Also, I was baffled. Hadn’t anyone at the club done minimal due diligence and simply Googled Paley and Cohn sometime between August 22nd, when I explicitly stated that I wished to host them at the club, and August 31st, when the executive director offered to sponsor the event?
Also why does the bartender get to intervene in a discussion of that kind? Surely his job description doesn’t cover interrupting a meeting between two administrators and a potential speaker to challenge and accuse and attempt to bully the potential speaker? Who, in short, the fuck asked him?
On September 13th, I sent a message to Goodland and Segall:
“Thank you for meeting with me yesterday. We have an agreement for use of the press club facility, an agreement upon which I have relied. The event will proceed as planned. Promotional materials will remain in circulation.”
On September 14th, Goodland sent me a message:
“I regret to inform you your membership has been denied by the board. The club’s policy is that only members have usage of the building, so your event cannot be held here.”
Canceled by the guy behind the bar.
This week in Trump crime family news:
Trump’s elder sons, Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump, took the witness stand in New York this week and testified they had little knowledge about the financial statements at the center of the case. Next week, Donald Trump is expected to take the stand on Monday, followed by daughter Ivanka Trump on Wednesday.
In the middle of a school week.
The New York attorney general’s office has been building its case that Trump, his adult sons and executives at the Trump Organization knowingly inflated the value of assets to boost the former president’s net worth when brokering deals. Judge Arthur Engoron ruled before the trial started that documents prove the family had fudged financial statements to do this. The trial has been about whether Trump will have to pay a fine of at least $250m for committing fraud.
…
Over the three days that Donald Trump Jr and Eric Trump testified on the witness stand, both brothers pointed to the company’s accountants and lawyers as responsible for handling the financial statements at the center of the case.
Ah yes, that’s how that works. Of course. It’s not the owners of the organization who are corrupt, it’s the people who work for the owners who are.
This is despite multiple emails and signed documents that show the brothers, who serve as top executives of their father’s company, were consulted by employees preparing the statements and brokered deals in which the statements were used to confirm Trump’s net worth.
All forgeries. The brothers weren’t even in the country at the time. They weren’t even on the planet.
The attorney general’s office brought in an expert witness, Michiel McCarty, the chief executive of an investment bank, to testify about the losses lenders unwittingly accrued when making deals with the Trump Organization because it had inflated the value of its assets.
McCarty explained that if lenders had been given accurate valuations for the assets, they could have charged the Trump Organization higher interest rates. McCarty calculated the lost interest for loans given for four properties in the case at $168,040,168.
Oh, is that all. I thought this was about real money.
Originally a comment by Rev David Brindley on Bad Behaviour??? Us???
I can assure our US and UK readers that here in the Great Land of Downunder, cunt IS used as a term of endearment amongst some sub sets of men.
That sub set of men being the drunken uncles at parties, the misogynist and homophobic, sexually insecure males. Not only do they call each other “cunt”, but they also use other terms of endearment, such as “poof” to assure themselves that while their best friend may be gay, they most assuredly are straight. They refer to their wives/girlfriends as “The Missus” in fear that if they use her name she will either appear and drag them home, or at the least, be acknowledged as a separate person. And they all end the night, standing around the lemon tree, tinnie in one hand, cock in the other, because nothing says “I’m no poof” like flashing your willy at all your mates.
Originally a comment by Papito on Transing sisterhood.
The manichaeism of oppressor vs. oppressed cannot be explained rationally. It is a form of religion. All that is good is on one side; all that is bad is on the other side, and we can always tell them apart. For folks who scream about the sex binary, they sure do like their binaries.
Was Adolf Hitler an oppressor or an oppressed?
When Adolf Hitler met with the Mufti Amin al-Husseini of Jerusalem and they made common cause to kill all the Jews in the Levant, was Hitler working in favor of the oppressor or the oppressed? How about the Mufti?
When al-Husseini accepted 750K DM a month for the purposes of exterminating Jews, was he an oppressor or was he oppressed? When Himmler praised the Mufti’s efforts in doing so, was Himmler an oppressor or an oppressed?
