Steerzing in a New Direction...

[AndrewV69]

:o :o :o
#TIKIGATE

:lol: :lol: :lol:
LMAO.

[Service Dog]

https://media.patriots.win/post/Hlw0N9IO.jpeg

https://media.patriots.win/post/zZC1ynJ1.jpeg


https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/stat ... 1158552585

[Service Dog]

[Service Dog]

[Bhurzum]

Sardaukar goodness!



Surely some of you cock-mongers have seen the "Dune" remake by now?

[MarcusAu]

Surely some of you cock-mongers have seen the "Dune" remake by now?

I would say 'No' - but I just don't have the heart to...

[Service Dog]

That guy who plays the President on TV-- shit his pants, live on camera:

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

That guy who plays the President on TV-- shit his pants, live on camera:

Alec is really determined to get to the bottom of this. He is so sorry that this terrible accident happened to his friends and he'd really like to know what forced him to point a gun at them and not insist on checking it first.

[Bhurzum]

Alec is really determined to get to the bottom of this. He is so sorry that this terrible accident happened to his friends and he'd really like to know what forced him to point a gun at them and not insist on checking it first.

Trump.

The answer is always Trump.

Note: I don't like Baldwin, have never liked him as an actor or for his virtue-bleating, but I can't help but feel a twang of pity for him. Obviously I have more pity and sympathy for the people he shot and their loved ones. It's a shit state of affairs...

[Bhurzum]

Seriously though, has nobody here watched the Dune remake yet? I'm itching to hear other opinions on what I think is probably the finest science fiction movie to hit our screens since "Upgrade" was released.

C'mon, there's got to be one of two of you out there?

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3 ... resize=480:*

[Bhurzum]

I would say 'No' - but I just don't have the heart to...

ww.youtube.com/watch?v=AKd2YldRvB8

Sorry, Marcus, my browser is going nutty. I can't play the video (age restricted even though my YT account is fully unlocked) and if I try to open it in another tab/window, I get all manner of alerts/alarms before Firefox auto-closes it down. Fucking thinking machines...

It's enough to kick-start the Butlerian Jihad!

(I'll get my stillsuit)

[MarcusAu]

Sorry, Marcus, my browser is going nutty. I can't play the video (age restricted even though my YT account is fully unlocked) and if I try to open it in another tab/window, I get all manner of alerts/alarms before Firefox auto-closes it down. Fucking thinking machines...

It's enough to kick-start the Butlerian Jihad!

(I'll get my stillsuit)

No need to apologize - I was just putting in a plug for the old David Lynch version, though some are barron of feelings for that.

I have seen it now...

Rather an immersive experience...and the soundtrack was certainly an assault on the senses.

My second favourite worm movie after 'Squirm', and second favourite desert buggery film after 'Lawrence of Arabia'.

Though I understand there is some controversy that the Sardaukar appeared in uniform.

Best video game adaption that I've seen in a while. (Or is that Dune 2?).

[Fegg]

Alec is really determined to get to the bottom of this. He is so sorry that this terrible accident happened to his friends and he'd really like to know what forced him to point a gun at them and not insist on checking it first.

Trump.

The answer is always Trump.

Note: I don't like Baldwin, have never liked him as an actor or for his virtue-bleating, but I can't help but feel a twang of pity for him. Obviously I have more pity and sympathy for the people he shot and their loved ones. It's a shit state of affairs...

It is good to feel pity for him. The thing I object to is the idea that "I didn't know the gun was loaded" in any way diminishes the responsibility of a shooter for what happens - at least if the shooter is of a mental age of twelve or higher.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Alec is really determined to get to the bottom of this. He is so sorry that this terrible accident happened to his friends and he'd really like to know what forced him to point a gun at them and not insist on checking it first.

Trump.

The answer is always Trump.

Note: I don't like Baldwin, have never liked him as an actor or for his virtue-bleating, but I can't help but feel a twang of pity for him. Obviously I have more pity and sympathy for the people he shot and their loved ones. It's a shit state of affairs...

Even the most vicious wild animal arouses some pity when in pain and I'd be concerned about anyone who didn't respond that way. What irritates me about Baldwin is that he looks to be playing up the tragic accident angle in a way that deflects blame. Perhaps my perception is wrong but it's hard not to think that when he is so aggressive in public instead of shutting the fuck up as most people would have the decency or sense to do.

[Service Dog]

Hilaria Baldwin is a meme.

[Pitchguest]

Seriously though, has nobody here watched the Dune remake yet? I'm itching to hear other opinions on what I think is probably the finest science fiction movie to hit our screens since "Upgrade" was released.

C'mon, there's got to be one of two of you out there?

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3 ... resize=480:*

I thought it was fine, but I thought the performances were very subdued for such a big film. Many times when they were just staring blankly and not really reacting when things happened around them. Or maybe that was just the editing that made it seem that way. I was a bit disappointed with the Baron, I didn't think they would tone him down. I thought they would allow Skarsgård to go ham, and I didn't like that they made the blue eyes of the Fremen less blue. I mean, that's the most striking part of the Fremen, their shining deep blue eyes that are so blue you can no longer see the whites in their eyes. It would have looked cool, too!

Other than that, I thought the soundtrack and the visuals were great and it was a lot better than I thought it would be. Solid 7/10.

[Bhurzum]

I thought it was fine, but I thought the performances were very subdued for such a big film. Many times when they were just staring blankly and not really reacting when things happened around them. Or maybe that was just the editing that made it seem that way. I was a bit disappointed with the Baron, I didn't think they would tone him down. I thought they would allow Skarsgård to go ham, and I didn't like that they made the blue eyes of the Fremen less blue. I mean, that's the most striking part of the Fremen, their shining deep blue eyes that are so blue you can no longer see the whites in their eyes. It would have looked cool, too!

Other than that, I thought the soundtrack and the visuals were great and it was a lot better than I thought it would be. Solid 7/10.

Many reviews in the 'pit. New reviews. Better than those on twitter.

(the opinions must flow!)

[Bhurzum]

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/de/de6b5d3 ... 5a445b.jpg

(shameless excuse to post this meme!)

[MarcusAu]

So...

Jodorowsky or Lynch ?

[Basement]

Seriously though, has nobody here watched the Dune remake yet? I'm itching to hear other opinions on what I think is probably the finest science fiction movie to hit our screens since "Upgrade" was released.

C'mon, there's got to be one of two of you out there?

https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3 ... resize=480:*

I've watched modern interpretations of my beloved Star Trek, Doctor Who, and Star Wars all seek to delegitimize the work they are based on. Dune is my all time favorite science fiction. I've read the Frank Herbert series 7 - 8 times in my life. I read some of the Kevin J. Anderson sequel and prequel trash, and it was an abomination. I understand they replaced Dr. Kynes with a black women. A big deal? - probably not, but then why do it? I haven't watched the movie yet, but I'm just not excited. I feel they will butcher it somehow.

Dune is a very "gendered" story. I am not sure a retelling in these times is a good idea. What happens if a transwomen takes the water of life? Can a transwomen be a Reverend Mother?

[Lsuoma]

What about the face dancers from Tleilax?

[Steersman]

Guns don't kill people...

Not sure if it's been posted here yet, but apparently the Trumpers have come up with a meme taking a shot at Baldwin with their "Guns Don't Kill People; Alec Baldwin Does". Been picked up and amplified by many including this Tweeter:

https://twitter.com/elisabethlehem1

[Service Dog]

https://media.patriots.win/post/UXvRDx0H.jpeg

https://media.patriots.win/post/PubSN3br.png

Here in NYC-- 24,200 city workers remain unvaccinated.

