The point about humans being sorta monogamous is one I am glad to see someone else make... I was arguing with Tove K over at Wood from Eden about that a month or so back making the same point: if a certain behavior (marriage with some periodic side action maybe, but generally life long pair mating) shows up in every society, it probably isn't because all human societies decided to subvert a human nature that is naturally super promiscuous, but more likely because pairing up is pretty much human nature.
If I were take a swing at "What's the point of calling mainstream media and academia not fit for purpose, captured and woke if its new media replacement has no ethics about plagiarism?" I think the argument would be about "what is it supposed to do?"
The mainstream media is supposed to help understand what is going on, but it lies all the time in favor of its narrative. So does damned near everyone else, so that's a problem, but the MSM pretends that it doesn't. If one is looking to actually find out what is happening one is stuck going through all the sources, sifting out what is incomplete and bad as best one can. I have more trust in a source that says "This is what I think about what I think matters" than one saying "All the news that is fit to print", even if I know both are biased. I am really touchy about lies and overselling, however.
When it comes to academia, their relation to outsiders is one of "We know best, so listen to what we say. You know we know best because we work hard to excise bad ideas so if we are in important positions we must really know our stuff." If it turns out that they are in their position not because they have gone through the crucible of doing lots of good work that was actually really smart, but just because they copy/pasted enough to get by and then parroted back the party lines they were supposed to then you can't trust they know what they are talking about. Although, again, you shouldn't be too credulous anyway because all academia is a cliquey mess since they are usually so divorced from actual results that the game is one of convincing other people your work is good, not one of demonstrating that your work is good because it works. Still, when you find academics are willing to outright lie about their work, and others are willing to back them up in their lies, you can figure the entire edifice isn't worth much.
Then you get to the new media. I think there is a big problem with plagiarism, although why is perhaps a little different. I think many people don't know who first came up with ideas because, like the old media, they are not burying themselves in the literature, because they are not monomaniacally focused on single questions, and anyway there is too much literature to read even if you are. Even in academia we don't call it plagiarism if someone talks about the same ideas without citing someone, only if they are obviously copy and pasting the ideas, because lots of people come up with ideas independently of each other, often not even based on the same reading list. Plus it is often the case that we hear something or read something and don't even remember where after a while, and are just trying to explain ideas we picked up at some point.
However, what we can and should absolutely crack down upon is when writers use bad logic, lie, or lean on emotional "vibes" instead of coherent argument. That last one especially I think is dangerous, as it triggers our confirmation bias excessively. All media and academics are prone to those failings, which seems to be why all sides are prone to falling into demagoguery.
"Under this title I explore a theme that gets very little attention in journalism about romantic and sexual pair bonding – the huge difference between the fortunes of what one might term the More and the Less Desired of each sex. Opinion pieces, sometimes serious and sometimes coy, on the subject of unfair sex are to be found in abundance. What always strikes me when I read this kind of journalism is how it is always framed in terms of a generic species called ‘Women’ and a generic species called ‘Men’; as if the perceived ‘unfair’ asymmetries under discussion are entirely ones between the sexes. ......The huge intra-sexual differences between the experiences of pretty women and ‘plain’ ones; and between confident ‘alpha’ males and ‘betas’ – this never gets considered......"
Edit needed? “They don’t like to acknowledge that it exists, and if they do they attribute it to “patriarchy” - men turning women against one another, divide and concur, etc.”
"Gender" has no application to humans. It's a linguistics term for words only. John Money began applying it to humans to cause confusion--and it has worked.
Sex exists in mammals, and there are two: male (sperm) and female (eggs). Genetic disorders do not change this, and this is not complicated.
When somebody says "gender" they usually mean sex, and this is after decades of "gender and sex are TOTALLY different!" Sometimes one may mean clothes, makeup, hair, personality, hobbies, etc. There's always a more accurate word. Just say that.
Trying to force "gender" to have meaning for humans is the beginning of the problem. Anyone can make it mean anything to suit their agenda, and there is no way to disprove it.