Hamas is pursuing the exact same goal – eradication of Jews from the Levant – that Hitler paid the Mufti to pursue, and which Himmler congratulated al-Husseini for doing. It is a continuation of the Nazi goal, and the same Muslim Brotherhood which helped al-Husseini escape arrest after WWII gave birth to Hamas. They still have the same beliefs, which precede the establishment of Israel:
It is the duty of Muhammadans [Muslims] in general and Arabs in particular to … drive all Jews from Arab and Muhammadan countries… . Germany is also struggling against the common foe who oppressed Arabs and Muhammadans in their different countries. It has very clearly recognized the Jews for what they are and resolved to find a definitive solution [endgültige Lösung] for the Jewish danger that will eliminate the scourge that Jews represent in the world.
-Al-Husseini, November 1943
How very oppressed he sounds.
The feminists that aren’t feminists:
Sisters Uncut — founded to campaign against cuts to domestic violence services — claims that the same “white supremacist patriarchy” oppressing feminists is “murdering Palestinians”.
It appeared to play down the massacre of 1,300 Israelis by Hamas terrorists on October 7, saying: “The violence of the oppressed must never be equated with that of the oppressor.”
And of course both come stamped with labels so that we can all know instantly which is which.
Explaining its alignment with the Palestinian cause, Sisters Uncut said: “As intersectional feminists we know our struggles are connected; nobody is free until we are all free. The same colonial logic of white supremacist patriarchy that oppresses feminists the world over is murdering Palestinians right now, through isra*l’s [sic] racist apartheid settler-colonialism.”
Meanwhile there are zero racist or sexist Palestinians and we know this because of the careful stamping (see above).
More recently, the group has campaigned for the rights of transgender people and minorities. On its website, the group describes itself as “women and gender-variant people who live under the threat of domestic violence”.
And thus, finally, we are told that these “feminists” are not feminists at all.
In July it supported Sarah Jane Baker, a transgender rights activist who told a Pride event to “punch a Terf” [trans-exclusionary radical feminist]. Baker had previously spent 30 years in prison for kidnap and attempted murder. Baker was later acquitted of a charge of inciting violence in connection with the Terf comment.
Even though he was in fact inciting violence with the “terf” comment.
Since the Hamas attack on October 7 Sisters Uncut has repeatedly posted on social media about the conflict. One video showed protesters holding a Palestinian flag next to a banner that said: “Trans liberation, trans revolution now.”
Makes me nostalgic for the good old Nazi-Soviet pact.
Not putting up with the bullshit any more.
Princess Ivanka gets a lot of laughter for this joke:
Ivanka Trump asked a New York appeals court to pause the $250 million fraud trial of her family and its business empire as she appeals a judge’s order requiring her to testify in the case next week.
The request to stay the entire trial came at the tail end of a Thursday court filing arguing that Ivanka Trump will face “undue hardship” if forced to testify — in part because she is scheduled to appear “in the middle of a school week.”
Ah right, the middle of a school week, and how can she juggle that plus her 9 to 5 job plus cooking and cleaning and walking the dog? There just aren’t enough hours in the day.
Another law mandating lying in court:
South Australia is the latest state to endorse the use of preferred gender pronouns in the courtroom, saying it is a “matter of respect” to address parties by their chosen pronouns, and integral to “ensuring public confidence in the proper administration of justice”.
No it isn’t. Other way around. It’s a matter of respect not to lie, and not to order others to lie. People don’t get to “choose” what sex they are, and pronouns are simply grammatical indicators of what sex a third party is. (It didn’t have to be that way. In English first and second person pronouns don’t indicate sex, but third person singular ones do.)
SA follows the lead of Victoria and Queensland as jurisdictions that this year released edicts requiring court attendees to refer to parties by the pronouns they indicate being most comfortable with, such as they/them.
See how tricky pronouns are? Look at that “they” in “the pronouns they indicate” – which “they”?? The attendees, or the parties? Shoving in even more they/thems will produce yet more ambiguities of that kind, quite apart from the fact that it’s ludicrous.
It’s also sneaky of the reporter (or who knows, maybe the editor) to choose they/them for the “such as.” The stumbling block is not so much they/them as “she/her” when the accused is a man. Courts ordering women to call their male rapists or assailants “she/her” is an outrage, so the story reporting it carefully draws a veil over that appalling fact.
“The Supreme Court, District Court, ERD Court, Magistrates Court, Youth Court and Coroners Court recognise that the correct pronunciation of names and use of the preferred gender pronoun is a matter of respect and is an important component of ensuring public confidence in the proper administration of justice,” SA Chief Justice Chris Kourakis said in a practice note released on Wednesday.