Including:

8,000 police
3,700 firefighters
2,000 garbage men

The two closest fire stations to my home-- are are among the 26 stations now shuttered, due to the droves of firemen who have been removed from their job by the Vax Mandate.

The city is predicting a 7 minute increase in response-times... for fire calls.

Trash pick-ups have been greatly reduced-- there's piles of garbage bags everywhere.

700 cops with 'non-patrol' assignments are being sent to work the streets.
Garbage men are now ordered to work 12 hour shifts, and their 6-day pick-up schedule is now expanded to include Sunday/ 7 days per week.

The mayor claims that 'volunteer firefighters' from upstate will help fill the FDNY gaps. I doubt it. Don't those firefighters have jobs & lives & responsibilities upstate?

[Basement]

What about the face dancers from Tleilax?

They can change genders, and are sterile. Do you think they'll be chanting "Face dancer women are women"

[Service Dog]

Guns don't kill people...

Not sure if it's been posted here yet, but apparently the Trumpers have come up with a meme taking a shot at Baldwin with their "Guns Don't Kill People; Alec Baldwin Does". Been picked up and amplified by many including this Tweeter:

https://twitter.com/elisabethlehem1

Seems a little odd-- to attribute that to 'the Trumpers'.

[ThreeFlangedJavis]

Alec is really determined to get to the bottom of this. He is so sorry that this terrible accident happened to his friends and he'd really like to know what forced him to point a gun at them and not insist on checking it first.

Trump.

The answer is always Trump.

Note: I don't like Baldwin, have never liked him as an actor or for his virtue-bleating, but I can't help but feel a twang of pity for him. Obviously I have more pity and sympathy for the people he shot and their loved ones. It's a shit state of affairs...

It is good to feel pity for him. The thing I object to is the idea that "I didn't know the gun was loaded" in any way diminishes the responsibility of a shooter for what happens - at least if the shooter is of a mental age of twelve or higher.

He isn't helping himself. As they say, never talk to the police. The police watch youtube too. The more he reveals his experience of guns on movie sets the deeper the hole he digs. Beyond that, the more he says that can be spun as evidencing experience of guns on movie sets the deeper the hole he digs.

[Bhurzum]

Dune is a very "gendered" story. I am not sure a retelling in these times is a good idea. What happens if a transwomen takes the water of life? Can a transwomen be a Reverend Mother?

If a man-in-a-dress takes the waters of life, he'd be culturally appropriating Muad'Dib.

Also, the line “Try looking into that place where you dare not look! You'll find me there, staring out at you!” surely contains a pun or two about men-with-tits wanting to lurk in women's toilets?

Fucking Frem'am...

[Service Dog]

Another shooting, just now, 713 feet down my street.

[Service Dog]

Another thousand feet-- gets you to last night's shooting. Also the site of last week's fatal stabbing.

[John D]

The Juncos have arrived. I saw a flock of about 30 of the little sprites today. Just bought a bird bath heater so my friends can have open water all winter.

Had a great trip to the Traverse City MI area with my wife. We marveled at the fall colors and drank great wine. We actually got along and had a good time. Three case of wine came home with us.

I am enjoying a shot of the delicious grappa I just got at the local liquor emporium.

We had 65 delightful children take our candy last night. White, and brown, and black kids. Polite and happy and laughing.... parents waiving from the street.

Glad I live in Troy Michigan. Calm and green and civilized. Three hours from a Northern paradise. Twenty minutes from a wild and charged city.... far enough away to be safe... haha. (Brooklyn sounds like a dystopia... WTF?)

My wife and I are going to Manhattan in January to see some shows (Music Man and Mulan Rouge so far). Am I going to get mugged?...haha. Delta will not let me take my Glock on the plane.

[Lsuoma]

Dark-eyed? We have them all year round here in W WA.

[Steersman]

Guns don't kill people...

Not sure if it's been posted here yet, but apparently the Trumpers have come up with a meme taking a shot at Baldwin with their "Guns Don't Kill People; Alec Baldwin Does". Been picked up and amplified by many including this Tweeter:

https://twitter.com/elisabethlehem1

Seems a little odd-- to attribute that to 'the Trumpers'.

Maybe not "the Trumpers", but close to the head-Trumper Himself, i.e., Don Jr:

However, the son of the former President of the United States, Donald Trump Jr., took a completely different route. And that caused him to receive an incredible amount of criticism, not just from Twitter but from established newspapers as well. What Trump Jr did was that he mocked the accidental shooting by Baldwin with a t-shirt.

https://dankanator.com/101749/donald-tr ... s-t-shirt/

[Steersman]

What about the face dancers from Tleilax?

They can change genders, and are sterile. Do you think they'll be chanting "Face dancer women are women"

As "gender" is little more than a synonym for personalities - billions and billions of them - it's rather easy for humans at least to change genders. Impossible for humans to change sex, the biological definitions for which are based on having functional gonads. Transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs - seems a bit of an extreme response to wanting to "dish with the girls" and share tales of which is the best nail polish. De gustibus, I guess.

Though, given the premise that "Face Dancer servants have the ability to mimic any human", one would expect that their reproductive abilities would meet the criteria to qualify as females (functional ovaries) and thereby as women ("adult human females").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Tlei ... nal_series

In any case, somewhat apropos of which, my essay at Medium on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism":

[John D]

Dark-eyed? We have them all year round here in W WA.

Yeah. Dark eyed juncos. They only winter in my area of South East Michigan. They summer in Canada.

[Basement]

What about the face dancers from Tleilax?

They can change genders, and are sterile. Do you think they'll be chanting "Face dancer women are women"

As "gender" is little more than a synonym for personalities - billions and billions of them - it's rather easy for humans at least to change genders. Impossible for humans to change sex, the biological definitions for which are based on having functional gonads. Transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs - seems a bit of an extreme response to wanting to "dish with the girls" and share tales of which is the best nail polish. De gustibus, I guess.

Though, given the premise that "Face Dancer servants have the ability to mimic any human", one would expect that their reproductive abilities would meet the criteria to qualify as females (functional ovaries) and thereby as women ("adult human females").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Tlei ... nal_series

In any case, somewhat apropos of which, my essay at Medium on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism":

You are correct, I absolutely should have used "sex" instead of gender in this instance. I apologize to anyone I may have offended with this poor word usage. In the future I will try to do better blah blah blah talk less listen more blah blah blah be a better ally blah blah blah...

However, gender as a synonym for personality does not work. That is a horrible definition, I don't know anyone who uses the word that way in real life (as opposed to internet life).

As for face dancers, they don't have functioning reproductive abilities since they cannot procreate. I wouldn't consider them adult human females, although they can mimic an adult human female.

[Service Dog]

(Brooklyn sounds like a dystopia... WTF?)

My wife and I are going to Manhattan in January to see some shows (Music Man and Mulan Rouge so far). Am I going to get mugged?

I'm in Manhattan!-- near the 3 bridges to Brooklyn.

Odds are you won't be mugged-- but you will see everything is boarded-up, vandalized, & overrun with vermin-kin.

I wanna meet you, when you're in town!

--

I tried to post this reply several times, in the afternoon & evening. Kept getting the Internal Server Error.

--

In other news...

[MarcusAu]

...it's rather easy for humans at least to change genders. Impossible for humans to change sex...