Just don't use it. It has no meaning for humans. That's why nobody can define it. It's everything, anything, nothing, hobbies, feelings, NOT sex, well actually it is sex. Stop it.
There's no such thing as "gender identity" or "transgender" or "gender expression." The word itself and its usage are the problem.
I think you're confusing gender with gender ideology. Clearly "gender" is a term in use and was in use, if not for long, before the current nonsense.
It has it's uses when asserting people can be whatever gender they want, but they cannot change sex. We can't stop people using terms. We can insist that they have meaning and that sex and gender are not synonyms.
Okay. I know who started with the current "gender" nonsense, and I know why it's like this. That was the purpose behind it, btw.
What is "gender"? If you're telling me that it is different from sex as they aren't synonyms, you should have an idea of what "gender" is and you should be able to provide a concrete, logical definition if it's a useful term.
If you can do that "gender ideology" should make sense. What kind of ideology is this?
I see "sex" as the physical reproductive apparatus of each human, and "gender" as the consistent social role that each human adopts. The list of roles, or set of behaviors, is fluid, but in each society there seems to have evolved conventional roles based on the sexual apparatus--one *basic* role for each sex--which, prior to the advent of clothing, was publicly recognizable. Further, these societal expectancies coalesced around reproduction, for the most part.
It seems like for the most part, the majority of individuals have adopted one of the two roles--and very often these conform to the socially conventional role corresponding to their reproductive apparatus. Those who do not are perceived as abnormal by the bulk of society that has selected a role. A way around this is to mask sexual characteristics, either adopting as many of the characteristics as possible associated with the opposite sexual apparatus, or
obscuring any clear public knowledge of the individual's sexual apparatus so that no definite association can be made.
Therefore, the advent of clothing has made it possible for individuals to more easily be free from conventional gender identities.
If "gender" is a social role, how does mutilating one's genitals "affirm" a social role? How does taking hormones "affirm" a social role?
That's biology. What does mutilating biology have to do with "social roles"?
Please tell the girls in Afghanistan who got kicked out of school that they adopted a "social role" that just conveniently has to do with being female. They're just playing a role, it's fun, like dress up!
Clothing is a "gender" identity? That's all it takes to be a woman? A dress? I guess the women in Texas being forced to carry dead fetuses because they just conveniently chose to wear a dress and play a role should have just put on pants! That turns you into a man.
I've never seen such disgusting misogyny in my life. "Gent", are you? Men shouldn't be allowed to vote. Be quiet.
I'm just describing the differences between the terms "sex" and "gender" as I see them. It is possible to convincingly emulate gender, but not sex.
I don't understand your use of "affirm" in the sense that a male dresses/acting as a socially normal female; "affrim" is not a word I used or meant. Such non-normal male behavior isn't affirming anything; it is emulating--often imperfectly--the dress/behavior of a normal female. It's a caricature, really, like kid wearing their parent's shoes.
So far as using surgery to alter one's own sexual apparatus to align with a self-chosen gender identity, what it is, is very, very serious cos-play. The individual is choosing to masquerade as a human of the opposite sex who displays the socially normed gender role. They wish to even adopt the physical traits associated with the opposite sex, for better or worse.
Let me make it clear: if a biological male assumes the socially normed gender roles associated with biological females, they are not females in any way. They are biological males emulating females.
Because this is very often imperfect, and such individuals are to a fair degree unconvincing, especially over a period of time, they are unsuccessful in their masquerade, and many seem to have evolved to a sort of blended identity. This is often called "queer", although from what I understand the term "queer" is even broader. It would include a human female who wished to act like a cat, for example. No one would be convinced and she'd be perceived as neither a normal human female or a cat of either biological sex. They are a "queer" female.
Therefore female clothing worn by a biological male does not make him a female, it makes him a "queer" male.
I'm unfamiliar with the case of the Afghanistan you're talking about. To my mind if they are biologically female, and have adopted the roles associated by the bulk of Afghan society with being assciated with a biological female, they are socially normal females. If they are not adhering to these socially recognized roles they are in some sense abnormal, with all of the risks associated with being abnormal *in that particular society".