Nonsense. Calling rapists “she” is not going to ensure public confidence in the proper administration of justice. Rather the opposite, I think you’ll find.
In April, Queensland Supreme Court Chief Justice Helen Bowskill released a similar practice note, recognising “the correct pronunciation of names and use of preferred forms of address is a matter of respect”.
Correct, yes. Lying and incorrect, no.
Ah yes: how the boys talk about women amongst themselves.
Dominic Cummings called the UK’s most senior female civil servant a “cunt” in a misogynistic WhatsApp message sent to Boris Johnson and Lee Cain in August 2020.
Of course he did. What’s the worst foulest evilest thing in the world? The part of women where all humans emerge into life.
He was referring to deputy cabinet secretary Helen MacNamara, who had commissioned a report into poor behaviour within the Cabinet Office.
And he certainly made clear that there was no bad behavior in the Cabinet Office, didn’t he.
The message in full reads: “If I have to come back to Helen’s bullshit with PET [propriety and ethics] designed to waste huge amounts of my time so I can’t spend it on other stuff – I will personally handcuff her and escort her from the building. I don’t care how it is done but that woman must be out of our hair – we cannot keep dealing with this horrific meltdown of the British state while dodging stilettos from that cunt.”
How dare she do her job. How dare she challenge the boys. How dare she have female genitalia.
The inquiry heard yesterday that MacNamara had commissioned a report into the culture at Number 10 in May 2020, which – according to the lead counsel to the inquiry Hugo Keith KC – had painted a picture of “misogyny” and a “macho” culture.
So Dominic Cummings hastened to demonstrate the falsehood of that picture by calling MacNamara a cunt. No macho misogyny there, no sirree.
Speaking after the day’s hearing, the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group said in a statement: “The nastiness, arrogance and misogyny at the heart of government during the pandemic is core to the awful decision making that led to thousands of unnecessary deaths and tore families like ours apart.
“When you see that these figures had such a shocking disregard for each other, you can only imagine the disregard they had for families like mine. In Boris Johnson’s own words his government was an ‘orgy of narcissism’, with Cummings at the heart. That narcissism had deadly consequences.
“It was led by ministers and advisers who thought they could rewrite scientific advice, who thought they knew better than the rest of the world, and ‘appallingly neglected’ the most vulnerable in our society, as Cummings acknowledged today.
“Whilst they drift on to be after dinner speakers, reality TV stars or on to new highly paid jobs, we’re left having to deal with the consequences of their failures for the rest of our lives.”
Oh just blame it on Helen MacNamara.
What, again??
How many of them are there? I suppose the answer is 12, isn’t it.
Originally a comment by Freemage on The face of asexuality.
Like many of the progressive concepts that have gotten warped and misappropriated by the identity fringe groups, ‘microaggressions’ started out as a legitimate issue. It wasn’t just, “This small thing that irritates/offends me”, but rather, “this small thing is meant to remind me that I am viewed as sub-human and can be safely targeted by violence at any time.”
Homosexuals, women and racial minorities all face the latter sort of microaggression on a regular basis, and it does extract a real toll on the persons targeted. Hell, much of the trans-speak I would count as micro-aggressions against women. It’s not that the comments themselves are anything more than childish taunts; it’s that those taunts are meant to remind women that hey, we’re actually male and we’re prepared to use violence on you if you don’t shut up.
Essentially, true micro-aggressions can only be defined by context, as it requires historical, societal oppression to serve as a backdrop for the behavior being discussed. Natch, asexuals don’t in fact have that sort of oppressed history to draw upon. They have a bit of being regarded as weird, and sometimes being asked intrusive questions by rude people, but that’s about the extent of it.
That said, I don’t think there’s a huge contradiction in dressing ‘sexy’ while eschewing sex. I suspect that, if anything, people who are asexual are likely to have an outsider’s view of some aspects of social interaction; as such, she has a strong possibility of knowing precisely how much attention she can draw, and how to monetize that attention. She’s selling out, albeit in a way that plays into some very ugly stereotypes about attractive women.
Does anyone else here watch those spycam in the wild programs? They’re a BBC thing, shown here on PBS redubbed with a US narrator. (Why redubbed? I have no idea.) I always find them highly interesting and also always wonder if they’re any use to actual scientists or just a bit of entertainment for the rest of us. An article in Outside from last year seems to indicate it’s some of each.