And yet according to the definitions you have set up, there will come a time in their lives when women (adult human females) will stop being women.

What's changed their sex or their gender, or both?

[Service Dog]

If one of these so-called 'women' doesn't actually bear children, how do we know Schrodinger's Cunt was ever really a 'woman' at all?

Unless she's willing to walk-the-walk like Gloria Vanderbilt, at age 85, willing to become the incestuous surrogate mother for her billionaire gay CIA propaganda-psyop son... Anderson Cooper. Which would tooooootally prove that she's a perfectly-normal woman.

https://pagesix.com/2021/09/24/anderson ... surrogate/

[Steersman]

<snip>
As "gender" is little more than a synonym for personalities - billions and billions of them - it's rather easy for humans at least to change genders. Impossible for humans to change sex, the biological definitions for which are based on having functional gonads. Transwomen who cut their nuts off turn themselves into sexless eunuchs - seems a bit of an extreme response to wanting to "dish with the girls" and share tales of which is the best nail polish. De gustibus, I guess.

Though, given the premise that "Face Dancer servants have the ability to mimic any human", one would expect that their reproductive abilities would meet the criteria to qualify as females (functional ovaries) and thereby as women ("adult human females").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bene_Tlei ... nal_series

In any case, somewhat apropos of which, my essay at Medium on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism":

https://medium.com/@steersmann/wikipedi ... 0901a22da2

You are correct, I absolutely should have used "sex" instead of gender in this instance. I apologize to anyone I may have offended with this poor word usage. In the future I will try to do better blah blah blah talk less listen more blah blah blah be a better ally blah blah blah...

Well, I should hope so ... ;)

However, gender as a synonym for personality does not work. That is a horrible definition, I don't know anyone who uses the word that way in real life (as opposed to internet life).

That some people - many people - misuse a term does not some how make the misuse into an acceptable standard.

But you might note this SEP essay, section 2.2 in particular which talks about "gender as feminine and masculine personality":

https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fal ... sm-gender/

And many sources, including Merriam-Webster define gender as encompassing "psychological traits" - AKA personality:

Among those who study gender and sexuality, a clear delineation between sex and gender is typically prescribed, with sex as the preferred term for biological forms, and gender limited to its meanings involving behavioral, cultural, and psychological traits. In this dichotomy, the terms male and female relate only to biological forms (sex), while the terms masculine/masculinity, feminine/femininity, woman/girl, and man/boy relate only to psychological and sociocultural traits (gender).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... er#usage-1

And the BMJ has something similar:

Sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex, unless otherwise specified, relates to biology: the gametes, chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs. Gender relates to societal roles, behaviours, and expectations that vary with time and place, historically and geographically.

https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n735

Though there's something in the way of a common view that gender also encompasses various personality types - it's not exactly an untenable argument that there are various personality types - Myers-Briggs lists 16, Jung had 4, others talk about introverts and extroverts (separate sports leagues for all 22!!! :roll: ) - and that some are more common among females than among males, and vice versa:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personali ... #Carl_Jung

But stereotypes are something of an abstraction, a characteristic of groups - like average heights. Some individual may have the same height as what the average is but it's generally not a trait that all members of the population possess.

Whole concept of gender is a bit of a dog's breakfast but seeing it as encompassing personalities and personality types seems to cut through the miasma.

As for face dancers, they don't have functioning reproductive abilities since they cannot procreate. I wouldn't consider them adult human females, although they can mimic an adult human female.

Moot though it's maybe academic - it's a fantasy world. But if they could "mimic an adult human female" to the extent of producing ova then that would qualify them as such.

[Steersman]

...it's rather easy for humans at least to change genders. Impossible for humans to change sex...

And yet according to the definitions you have set up, there will come a time in their lives when women (adult human females) will stop being women.

What's changed their sex or their gender, or both?

Yes, that is correct, although those definitions aren't something I've cut from whole cloth; they are the standards.

But IF we define "woman" as "adult human female [sex]" - as is the case - THEN being a female is a "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as a woman - assuming that the individual is an adult human, those being other "necessary conditions":

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/woman

Similarly, the "necessary and sufficient condition" to qualify as a female is to have functioning ovaries; no ovaries in functioning order then not a female. Helen Joyce in a Quillette article emphasized that point though she balks at taking the "necessary and sufficient" hurdle, but it's intrinsic to her argument:

[Woman]: An adult human who identifies as female

— Anonymous Twitter account

Marks for cunning, I suppose. Using “female” instead of “woman” is clearly an attempt to avoid circularity. The problem is that “female” is not something you can identify as. It’s a word with an objective definition that holds right across all of biology, and hardly any of the things it refers to are capable of identifying as anything. It means: “of or denoting the sex class that produces large gametes,” and so it refers to peahens (not peacocks) ....

https://quillette.com/2020/06/20/she-wh ... -be-named/

Joyce is doing yeoman's duty - yeowoman's duty? - in drawing attention to the rank insanity of self-identification. As risible and as idiotic as arguing that a child of 12 can buy guns, cigarettes, and alcohol if the "self-identify" as 35.

But you might be interested in the Wikipedia article on extensional and intensional definitions which nicely illustrates that concept of "necessary and sufficient conditions". The necessary and sufficient condition to be a bachelor is to be an unmarried man, the necessary and sufficient condition to be a teenager is to be between the ages of 13 and 19 inclusive. A relatively simple concept, particularly when accompanied by such simple examples, but it's also a crucially essential one too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extension ... efinitions

As for gender, there's a developing consensus that sex and gender are entirely different concepts, the former defined by the biology of reproduction, the latter by the psychology of personalities and related personality types. The late Justice Scalia had a rather nice illustration of that dichotomy by way of an analogy:

The word ‘gender’ has acquired the new and useful connotation of cultural or attitudinal characteristics … distinctive to the sexes. That is to say, gender is to sex as feminine is to female and masculine is to male.

So some people can be of the male sex but have a feminine gender, and others can be of the female sex but have a masculine gender. In the case you described, "menopausees" have stopped being women but may still have a feminine gender; sex and gender are not joined at the hip, are entirely different kettles of fish.

[fafnir]

As for gender, there's a developing consensus that sex and gender are entirely different concepts

I kind of feel this should read "developing consensus *to* define sex and gender *as* entirely different concepts". It's not as if these are physically distinct categories in the world that were discovered and whose properties we are discovering. These are categories that people have decided to create and whose properties they are deciding.

[John D]

I'm in Manhattan!-- near the 3 bridges to Brooklyn.

Odds are you won't be mugged-- but you will see everything is boarded-up, vandalized, & overrun with vermin-kin.

I wanna meet you, when you're in town!

So you are in the lower east side? We should get together. My wife will probably not join us since she needs a lot of rest and has a extroversion score of 1 out of 100. She will probably think it is crazy to meet with someone from an obscene atheist blog site (and she may be right... haha). I will test her tonight to see if I can abandon her for a bit. Maybe you can suggest an interesting spot to meet. Anyways... I will private message you with more details soon. Perhaps I can talk you into writing your book.

[Lsuoma]

Hey, Bhurzo!

Here's a substack with an an annotation (Helmholtz generators) of the new Dune film. You're sure to love it!

https://maxread.substack.com/p/dune-annotated

[Steersman]

As for gender, there's a developing consensus that sex and gender are entirely different concepts

I kind of feel this should read "developing consensus *to* define sex and gender *as* entirely different concepts". It's not as if these are physically distinct categories in the world that were discovered and whose properties we are discovering. These are categories that people have decided to create and whose properties they are deciding.