I can see that there's something about this discussion that deeply offends you, but what it is I'm not certain. What is it about attempting to closely define two terms that have been in common use for centuries that's offensive to you? Maybe I can clarify my position and at that point it might not be offensive to you.
You are speaking in circles, and none of this makes a bit of sense.
NOBODY IS ADOPTING ANY ROLES.
The girls in Afghanistan are being kept out of school BECAUSE THEY ARE FEMALE. That is sex-based oppression, and that is what women and girls have suffered for centuries and still do.
For men to think this is a role to play, or a game to play, or a costume to wear is what makes me angry at idiots like you, and I have every right to be.
BEING A WOMAN ISN'T A ROLE. Stop fucking repeating that bullshit. And stop telling me it's a role, then defending the fact that men mutilate their genitals because then it's physical traits. That's biology, not social! Thanks for disproving your own bullshit.
If you can emulate "gender" but not sex, why the fuck would anybody manipulate genitals to emulate the OPPOSITE SEX? Do you even read what you type? This is pure, illogical bullshit.
The answer is, which you aren't smart enough to see, is that gender has no meaning for humans. It's a linguistics term for words only.
Humans have a sex--males cannot become female. Being female isn't a role, and sex-based oppression and misogyny isn't a game to play.
Men are doing this because they're fucking stupid and crazy. It's a mental illness, mostly autogynephilia. Men like you think womanhood is nothing but a costume, and you're unaware of what females in Afghanistan go through? Well, that's shocking!
THIS ISN'T SOCIAL ROLES. This is biology, and men using women's biology as the tool to oppress. That's sexism. If that's what you mean, then say it.
Now shut up. I'm sick of stupid men talking. You're the problem. Be quiet.
In the animal kingdom there are rare instances of one specifies mimicking another, for the benefit of the mimicking species. Since they are less complex animals they are seeking survival advantages.
Okay, then "gender" is MIMICRY! That's playing pretend for advantages? So a fucked up crossdresser like William "Lia" Thomas is playing pretend so he can win against females, which he knows he isn't, as a way to gain unfair advantage.
That's called delusion and mental illness. Society is under no obligation to cater to male stupidity, mental illness, and delusion.
Thanks for admitting these trannies are playing a game and pretending to be something they're not because it's advantageous to them.
And btw, if you mean to say "passing," how many of these trannies actually pass? How many actually mimic a female based on appearance and voice, and trick others? Really. The vast majority never pass, so it's not mimicry that is valid anyway.
That means there is no need for birth certificate changes, surgery, hormones, legal documents, sports, or prison changes. It's one big game of pretend, and it's a mental illness.
These men belong in mental hospitals. If that's what "gender" is, just a mental illness, then just say it. Nobody can build an identity on that in a sane world.
The girls in Afghanistan aren't playing a game for social advantages.
There is no common ground between someone like me who recognizes reality, word games, male bullshit, and male perversion, versus someone like you who doesn't even know what words he's using.
"Gender" has no application to humans. It's a linguistics term for words only. You proved it.
If you mean mimics, crossdressing tranny autogynephiles and pedophiles, mental illness--just say it.
Stop using words you can't even define or defend.
Womanhood is not a costume or a social role to play. It's a biological reality men will never have, understand, and have no right to talk about.
Now move along. Get back to your video games because I'm tired of teaching stupid males like you.
Excellent piece.
The point about humans being sorta monogamous is one I am glad to see someone else make... I was arguing with Tove K over at Wood from Eden about that a month or so back making the same point: if a certain behavior (marriage with some periodic side action maybe, but generally life long pair mating) shows up in every society, it probably isn't because all human societies decided to subvert a human nature that is naturally super promiscuous, but more likely because pairing up is pretty much human nature.
If I were take a swing at "What's the point of calling mainstream media and academia not fit for purpose, captured and woke if its new media replacement has no ethics about plagiarism?" I think the argument would be about "what is it supposed to do?"