The Spy series began 16 years ago when producer and director John Downer became the first filmmaker to capture life among a pride of lions. He did it by shooting from the point of view of a mobile rock, fondly referred to as Bouldercam. Spy Puffer Fish from his BBC One documentary Dolphins: Spy in the Pod, captured iconic footage revealing how dolphins deliberately get high on puffer fish nerve toxins by chewing on them.
This year’s program is the most ambitious the Spy series has taken on, according to Downer. Filming the 8,000 hours of footage for Spy in the Wild took three years and required the team to travel to 21 different countries, often staying within hundreds of feet of the wildlife they were filming day and night…
…
These animatronics are engineered at the intersection of biology, zoology, robotics, and art, to ensure that the spy creatures are as life-like as possible. The team could make the spies move through remote control, and each spy was also equipped with infrared sensors that triggered movement if another animal came near.
Another thing I always wonder is about touch and smell. They may look convincing but how can they smell normal to animals? How can they feel right?
Producer Matthew Gordon, a trained primatologist, worked with Spy Langur in the field. More than filmmakers, the producers are “animal people,” says producer Rob Pilley—biologists, ecologists, and zoologists.
…
The team never underestimates animals’ ability to distinguish real wildlife from spy wildlife, so design is meticulous. On spies with fur, like the langur pictured, a synthetic coat is punched hair-by-hair into the silicone frame. Out in the field, the team will go so far as to apply Vaseline to the creature’s eyes and nose to give them a realistic luster.
Spy Meerkat was the first to be created for the series. Meerkats are very territorial, so those that smell like outsiders are immediately unwelcome. Producers had to rub droppings collected from their chosen clan onto the spy in order to have any chance at success.
Ah! That’s what I was wondering. There’s a bit in the one I saw yesterday evening where a beaver sniffs a spycam beaver but the narrator doesn’t say anything like “spycam beaver was of course well saturated with waterproof beaver scent before release.”
Sometimes an animal would anoint their own smell onto the remote camera devices, as in the case of the Arctic wolves. The wolves would urinate and roll on the equipment, happily incorporating it into their territory, much to the delight of producer Philip Dalton. No pheromones were used during filming, but the spies often became masked in the smell of their environment as they became covered in dirt, mud, and dust.
The way elephant keepers smell strongly of elephant within seconds of starting the day. Why? Because those trunks go all over you first thing, nostrils first.
This new frontier of study has gained considerable support among scientists like anthropologist Jill Pruetz, who was shown footage of a spy chimpanzee in Senegal. She was astounded at seeing the apes so close. When researching in the field, Pruetz normally shadows the apes at a minimum distance of 20 meters away to avoid affecting their behavior by the transmission of pathogens. She felt that the wide-angle perspective of the remote cameras in the heart of the troop was valuable, as she had never seen the chimps looking quite so human before.
Behind the program is a big team of trackers and field guides, like Birutė Galdikas, who studies orangutans in Borneo and whose local knowledge proves useful when looking for certains types of behavior. Producers also consulted with scientists before deploying the spy into the wild to maximize success.
That’s the kind of thing I’ve been wondering about. Interesting.
Originally a comment by Your Name’s not Bruce? on The infinitude of girls.
But…if you want to ignore biology all together, what are you? A biology denialist. I’m concerned about how many scientists (yes, P.Z., I’m looking at you) have entered this realm where fantasy is reality and reality is bigoted.
I seem to recall a post or two from regular commenters here who asked PZ how he knew the gender identities of the spiders he was studying with enough certainty to be able to call them “he” or “she,” and getting banned for it. Surely it’s not to much to ask for a little bit of clarity and consistency in one’s beliefs and assertions, unless you don’t have any to offer. If he could explain it, he would do so. He could answer questions. He could change minds and win them to his cause. Wouldn’t this be the response of someone defending an actual human rights or social justice situation? But no, his response is the orthodox one of “NO DEBATE” and the ban hammer. In the old days, he relished the visits by theists because it gave him (and the Horde) “chew toys” to practice their arguments against, and theist counterarguments and talking points to dismantle. Perhaps his ire is so strong because he knows the contradiction at the heart of his “trans” stance and dislikes having it shown up and pointed out, accusing those doing so of bigotry and JAQing off. Theists are fair game, but he’s not supposed to be the chew toy.