Couple of points and arguments there that - as indicated - I largely if not entirely agree with.

Many people seem not to realize that categories are abstractions, and that there are no intrinsic meanings to any of the words we use - they're all "socially constructed", a point, of the few, in favour of the postmodernists and the social constructionists. Relative to the latter, I like to argue that the first dictionary wasn't brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses on tablets A through Z; we create the definitions but some are more useful and coherent than others. About which "honest people may disagree".

But relative to the former - categories as abstractions - the standard definition emphasizes the point:

category: A class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/category

That "regard", that perception of "shared characteristics", exists only in our minds - it's not a tangible trait or property shared or possessed by any of the members of the category in question. For one example, "female" is defined as a category, the "shared characteristic" consisting of "produces ova". No one is really a female - it's not a thing in itself; the word is little more than a membership card, and a transitory one at that. Too many people try to change that abstraction into a real thing - the "sin", the logical fallacy of reification. But the word is only a label that denotes the possession of that property, that characteristic; don't possess the property, can't wear the label:

Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sex

As you had said, sex in particular is a category that we have created and are in the process of deciding which properties are "necessary and sufficient" to qualify various individuals as members - or not. However, the current convention - based on sound reasons and "brute facts" - is that that "necessary and sufficient condition" is to have "reproductive function", to have the ability to reproduce, the essential element being able to produce sperm or ova for use in the biological process of reproduction: no gametes, no sex (suck it up buttercups).

Now many people wish to redefine the word - largely for politically motivated "reasons" which generally boil down into egregiously flagrant Lysenkoism - so that it's a spectrum, a polythetic category based on a "cluster of traits", none of which are necessary and sufficient to qualify an individual as a member of any of the myriad of resulting "sexes". For example, see Doc Stock's insistence that:

... there is no hard and fast ‘essence’ to biological sex, at least in our everyday sense: no set of characteristics a male or female must have, to count as such ...

https://medium.com/@steersmann/reality- ... f9618b17c7

While that perspective may have something of a philosophical justification, at least for the boffins in their ivory towers, it's not of much use in practical matters such as biology and animal husbandry: if we're all males and females - and all of the many other "sexes" to boot - then the words are largely meaningless. Helen Joyce had something of a cogent observation and utilitarian perspective on that point:

The way you define something is to state criteria that enable you to distinguish between things that qualify and things that don’t.

https://quillette.com/2020/06/20/she-wh ... -be-named/

Something of a complex process how we define categories which is not easy to describe in simple and coherent terms, but it's also a crucially important one. You in particular might be interested in my further elaborations, particularly on the differences between polythetic and monothetic categories; the second link is a two-parter, the second of which elaborates on categories as abstractions:

https://letter.wiki/conversation/876
https://letter.wiki/conversation/185

In any case, that is only the definition for the "sex" category; the "gender" one is a bit "thornier" :) although I think similar principles apply. Basically, there are, on the one hand, biological abilities to reproduce (sex) and, on the other hand, various psychological traits and stereotypes (gender) that tend to correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with those biological abilities. Makes sense to create and name separate categories as a way of understanding how one (sex) may affect or contribute to the other (gender).

[fafnir]

As for gender, there's a developing consensus that sex and gender are entirely different concepts

I kind of feel this should read "developing consensus *to* define sex and gender *as* entirely different concepts". It's not as if these are physically distinct categories in the world that were discovered and whose properties we are discovering. These are categories that people have decided to create and whose properties they are deciding.

Couple of points and arguments there that - as indicated - I largely if not entirely agree with.

Many people seem not to realize that categories are abstractions, and that there are no intrinsic meanings to any of the words we use - they're all "socially constructed", a point, of the few, in favour of the postmodernists and the social constructionists. Relative to the latter, I like to argue that the first dictionary wasn't brought down from Mt. Sinai by Moses on tablets A through Z; we create the definitions but some are more useful and coherent than others. About which "honest people may disagree".

But relative to the former - categories as abstractions - the standard definition emphasizes the point:

category: A class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/category

That "regard", that perception of "shared characteristics", exists only in our minds - it's not a tangible trait or property shared or possessed by any of the members of the category in question. For one example, "female" is defined as a category, the "shared characteristic" consisting of "produces ova". No one is really a female - it's not a thing in itself; the word is little more than a membership card, and a transitory one at that. Too many people try to change that abstraction into a real thing - the "sin", the logical fallacy of reification. But the word is only a label that denotes the possession of that property, that characteristic; don't possess the property, can't wear the label:

Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sex

As you had said, sex in particular is a category that we have created and are in the process of deciding which properties are "necessary and sufficient" to qualify various individuals as members - or not. However, the current convention - based on sound reasons and "brute facts" - is that that "necessary and sufficient condition" is to have "reproductive function", to have the ability to reproduce, the essential element being able to produce sperm or ova for use in the biological process of reproduction: no gametes, no sex (suck it up buttercups).

That isn't the distinction I'm making. You can have two categories and then discover things about the members of those categories while keeping the categories the same. Or you can redefine the categories in search of a specific outcome. When you say that "As for gender, there's a developing consensus that sex and gender are entirely different concepts". That is phrased as if it's a process of discovery where people are realising that the concepts are different. What is actually happening is that people are changing the concepts in order to make them different. That distinction is important.

In any case, that is only the definition for the "sex" category; the "gender" one is a bit "thornier" :) although I think similar principles apply. Basically, there are, on the one hand, biological abilities to reproduce (sex) and, on the other hand, various psychological traits and stereotypes (gender) that tend to correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with those biological abilities. Makes sense to create and name separate categories as a way of understanding how one (sex) may affect or contribute to the other (gender).

Does it? It seems to me that the introduction of the word gender in this way has served only to allow endless manipulative linguistic games to be played. If we look at the world as it is today and the compare it to the past where you could talk about women's sports without implying people with penises should be competing.... are things clearer now, or less clear. I vote less clear and hugely more confusing. Calling it "psychological sex" or similar would have saved an awful lot of trouble, but would have been politically far less useful.

[Bhurzum]

Hey, Bhurzo!

Here's a substack with an an annotation (Helmholtz generators) of the new Dune film. You're sure to love it!

https://maxread.substack.com/p/dune-annotated

That was a good read! Thanks for the link.

[Steersman]

<snip>

That "regard", that perception of "shared characteristics", exists only in our minds - it's not a tangible trait or property shared or possessed by any of the members of the category in question. For one example, "female" is defined as a category, the "shared characteristic" consisting of "produces ova". No one is really a female - it's not a thing in itself; the word is little more than a membership card, and a transitory one at that. Too many people try to change that abstraction into a real thing - the "sin", the logical fallacy of reification. But the word is only a label that denotes the possession of that property, that characteristic; don't possess the property, can't wear the label:

Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sex

As you had said, sex in particular is a category that we have created and are in the process of deciding which properties are "necessary and sufficient" to qualify various individuals as members - or not. However, the current convention - based on sound reasons and "brute facts" - is that that "necessary and sufficient condition" is to have "reproductive function", to have the ability to reproduce, the essential element being able to produce sperm or ova for use in the biological process of reproduction: no gametes, no sex (suck it up buttercups).

That isn't the distinction I'm making. You can have two categories and then discover things about the members of those categories while keeping the categories the same. Or you can redefine the categories in search of a specific outcome.