The mainstream media is supposed to help understand what is going on, but it lies all the time in favor of its narrative. So does damned near everyone else, so that's a problem, but the MSM pretends that it doesn't. If one is looking to actually find out what is happening one is stuck going through all the sources, sifting out what is incomplete and bad as best one can. I have more trust in a source that says "This is what I think about what I think matters" than one saying "All the news that is fit to print", even if I know both are biased. I am really touchy about lies and overselling, however.
When it comes to academia, their relation to outsiders is one of "We know best, so listen to what we say. You know we know best because we work hard to excise bad ideas so if we are in important positions we must really know our stuff." If it turns out that they are in their position not because they have gone through the crucible of doing lots of good work that was actually really smart, but just because they copy/pasted enough to get by and then parroted back the party lines they were supposed to then you can't trust they know what they are talking about. Although, again, you shouldn't be too credulous anyway because all academia is a cliquey mess since they are usually so divorced from actual results that the game is one of convincing other people your work is good, not one of demonstrating that your work is good because it works. Still, when you find academics are willing to outright lie about their work, and others are willing to back them up in their lies, you can figure the entire edifice isn't worth much.
Then you get to the new media. I think there is a big problem with plagiarism, although why is perhaps a little different. I think many people don't know who first came up with ideas because, like the old media, they are not burying themselves in the literature, because they are not monomaniacally focused on single questions, and anyway there is too much literature to read even if you are. Even in academia we don't call it plagiarism if someone talks about the same ideas without citing someone, only if they are obviously copy and pasting the ideas, because lots of people come up with ideas independently of each other, often not even based on the same reading list. Plus it is often the case that we hear something or read something and don't even remember where after a while, and are just trying to explain ideas we picked up at some point.
However, what we can and should absolutely crack down upon is when writers use bad logic, lie, or lean on emotional "vibes" instead of coherent argument. That last one especially I think is dangerous, as it triggers our confirmation bias excessively. All media and academics are prone to those failings, which seems to be why all sides are prone to falling into demagoguery.
All people!
On Intrasexual Competition: Great read. (I came across your 'Stack today via Substack Reads.) On the subject of intrasexual competition, I think you'd find this an interesting read: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/the-less-desired.....intro:
"Under this title I explore a theme that gets very little attention in journalism about romantic and sexual pair bonding – the huge difference between the fortunes of what one might term the More and the Less Desired of each sex. Opinion pieces, sometimes serious and sometimes coy, on the subject of unfair sex are to be found in abundance. What always strikes me when I read this kind of journalism is how it is always framed in terms of a generic species called ‘Women’ and a generic species called ‘Men’; as if the perceived ‘unfair’ asymmetries under discussion are entirely ones between the sexes. ......The huge intra-sexual differences between the experiences of pretty women and ‘plain’ ones; and between confident ‘alpha’ males and ‘betas’ – this never gets considered......"
On Substack reads? Excellent.
You might like this essay of mine on female intrasexual competition. https://paulawright.substack.com/p/we-need-to-talk-about-karen
I'll give your essay a read. Thanks.
Yes I enjoyed it... and commented.
and did you?
You also might want to reword
“The evolutionary explanation for this is obvious: men don’t get pregnant and so men have no fear of being cuckolded”
I don’t know what you _were_ trying to say, but men _do_ fear being cuckolded.
Good typo spot! Thanks
"Divide and concur"? I read no further.
This is going to be good… I can already tell
Human female mate selection is a compromise between getting access to the best genes, (for values of best), and access to provisioning.
Edit needed? “They don’t like to acknowledge that it exists, and if they do they attribute it to “patriarchy” - men turning women against one another, divide and concur, etc.”
A comma?
Divide and concur? Was that a pun?
;)
"Gender" has no application to humans. It's a linguistics term for words only. John Money began applying it to humans to cause confusion--and it has worked.
Sex exists in mammals, and there are two: male (sperm) and female (eggs). Genetic disorders do not change this, and this is not complicated.