It’s amazing that the man who made such a big show of “desecrating” a “consecrated” host, and ridiculing the idea of some sort of invisible, ineffable, Holy entity taking up residence within the confines of a baked good after a priest’s muttering of some magic words (while reviewing the long history of abuse and worse committed by the Church against any who denied the True Presence of Christ in the wafers, or who desecrated them in any way) has come to believe in the existence of an invisible, ineffable Holy entity living in the confines of a “wrong” body with the invocation of some magic words, while joining in on the abuse and worse committed by trans activists against any, especially women*, who deny the presence of a “gender identity” in these Special People (or in anybody for that matter). And that this Holy Being is primary and foundational as opposed to the accidental, flawed husk of the physical body containing it, and that the latter should be cut, drugged and sacrificed to in service to supposed needs and demands of the former. He’s debunked one religious belief while accepting another with open arms and highly compartmentalized mind.
*Ironic given his vocal defence of the woman in the Shermer sexual assault allegations. Where did that PZ Myers go? It seems the “women” he’s most keen on defending now are the ones who have (and are) dicks.
Wut?
Asexual people aren’t protected by the Equality Act.
Meaning…what? That the Equality Act doesn’t mention asexual people? But it can’t mention every [adjective] person on the planet, much less every [non-adjective] person on the planet. Just think – people who don’t love apples, people who don’t love bananas, people who don’t love greengages…then all the fruits, then all the vegetables, then all the pastries, then all the types of food, then all the examples of all the categories, and so on ad infinitum.
And why would asexuality be included anyway?
We aren’t protected by hate crime laws. And we should be.
Why? When do people persecute or shun or exclude asexual people? When and how do people even know which people are asexual in order to shun or exclude them? What hate crimes are committed against asexual people? What are the stats? Who is collecting them? Where are they published?
We aren’t included in the ban on conversion therapy.
Why would they be? Who tries to send “asexual” people to conversion therapy?
Also…to be crude about it…if you’re an asexual woman what’s with the tits? What’s the goal in flashing them? I know, I know, the Correct view is that she’s just dressing how she enjoys dressing, it’s nothing to do with wanting to attract sexual attention, but I don’t buy it.
Persecution envy is not a good look.
There is “Karen” Jones for example.
In 2001, a man named Mark Jones (a.k.a: Karen Jones/Lawson) was jailed after the body of his sexual partner was found in their Manchester home. Jones had allegedly murdered the man after he refused to pay for Jones’ nail polish and transgender surgeries, but, due to the advanced stage of decomposition in the body, he was only able to be convicted of manslaughter. The decomposition hindered the ability for coroners to ascertain a proper cause of death, and thus throttled the prosecution.
Jones was sentenced to 5 years, but was released just one year later on license in 2002. Less than a week after getting out of prison, Jones sexually assaulted a female clerk at a store which sold clothing for transsexual men, gagging the woman’s mouth with a lemon and trying to rape her. He was unable to do so only because he was incapable of maintaining an erection. Jones was re-apprehended and sentenced to life in prison.
One year in prison for killing someone, then assaults a woman days after getting out.
At the time, Jones claimed the attempted rape was a “cry for help” so he could go back to prison and receive a sex change on the public dime. While imprisoned, Jones received free laser hair removal, hormone replacement therapy, and a gender recognition certificate.
Jones ultimately demanded transfer to a women’s prison, but his male genitals made the move impossible at the time. Likewise, he was denied a vagina construction because he was housed in the male estate. Jones brought a judicial review in 2009, and consideration of the double-bind situation would become the legal premise for the decisive ruling which would later enable fully “intact” men to seek transfer to women’s prisons.
Chip chip chip chip SMASH – women have no rights left.
“The argument that Jones would be hard to manage in a women’s prison was dismissed on the grounds that Jones would pose still greater difficulties if thwarted, due to what the consultant forensic psychologist described as ‘narcissistic, compulsive, aggressive, violent and sadistic elements’ in his personality.” Biggs writes on page 6 of the paper…
Wait wait wait wait – WHAT??? This man is narcissistic, compulsive, aggressive, violent and sadistic therefore let’s transfer him to a women’s prison???
Jones was eventually transferred to a women’s institution and recieved genital surgery. Shortly after, he was released from prison once again as a parole board decided a life sentence for his crimes wasn’t appropriate.
In 2018, Jones was invited to the House of Lords to speak on the rights of transgender criminals.
In 2023 the law said women may not exclude men from our public meetings.