Then I don't know what "distinction" you're trying to make. Seems to me that you're missing my point - though it may be buried in too much verbiage - as I've agreed with you that our definitions are "works-in-progress", an ad hoc process. Although they're not entirely arbitrary - they have to be consistent and non-contradictory.

But you might try creating some examples to illustrate your points.

For example, if we are talking about the "female" and "male" categories then, by definition, the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as members is to be able to produce ova or sperm. But - "discovering other things about the members of those categories" - we find that some human/mammalian ova producers are XX while others are (for examples, I think) XXY, XXX, or XO. Similarly, we find that in other species such as birds, the ova-producers (females) are ZW:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-deter ... hromosomes

But those other traits are "accidental" ones; they're not essential for an organism to qualify as females and males, at least as those categories are currently defined. See:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/esse ... ccidental/

When you say that "As for gender, there's a developing consensus that sex and gender are entirely different concepts". That is phrased as if it's a process of discovery where people are realising that the concepts are different. What is actually happening is that people are changing the concepts in order to make them different. That distinction is important.

As I've said, I've agreed with you that it's less a "process of discovery", and more one of redefining both categories in more precise terms to reflect the fact that we are generally trying to talk about biological traits, on the one hand, and psychological traits on the other hand.

Try thinking that there are biological traits, in particular, the ability to produce either of two types of gametes which is called anisogamy, an evolved trait that's been around for literally 100s of millions of years, long before humans decided to try naming those who produce them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy

And try thinking that there are psychological traits - personalities and behaviours - that may or may not be related to which type of gametes are produced. Given those different traits then there's some justification for creating differently named categories to be able to discuss them and their possible relationships.

In any case, that is only the definition for the "sex" category; the "gender" one is a bit "thornier" :) although I think similar principles apply. Basically, there are, on the one hand, biological abilities to reproduce (sex) and, on the other hand, various psychological traits and stereotypes (gender) that tend to correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with those biological abilities. Makes sense to create and name separate categories as a way of understanding how one (sex) may affect or contribute to the other (gender).

Does it? It seems to me that the introduction of the word gender in this way has served only to allow endless manipulative linguistic games to be played. If we look at the world as it is today and the compare it to the past where you could talk about women's sports without implying people with penises should be competing.... are things clearer now, or less clear. I vote less clear and hugely more confusing. Calling it "psychological sex" or similar would have saved an awful lot of trouble, but would have been politically far less useful.

What do you mean by "does it?"? What are you referring to? The correlation of psychological traits and our sexes? Do you agree or not that, on average, some behaviours and personality types are more common among "females" than among "males" and vice versa?

You might read a generally very good essay at 4th Wave Now that has a nice population distribution that illustrates that correlation; note the "female-like personality profile", and the "male-like personality profile" - AKA, feminine and masculine personalities. And note also that the averages, the peaks, are displaced from each other. Which means that the specified traits - actually, a composite of many traits - are more typical of one sex than the other.

But that is what "gender" is all about, at least in the more rational views:

FourthWaveNow_BornInWrongBody1A.jpg

(73.15 KiB) Downloaded 68 times

https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-ch ... -identity/

See also this listing of personality stereotypes - not sure how accurate it is, or how prevalent, but it illustrates a more or less coherent concept of gender, at least to begin with:

ThreadReader_LaScap_Gender2A.jpg

(136.89 KiB) Downloaded 68 times

But I'll more or less readily agree with you about "linguistic games". But that does not mean that there isn't some value in the concept of gender as personalities and the stereotypes which are derived from them. Why there's some value in trying to define the term as accurately as possible, why there's some value in clearly differentiating between the biological and the psychological.

[fafnir]

<snip>

That "regard", that perception of "shared characteristics", exists only in our minds - it's not a tangible trait or property shared or possessed by any of the members of the category in question. For one example, "female" is defined as a category, the "shared characteristic" consisting of "produces ova". No one is really a female - it's not a thing in itself; the word is little more than a membership card, and a transitory one at that. Too many people try to change that abstraction into a real thing - the "sin", the logical fallacy of reification. But the word is only a label that denotes the possession of that property, that characteristic; don't possess the property, can't wear the label:

Sex: Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sex

As you had said, sex in particular is a category that we have created and are in the process of deciding which properties are "necessary and sufficient" to qualify various individuals as members - or not. However, the current convention - based on sound reasons and "brute facts" - is that that "necessary and sufficient condition" is to have "reproductive function", to have the ability to reproduce, the essential element being able to produce sperm or ova for use in the biological process of reproduction: no gametes, no sex (suck it up buttercups).

That isn't the distinction I'm making. You can have two categories and then discover things about the members of those categories while keeping the categories the same. Or you can redefine the categories in search of a specific outcome.

Then I don't know what "distinction" you're trying to make. Seems to me that you're missing my point - though it may be buried in too much verbiage - as I've agreed with you that our definitions are "works-in-progress", an ad hoc process. Although they're not entirely arbitrary - they have to be consistent and non-contradictory.

But you might try creating some examples to illustrate your points.

For example, if we are talking about the "female" and "male" categories then, by definition, the necessary and sufficient conditions to qualify as members is to be able to produce ova or sperm. But - "discovering other things about the members of those categories" - we find that some human/mammalian ova producers are XX while others are (for examples, I think) XXY, XXX, or XO. Similarly, we find that in other species such as birds, the ova-producers (females) are ZW:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-deter ... hromosomes

But those other traits are "accidental" ones; they're not essential for an organism to qualify as females and males, at least as those categories are currently defined. See:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/esse ... ccidental/

Nobody in their right mind says that post menopausal women aren't female, or that a man who accidentally shuts his testicles in a car door ceases to be male. None of this relates to my original objection to your phrasing though.

When you say that "As for gender, there's a developing consensus that sex and gender are entirely different concepts". That is phrased as if it's a process of discovery where people are realising that the concepts are different. What is actually happening is that people are changing the concepts in order to make them different. That distinction is important.

As I've said, I've agreed with you that it's less a "process of discovery", and more one of redefining both categories in more precise terms to reflect the fact that we are generally trying to talk about biological traits, on the one hand, and psychological traits on the other hand.

Right, but given that the process of refining those definitions is a political project, I think it's important that we make it clear when we talk about it that the differentiation between gender and sex isn't something people are discovering, but something that people have decided to impose.

Try thinking that there are biological traits, in particular, the ability to produce either of two types of gametes which is called anisogamy, an evolved trait that's been around for literally 100s of millions of years, long before humans decided to try naming those who produce them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy

Any disagreement we may have isn't because I don't understand gametes or evolution.

And try thinking that there are psychological traits - personalities and behaviours - that may or may not be related to which type of gametes are produced. Given those different traits then there's some justification for creating differently named categories to be able to discuss them and their possible relationships.

Perhaps, but by reusing the words "gender", and "man" and "woman" a lot of political motivated linguistic games have been facilitated that have done far more harm than good.

In any case, that is only the definition for the "sex" category; the "gender" one is a bit "thornier" :) although I think similar principles apply. Basically, there are, on the one hand, biological abilities to reproduce (sex) and, on the other hand, various psychological traits and stereotypes (gender) that tend to correlate, to a greater or lesser extent, with those biological abilities. Makes sense to create and name separate categories as a way of understanding how one (sex) may affect or contribute to the other (gender).