When somebody says "gender" they usually mean sex, and this is after decades of "gender and sex are TOTALLY different!" Sometimes one may mean clothes, makeup, hair, personality, hobbies, etc. There's always a more accurate word. Just say that.
Trying to force "gender" to have meaning for humans is the beginning of the problem. Anyone can make it mean anything to suit their agenda, and there is no way to disprove it.
Just don't use it. It has no meaning for humans. That's why nobody can define it. It's everything, anything, nothing, hobbies, feelings, NOT sex, well actually it is sex. Stop it.
There's no such thing as "gender identity" or "transgender" or "gender expression." The word itself and its usage are the problem.
https://kathighsmith.substack.com/p/gender-has-no-application-to-humans
I think you're confusing gender with gender ideology. Clearly "gender" is a term in use and was in use, if not for long, before the current nonsense.
It has it's uses when asserting people can be whatever gender they want, but they cannot change sex. We can't stop people using terms. We can insist that they have meaning and that sex and gender are not synonyms.
Okay. I know who started with the current "gender" nonsense, and I know why it's like this. That was the purpose behind it, btw.
What is "gender"? If you're telling me that it is different from sex as they aren't synonyms, you should have an idea of what "gender" is and you should be able to provide a concrete, logical definition if it's a useful term.
If you can do that "gender ideology" should make sense. What kind of ideology is this?
Please go ahead.
I see "sex" as the physical reproductive apparatus of each human, and "gender" as the consistent social role that each human adopts. The list of roles, or set of behaviors, is fluid, but in each society there seems to have evolved conventional roles based on the sexual apparatus--one *basic* role for each sex--which, prior to the advent of clothing, was publicly recognizable. Further, these societal expectancies coalesced around reproduction, for the most part.
It seems like for the most part, the majority of individuals have adopted one of the two roles--and very often these conform to the socially conventional role corresponding to their reproductive apparatus. Those who do not are perceived as abnormal by the bulk of society that has selected a role. A way around this is to mask sexual characteristics, either adopting as many of the characteristics as possible associated with the opposite sexual apparatus, or
obscuring any clear public knowledge of the individual's sexual apparatus so that no definite association can be made.
Therefore, the advent of clothing has made it possible for individuals to more easily be free from conventional gender identities.
What do you think?
If "gender" is a social role, how does mutilating one's genitals "affirm" a social role? How does taking hormones "affirm" a social role?
That's biology. What does mutilating biology have to do with "social roles"?
Please tell the girls in Afghanistan who got kicked out of school that they adopted a "social role" that just conveniently has to do with being female. They're just playing a role, it's fun, like dress up!
Clothing is a "gender" identity? That's all it takes to be a woman? A dress? I guess the women in Texas being forced to carry dead fetuses because they just conveniently chose to wear a dress and play a role should have just put on pants! That turns you into a man.
I've never seen such disgusting misogyny in my life. "Gent", are you? Men shouldn't be allowed to vote. Be quiet.
I'm just describing the differences between the terms "sex" and "gender" as I see them. It is possible to convincingly emulate gender, but not sex.
I don't understand your use of "affirm" in the sense that a male dresses/acting as a socially normal female; "affrim" is not a word I used or meant. Such non-normal male behavior isn't affirming anything; it is emulating--often imperfectly--the dress/behavior of a normal female. It's a caricature, really, like kid wearing their parent's shoes.
So far as using surgery to alter one's own sexual apparatus to align with a self-chosen gender identity, what it is, is very, very serious cos-play. The individual is choosing to masquerade as a human of the opposite sex who displays the socially normed gender role. They wish to even adopt the physical traits associated with the opposite sex, for better or worse.
Let me make it clear: if a biological male assumes the socially normed gender roles associated with biological females, they are not females in any way. They are biological males emulating females.
Because this is very often imperfect, and such individuals are to a fair degree unconvincing, especially over a period of time, they are unsuccessful in their masquerade, and many seem to have evolved to a sort of blended identity. This is often called "queer", although from what I understand the term "queer" is even broader. It would include a human female who wished to act like a cat, for example. No one would be convinced and she'd be perceived as neither a normal human female or a cat of either biological sex. They are a "queer" female.