Does it? It seems to me that the introduction of the word gender in this way has served only to allow endless manipulative linguistic games to be played. If we look at the world as it is today and the compare it to the past where you could talk about women's sports without implying people with penises should be competing.... are things clearer now, or less clear. I vote less clear and hugely more confusing. Calling it "psychological sex" or similar would have saved an awful lot of trouble, but would have been politically far less useful.

What do you mean by "does it?"? What are you referring to? The correlation of psychological traits and our sexes? Do you agree or not that, on average, some behaviours and personality types are more common among "females" than among "males" and vice versa?

By "does it?" I mean, does it make sense to introduce new categories given that the introduction of this category seems to have caused chaos and confusion. Of course I agree that there a bimodally distributed psycho-social characteristics associated with sex. It's not as if we hadn't been able to talk about that for the centuries before we changed the meaning of "male" and "female".

You might read a generally very good essay at 4th Wave Now that has a nice population distribution that illustrates that correlation; note the "female-like personality profile", and the "male-like personality profile" - AKA, feminine and masculine personalities. And note also that the averages, the peaks, are displaced from each other. Which means that the specified traits - actually, a composite of many traits - are more typical of one sex than the other.

But that is what "gender" is all about, at least in the more rational views:


FourthWaveNow_BornInWrongBody1A.jpg

https://4thwavenow.com/2019/08/19/no-ch ... -identity/

See also this listing of personality stereotypes - not sure how accurate it is, or how prevalent, but it illustrates a more or less coherent concept of gender, at least to begin with:


ThreadReader_LaScap_Gender2A.jpg


But I'll more or less readily agree with you about "linguistic games". But that does not mean that there isn't some value in the concept of gender as personalities and the stereotypes which are derived from them. Why there's some value in trying to define the term as accurately as possible, why there's some value in clearly differentiating between the biological and the psychological.
[/quote]
It isn't a question of denying that males and females have, on average, psychological differences. That's obvious and sane people have known it since the dawn of time. It's a question of the damage that taking over existing words and then changing their definitions to suit a political purpose has done. 50 years ago everybody knew that womens sports weren't for people with penises, beards and male testosterone levels. Now because the word "women" is used, ideologically possessed assholes get to pretend that we differentiate sport based on gender rather than sex. The introduction and adoption of this category system has been a disaster.

[fafnir]

"Why there's some value in trying to define the term as accurately as possible"
That's just the point. They aren't trying to define anything as accurately as possible. They are defining these things to be politically useful. I don't give a tuppenny jizz what definition some maoist feminist sociologist chooses to use, except that they are rewriting the everyday definitions of words and using that to enact real world change.

They are motivated to define their terms as accurately as possible like YouTube are concerned to have precise and specific terms of service and content policies. The whole project is to blur definitions, and sew confusion in order to play linguistic games to win political victories.

[fafnir]

"why there's some value in clearly differentiating between the biological and the psychological"
"biologically male", "psychologically male". Done. I didn't need to change the meaning of any commonly used words.

[Steersman]

<snip>

But those other traits are "accidental" ones; they're not essential for an organism to qualify as females and males, at least as those categories are currently defined. See:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/esse ... ccidental/

Nobody in their right mind says that post menopausal women aren't female, or that a man who accidentally shuts his testicles in a car door ceases to be male. None of this relates to my original objection to your phrasing though.

What's your definition for "female"? What makes you think it can trump the biological one?

As for "not in their right mind", you think that that describes Paul Griffiths - professor at University of Sydney, expert in the philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy, and author of this Aeon essay?

Many people assume that if there are only two sexes, that means everyone must fall into one of them. But the biological definition of sex doesn’t imply that at all. As well as simultaneous hermaphrodites, which are both male and female, sequential hermaphrodites are first one sex and then the other. ....

Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from defining each sex by the ability to do one thing: to make eggs or to make sperm.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of ... -diversity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_E._Griffiths

He's really not saying anything other than what the dictionary and encyclopedia definitions say.

<snip>

Try thinking that there are biological traits, in particular, the ability to produce either of two types of gametes which is called anisogamy, an evolved trait that's been around for literally 100s of millions of years, long before humans decided to try naming those who produce them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisogamy

Any disagreement we may have isn't because I don't understand gametes or evolution.

But you seem not to understand that "male" and "female" apply to large percentages of literally millions of species. Why it's essential to much if not all of biology. And why "psychologically male" is rather untenable at best. What differentiates the psychology of a male horse from a female one? [Maybe Matt has some cogent observations thereon ... ;) ] Or that of a male horse from a male dog or a male fish?

About the most that you could get out of "psychologically male" is the psychology of a male. Which clearly covers a lot of ground making the concept rather useless at best. You're muddying the waters by mashing together two quite different concepts. Which the concept of "gender" goes some distance in clarifying.

And try thinking that there are psychological traits - personalities and behaviours - that may or may not be related to which type of gametes are produced. Given those different traits then there's some justification for creating differently named categories to be able to discuss them and their possible relationships.

Perhaps, but by reusing the words "gender", and "man" and "woman" a lot of political motivated linguistic games have been facilitated that have done far more harm than good.

Maybe. But that's kind of the current level of discourse. Likely to have more success "rationalizing" those definitions than trying to do away with them entirely. Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative ...

<snip>

But I'll more or less readily agree with you about "linguistic games". But that does not mean that there isn't some value in the concept of gender as personalities and the stereotypes which are derived from them. Why there's some value in trying to define the term as accurately as possible, why there's some value in clearly differentiating between the biological and the psychological.

It isn't a question of denying that males and females have, on average, psychological differences. That's obvious and sane people have known it since the dawn of time.

"sane people" seem to be rather thin on the ground; see the ubiquity of "magical thinking" that Kurt Andersen describes in his "Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire":

In America nowadays, those more exciting parts of the Enlightenment idea have swamped the sober, rational, empirical parts. Little by little for centuries, then more and more and faster and faster during the past half century, we Americans have given ourselves over to all kinds of magical thinking, anything-goes relativism, and belief in fanciful explanation—small and large fantasies that console or thrill or terrify us.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... nd/534231/

But for examples, see the rather too common tendency to turn the sexes into immutable identities, to insist that menopausees and transwomen with their nuts removed still qualify as females and males.

It's a question of the damage that taking over existing words and then changing their definitions to suit a political purpose has done. 50 years ago everybody knew that womens sports weren't for people with penises, beards and male testosterone levels. Now because the word "women" is used, ideologically possessed assholes get to pretend that we differentiate sport based on gender rather than sex. The introduction and adoption of this category system has been a disaster.

Quite readily agree with you about "changing definitions to suit a political purpose". But that is also why I and no few others are emphasizing the standard definition of "woman" as "adult human female". Largely the theme of my article on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism".

But that definition - and the access to "women's sports" - also hinges on the definition for "female", the biological and binary one being the only one that's coherent, consistent, and useful. However and quite unfortunately, many people - feminists in particular - are reluctant to face the fact that the biological definition means that that state is a rather decidedly transitory one, that it is anything but "immutable" :roll: .

Which is why I've argued that access to sports, changing rooms, and other areas and opportunities really isn't by sex - by reproductive abilities; it's basically by genitalia or maybe karyotype. If we were rational then we might create laws to reflect that fact.

Somewhat apropos of which, you might try reading that essay of Griffiths'; of particular note:

Human societies can’t delegate to biology the job of defining sex as a social institution. The biological definition of sex wasn’t designed to ensure fair sporting competition, or to settle disputes about access to healthcare. Theorists who want to use the biological definition of sex in those ways need to show that it will do a good job at the Olympics or in Medicare. The fact that it’s needed in biology isn’t good enough. On the other hand, whatever its shortcomings as an institutional definition, the concept of biological sex remains essential to understand the diversity of life. It shouldn’t be discarded or distorted because of arguments about its use in law, sport or medicine. That would be a tragic mistake.

You and no few others look to be engaged in corrupting that "concept of biological sex", and for your own highly questionable "political purposes".

[Service Dog]

I posted recently about a California employer, who attempted to hire me for a few days' work-- (& I attempted to say yes!)
--but I found their terms to be slightly irksome... so I backed-out.

Admittedly, I negotiated like the Princess & the Pea. Picky-picky. They tried to give me close-to what I asked-for, within the framework of how they currently do business. And I said the way they currently do business does not suit me.

Yet, by the 3rd day of their 3-day event-- one of their managers re-contacted me, & tried to hire me for that last day.

Today-- 7 days later-- one of their managers texted me, asking if I'll be in Miami circa Thanksgiving/first week of December:



This means-- they don't want to pay to fly me there, or pay for my hotel. But they'd gladly hire me to work any days I'm available-- if some _other_ company foots those bills.

I replied, "Ok, good to know."

The hilarious move-- would be to accept this offer. ...Let them make their plans-- around relying on me in Miami. Then, let the clock run-down. And then: tell them my other job fell-through. So they can either book me a flight & hotel at last-minute rates/ or spend Thanksgiving trying to find a replacement.

I ain't gonna do that. But... tee-hee!

--
Here's some boring TMI about my work week, because I feel like typing it...

This week I'm working a promotional event for a nutritional supplement company. Which I've never heard-of. But I guess they're well-known among women. Spent today In a NJ warehouse, assembling 5 girly bicycles-- festooned in logos-- for the 'brand ambassadors' to ride around Central Park. At the park, I'll be working with the company's spokes-model. A comedienne who used-to be fat & distinctive/ now skinny & looks like every other blonde in make-up.

Experienced a little 'supply chain' insanity today: I was supposed to assemble 32 patio chairs + 8 tables. (So VIP guests & press can lounge in the parking-lane where the Central Park carriage horses poop.) That's a work-rate of 4 chairs & a table each hour/ for 8 hours, and still have time to put-together the bicycles. <--That is what happens when every person planning the job is a woman who doesn't use hand tools. Fortunately, the chairs turned-out to not-require-assembly. But I had already built all the tables & unboxed the chairs... when a warehouse guy brought-over pallets... holding 32 more chairs. Turns-out the ladies had panicked-- whether their Amazon order of patio-sets would arrive in-time. So they ordered an entire back-up order, from Home Depot. And, at the start of the day, I had been given the Amazon chairs/ with the Home Depot tables. The mismatch was only discovered _after_ I had broken-down & crushed all the cardboard boxes. They wanted me to dis-assemble all the tables. Or box-up all the chairs... so the redundant-set could be returned with their mates. But, at that point, there was no way do that... let-alone, no time in my workday.

Meanwhile, at every port in the world, I wonder how-many shipping containers are full of redundant stuff... ordered in a panic... that an earlier shipment of stuff... might be delayed?

--

After work, I was asleep by, like 8pm. Woke up in the dark, 2 hours later, with a weird certainty-- that we'll see full-on organized political violence-- with both sides shooting/ before the current US-politics shitshow resolves itself. Not just Oklahoma City Bombing loners, unsupported by an uprising... but little mini-Civil-War scuffles. I don't wish for this. I'm certainly not the first to predict it.

But then I reached for the computer & looked-up today's election results. The black cop beats the Guardian Angel guy for nyc mayor... no surprise. A repub ubset for NJ governor. And... the main event... that fuckin' clinton-crony weirdo Terry McAuliffe... tumbling in popularity at Biden-speed.
(Even tho his opponent-- Youngkin-- is one of those corporate consultant shits from Mackenzie & Carlyle group. Still... fuck that other guy.)

The woke/great reset/ lockdowns'n'mandates Dems are getting their asses handed to them by voters. Civil War narrowly averted.

[Matt Cavanaugh]

"Our re-analysis indicates a cumulative incidence of spontaneous abortion 7 to 8 times higher than the original authors’ results (p < 0.001) and the typical average for pregnancy loss during this time period. In light of these findings, key policy decisions have been made using unreliable and questionable data. We conclude that the claims made using these data on the safety of exposure of women in early pregnancy to mRNA-based vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are unwarranted and recommend that those policy decisions be revisited."

https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3a ... 384dd4.pdf

[Service Dog]

One more thought-- about my dire prediction of Civil War.

Today I heard Scott Horton describe interviewing Ron Paul, as the old man was retiring.

Horton said, "God only made one Ron Paul, and we're losing him." What will we do now?

Ron Paul said: Don't try to predict the future. You can't, so don't. Don't convince yourself to give up. Telling the truth always has value-- don't convince yourself-- that it won't make a difference.

[Service Dog]

Rittenhouse:


Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸
@JackPosobiec
EXCLUSIVE: FBI testified in private that there is 2nd version of the surveillance tape in HD that it did not provide the defense, per courtroom member

The defense had requested a copy of the HD tape

The FBI responded the HD tape no longer exists

Jack Posobiec 🇺🇸
@JackPosobiec
·
7h
Replying to
@JackPosobiec
If the FBI had a plane up they more than likely had a Stingray up as well and captured all the electronic comms from the night of the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting as well

And they are refusing to share it with Kyle's legal team
George Stratis

·
7h
Replying to
@JackPosobiec
Tampering with evidence? What 💀
₿RIAN CAPSLOCKHART

·
7h
Replying to
@JackPosobiec
CONVENIENTLY LOST

[Brive1987]

easy access ... should logically be on a demonstrated ‘need to have’ or controlled ‘safe to have’ basis.

Or so says an increasing majority of western adults.

Adults. haw!

I don't think much of the globalist health bureaucrats, nor Joe Dronebomber Biden & Korrupt Kop Kamala, nor their attorney general telling the FBI to treat concerned parents as domestic terrorists, nor the test-run they're running in California, nor Big Tech, Big Pharma, Fake News, dancing nurses & teachers unions, nor the prosecutors & judges who let BLM & Antifa & MS-13 & garden-variety George Floyd street niggers demolish neighborhoods. Add to that Nancy Pelosi & the Capitol Police, Schiff, Bill Barr, Maxine Waters, the Squad, Bernie, Liz Cheney, Late-stage Dubya, Late-stage Obama, Late-stage Hillary and Epstein didn't kill himself.

The "adults" to-whom Brive proposes we "demonstrate" our "need to have" firearms... refuse to prosecute Hunter Biden for his gun violations, and just gave half a million guns and bombs to the Taliban. Yet they treat Kyle Rittenhouse as public enemy #1.

Alec Baldwin was literally the eminent anti-gun-activist & serious-adult who the deplorable gun-owners were supposed-to conform-to.

--

Briveposts are as satisfying as Power Washing compilation videos. "Mmmm... thorough."

But all these words about driver's license vs. gun... activate action scenes from Mad Max movies in my skull.

--

When people tell me how they think the world ought to work-- my go-to response is _not_ to respond with my own grand scheme of things... as if our opinions will battle-it-out & settle the matter darwin-style.

I prefer to accept their premise & delve-into apparent internal-contradictions... and difficult edge-cases... within their premise.