Therefore female clothing worn by a biological male does not make him a female, it makes him a "queer" male.
I'm unfamiliar with the case of the Afghanistan you're talking about. To my mind if they are biologically female, and have adopted the roles associated by the bulk of Afghan society with being assciated with a biological female, they are socially normal females. If they are not adhering to these socially recognized roles they are in some sense abnormal, with all of the risks associated with being abnormal *in that particular society".
I can see that there's something about this discussion that deeply offends you, but what it is I'm not certain. What is it about attempting to closely define two terms that have been in common use for centuries that's offensive to you? Maybe I can clarify my position and at that point it might not be offensive to you.
You are speaking in circles, and none of this makes a bit of sense.
NOBODY IS ADOPTING ANY ROLES.
The girls in Afghanistan are being kept out of school BECAUSE THEY ARE FEMALE. That is sex-based oppression, and that is what women and girls have suffered for centuries and still do.
For men to think this is a role to play, or a game to play, or a costume to wear is what makes me angry at idiots like you, and I have every right to be.
BEING A WOMAN ISN'T A ROLE. Stop fucking repeating that bullshit. And stop telling me it's a role, then defending the fact that men mutilate their genitals because then it's physical traits. That's biology, not social! Thanks for disproving your own bullshit.
If you can emulate "gender" but not sex, why the fuck would anybody manipulate genitals to emulate the OPPOSITE SEX? Do you even read what you type? This is pure, illogical bullshit.
The answer is, which you aren't smart enough to see, is that gender has no meaning for humans. It's a linguistics term for words only.
Humans have a sex--males cannot become female. Being female isn't a role, and sex-based oppression and misogyny isn't a game to play.
Men are doing this because they're fucking stupid and crazy. It's a mental illness, mostly autogynephilia. Men like you think womanhood is nothing but a costume, and you're unaware of what females in Afghanistan go through? Well, that's shocking!
THIS ISN'T SOCIAL ROLES. This is biology, and men using women's biology as the tool to oppress. That's sexism. If that's what you mean, then say it.
Now shut up. I'm sick of stupid men talking. You're the problem. Be quiet.
In the animal kingdom there are rare instances of one specifies mimicking another, for the benefit of the mimicking species. Since they are less complex animals they are seeking survival advantages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry
When humans mimic the socially normal behaviors of the opposite sex they're not usually seeking a survival benefit, but a contentment benefit.
But that's essentially how it works.
I'm not sure we can ever find a common ground, as I'm sure you realize.
Okay, then "gender" is MIMICRY! That's playing pretend for advantages? So a fucked up crossdresser like William "Lia" Thomas is playing pretend so he can win against females, which he knows he isn't, as a way to gain unfair advantage.
That's called delusion and mental illness. Society is under no obligation to cater to male stupidity, mental illness, and delusion.
Thanks for admitting these trannies are playing a game and pretending to be something they're not because it's advantageous to them.
And btw, if you mean to say "passing," how many of these trannies actually pass? How many actually mimic a female based on appearance and voice, and trick others? Really. The vast majority never pass, so it's not mimicry that is valid anyway.
That means there is no need for birth certificate changes, surgery, hormones, legal documents, sports, or prison changes. It's one big game of pretend, and it's a mental illness.
These men belong in mental hospitals. If that's what "gender" is, just a mental illness, then just say it. Nobody can build an identity on that in a sane world.
The girls in Afghanistan aren't playing a game for social advantages.
There is no common ground between someone like me who recognizes reality, word games, male bullshit, and male perversion, versus someone like you who doesn't even know what words he's using.
"Gender" has no application to humans. It's a linguistics term for words only. You proved it.
If you mean mimics, crossdressing tranny autogynephiles and pedophiles, mental illness--just say it.
Stop using words you can't even define or defend.
Womanhood is not a costume or a social role to play. It's a biological reality men will never have, understand, and have no right to talk about.
Now move along. Get back to your video games because I'm tired of teaching stupid males like you.