In this case, Brive, I see a glaring contradiction between your renegade views on diet-- vs. your orthodox views on Covid-policy. Seems to me that the same authorities & institutions which force-fed us shitty diets-- are also feeding us today's price-fixe menu of lockdowns, jabs, censorship, passports, mass-firings, deprivation of due process... and gun confiscation.

I prefer to dine a la carte.

I also see a contradiction-- between you treating American ideas about Gun Rights as an invasive species... destructive if exported to Australia. Versus your full-speed-ahead opinionating on American gun-stuff. I'm not saying you should shut-up... I very much welcome your articulate dissent. But... do you see the hint of self-contradiction?

I don’t see my diet views as radical. Meat and eggs are the most nutritious foods available.

I do accept that most conventional wisdom is in fact a cover for global capitalism. This includes the current push for shit food. However, many of the COVID outcomes of the past 18 months have been disruptive to the momentum of these wealth creating strategies. I acknowledge measures designed to recover the status quo are realigned with this agenda. That’s why I side-eye claims that lock down et al are a new grab at a new paradigm.

So it’s with a sigh and a sense of resignation that I face the alternative of ongoing futile disruption vs the slow march back to a fucked normalcy. The latter though, may enable me more personal options for escape from my bedroom. And I may see my son again, who was last sighted in person in 2019.

[Brive1987]

Oh, and re guns.

I wouldn’t expect, nor hope, that America would be anything but … American. Bravo. 👏

That the rest of the world would exercise their cultural idiosyncrasies with such fervour. Just don’t expect us to do anything but point and laugh though.

And believe it or not, these two outcomes are not contradictory.

[fafnir]

<snip>

But those other traits are "accidental" ones; they're not essential for an organism to qualify as females and males, at least as those categories are currently defined. See:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/esse ... ccidental/

Nobody in their right mind says that post menopausal women aren't female, or that a man who accidentally shuts his testicles in a car door ceases to be male. None of this relates to my original objection to your phrasing though.

What's your definition for "female"? What makes you think it can trump the biological one?

As for "not in their right mind", you think that that describes Paul Griffiths - professor at University of Sydney, expert in the philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy, and author of this Aeon essay?

Do you have any quote where they explicitly state that elderly women aren't female or something similar?

But you seem not to understand that "male" and "female" apply to large percentages of literally millions of species. Why it's essential to much if not all of biology. And why "psychologically male" is rather untenable at best. What differentiates the psychology of a male horse from a female one? [Maybe Matt has some cogent observations thereon ... ;) ] Or that of a male horse from a male dog or a male fish?

About the most that you could get out of "psychologically male" is the psychology of a male. Which clearly covers a lot of ground making the concept rather useless at best. You're muddying the waters by mashing together two quite different concepts. Which the concept of "gender" goes some distance in clarifying.

Male and female sexes are expressed differently in different species. Somehow that isn't confusing and we don't need to have a word for sex that is specific and exclusive to humans and words for each sex that are specific to humans. Maleness is expressed differently in humans vs penguins. The gender associated with maleness is expressed differently in humans vs penguins. Why is it fine to have one word for sex for the whole of nature, but we need a word for gender that is specific to humans? It's a paradox, like how gender needs to be deconstructed and fluid, but racial categories need to be set in stone. The rules that govern this are rules of convenience.

Perhaps, but by reusing the words "gender", and "man" and "woman" a lot of political motivated linguistic games have been facilitated that have done far more harm than good.

Maybe. But that's kind of the current level of discourse. Likely to have more success "rationalizing" those definitions than trying to do away with them entirely. Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative ...

Maybe we can rationalise the concept of "Whiteness" while we are at it? The whole framework for thinking about the world that this terminology comes from is damaging. You can't meet deconstruction half way.

But for examples, see the rather too common tendency to turn the sexes into immutable identities, to insist that menopausees and transwomen with their nuts removed still qualify as females and males.

They do the same way a three legged tiger is still a tiger regardless of whether quadruped is in the definition. I haven't seen you quote any academic who actually states this. Even if you do, it's the day to day definition and legal definition that matters, and with respect to them no sane person says post menopausal women aren't female.

It's a question of the damage that taking over existing words and then changing their definitions to suit a political purpose has done. 50 years ago everybody knew that womens sports weren't for people with penises, beards and male testosterone levels. Now because the word "women" is used, ideologically possessed assholes get to pretend that we differentiate sport based on gender rather than sex. The introduction and adoption of this category system has been a disaster.

Quite readily agree with you about "changing definitions to suit a political purpose". But that is also why I and no few others are emphasizing the standard definition of "woman" as "adult human female". Largely the theme of my article on "Wikipedia's Lysenkoism".

But that definition - and the access to "women's sports" - also hinges on the definition for "female", the biological and binary one being the only one that's coherent, consistent, and useful. However and quite unfortunately, many people - feminists in particular - are reluctant to face the fact that the biological definition means that that state is a rather decidedly transitory one, that it is anything but "immutable" :roll: .

Only if we take leave of our senses and decide the common and legal definition of these words should be transitory contrary to thousands of years of cultural and legal precedent.

Which is why I've argued that access to sports, changing rooms, and other areas and opportunities really isn't by sex - by reproductive abilities; it's basically by genitalia or maybe karyotype. If we were rational then we might create laws to reflect that fact.

If it's by genitalia, you'd have Castor Semenya compete as a women because she has female genitals, even though she has functional testes?

You and no few others look to be engaged in corrupting that "concept of biological sex", and for your own highly questionable "political purposes".

No. I am saying that for thousands of years we have pretty solidly known what we meant by man and woman, male and female. Our laws and cultural norms evolved around those meanings. Yes, you can find some cultural variation in that, but such is life. It generally included post menopausal women, the elderly and the impotent. A biology professor, a social scientist or you coming up with a new definition that excludes half of females from the category female, or includes men in the category women isn't you clarifying anything, or discovering anything. You are creating a new category with the same name as an old category. I guess that's fine if it stays very narrowly constrained within some academic context, but these new categories don't and they aren't intended to.

First you had activist judges interpreting the law to get the right outcome. Now we have activist lexicographers.

[Service Dog]

most conventional wisdom is in fact a cover for global capitalism. This includes the current push for shit food. However, many of the COVID outcomes of the past 18 months have been disruptive to the momentum of these wealth creating strategies. I acknowledge measures designed to recover the status quo are realigned with this agenda. That’s why I side-eye claims that lock down et al are a new grab at a new paradigm.

So it’s with a sigh and a sense of resignation that I face the alternative of ongoing futile disruption vs the slow march back to a fucked normalcy.

Excellent observation. I wanna why the business-as-usual capitalism is being derailed.

The first hypothesis which jumps into my head-- is that the players aren't pursuing "wealth creating". They've already obtained the wealth/power-- now they're trying to exercise it. Like a guy who rises from laborer to tycoon-- but his grandkids spend the fortune on cat sanctuaries & lavish halloween parties & donations to new-age gurus.

[fafnir]

The first hypothesis which jumps into my head-- is that the players aren't pursuing "wealth creating". They've already obtained the wealth/power-- now they're trying to exercise it. Like a guy who rises from laborer to tycoon-- but his grandkids spend the fortune on cat sanctuaries & lavish halloween parties & donations to new-age gurus.

Haven't there been lots of news stories about the top 1% getting vastly richer through Covid? I'm not sure that the basic assumption here is true.