A nasty little list — the JK Rowling fan club

There is a petition going around in support of awful transphobe JK Rowling. It’s remarkably stupid.

We are a group of writers, actors, directors, musicians, producers, comedians and artists who wish to speak in support of JK Rowling. She has been subjected to an onslaught of abuse that highlights an insidious authoritarian and misogynistic trend in social media. Rowling has consistently shown herself to be an honourable and compassionate person and the appalling hashtag #RIPJKRowling is just the latest example of hate speech directed against her and other women that Twitter and other platforms enable and implicitly endorse.

We are signing this letter in the hope that if more people stand up against the targeting of women online, we might at least make it less acceptable to engage in it or profit from it.

We wish JK Rowling well and stand in solidarity with her.

I’m not sure what the purpose of the petition might be. It’s not urging any changes or action. It just wants everyone to stand on one side of a line in support of transphobia and a ridiculously wealthy writer.

It wants to stop people from profiting by disagreeing with JK Rowling, which is not a thing. Nobody is getting rich from pointing out her ugly ideas.

I don’t see how saying “Eww, ick, I won’t buy her books anymore” is authoritarian. It’s also not authoritarian if I look at that list of over 7000 signatories and think “What a bunch of assholes” and think poorly of them for their association.

Rowling has not been “honourable and compassionate” — she’s been a pious bigot — and if you regard standing in solidarity with a bigot is a commendable position, think again.

But yes, please, do go sign that useless petition if you agree with it. I love it when horrible people drop the mask and slap a clear label on their forehead.

Man, the UK is a weird place, where this flavor of prejudice is still socially approved. It’s bad when an American can say Britain is even worse than we are.

If you need further dissection of JK Rowling…

Portrait of JK Rowling

I was only able to handle a single sentence of Rowling’s screed — it was too stupid to bear — but if you’re unclear on why the rest of it was so awful, Ashley Miller slogged through the whole thing, and if you’d rather see it analyzed from a trans perspective, Dawn Ennis looks at it and the context of the response to it. As far as I’m concerned, JK Rowling is dead to me and I won’t be reading anything by her ever again.

I don’t find that a particular loss. When the Harry Potter books came out, I was happy to get them for my kids — they were enthusiastic, there was some peer pressure from their friends, it got them reading, although that generally wasn’t a problem with my nerdish offspring. I read the first couple. I didn’t care for them personally. They were just too formulaic — does every book have to revolve around Quidditch, a game which makes no sense — and Hogwarts as an institution was far too offputting, seeming to fit better with the kind of British culture that thinks sending kids off to be tortured for a few years in a boarding school builds character. The movies bored me, and if you asked me now what happened in any of them, I wouldn’t be able to tell you. Uh, um, there was a Quidditch match. There were monsters? Harry Potter is tormented, but never seems to do much of anything? I dunno.

She seems to be trying to churn out spinoffs from the Harry Potter universe now. I didn’t care before, I am actively repulsed now. JK can just toddle off to her mansion and her well-earned irrelevance, and the Harry Potter phenomenon can be recognized as the peculiar phenomenon it was.

To J.K. Rowling: A reply to your letter on transgender issues.

(A very brief message to anyone who doesn’t know the background: The letter to which I’m replying is here, and was posted by JKR after numerous concerns about her views on transgender issues. The backstory about the concerns is… pretty much everywhere on the internet, so if you haven’t already seen it just search.)

 

Dear J.K. Rowling,

OK, this feels… seriously strange. I’m writing this to you but also to others reading or following the current discussion (I do plan to post this publicly on my blog) so it seems strange addressing it to you when I know that, realistically, out of all the people who might read it, you’re one person who almost certainly won’t. But I’m doing so because thinking of this as something you could potentially read keeps me focused on the fact that what I write here isn’t just addressing a collection of views and statements I disagree with, but a human being with real feelings about this.

So. I’m writing this because, having followed the story so far about things you’ve said on transgender-related subjects, I’ve now read the letter you posted on your website. And, whatever else I’ve thought about your views on this topic and how you’ve expressed them, I think that letter was an incredibly brave attempt to open up about something that’s really hard for you and about which you have genuine concerns, and I also know you speak for a lot of people who feel the same way.

And I also disagree with almost every point you made.

So what I want to do… well, I struggled to put this into words, but then realised you’d already done it for me. You wrote:

All I’m asking – all I want – is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.

That’s it. That nails it. I want to be able to hear your concerns and extend sympathy and understanding and also extend that same empathy and understanding to the many, many trans people out there who also desperately need their concerns to be heard and understood without being met with threats or abuse. I want to keep that sympathy and understanding for all concerned at the forefront of my mind as I talk about the points you raised and explain why I disagree. And I hope that, even though you yourself will almost certainly never see this letter, at least some of the people who feel the same way as you will be willing to read what I write in that same spirit and to try for a greater overall understanding.

There’s so much in your letter I want to talk about, and it’s going to take me more than one post to do so. But in this post I’m going to skip straight to your last point, because it’s the nub of the whole thing. What you’ve voiced, here, is a fear that a lot of people hold. And I think that fact gets obscured sometimes by the way these same concerns are so often used as excuses by bigots to justify anti-trans agendas held for much darker reasons; in the midst of the damage those people cause, it’s easy to forget that many people quite genuinely are scared of the scenario you’ve just voiced here:

At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

Firstly, before doing anything else, I want to correct one point, which is your claim that ‘gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones’. I think this might be technically correct, in that the current law in the UK doesn’t specify that a transgender person needs to have done anything physically about transitioning before applying for a GRC. It does, however, specify that a person can only apply if (among other restrictions) they have lived as the gender in question for two years and are over 18, and that sounds as though it would in practice be virtually impossible to do without physically transitioning. Also, from what I’ve read, getting a GRC is incredibly difficult under the current system; it certainly doesn’t sound as though, in practice, one would be issued to anyone who hadn’t already transitioned.

People are certainly campaigning to have GRCs issued much more easily (with good reason, from what I’ve read in the previous link), but, as far as I’ve been able to find out, the law hasn’t yet been changed. So, the law you have concerns about is actually a proposed law rather than one that’s currently in place. I know that doesn’t in itself affect your concerns, but thought it important to get the facts straight before starting to discuss them.

Anyway. The fear I assume you’re alluding to here – the one shared by many other people who have concerns about trans rights – is that making it easier to gain a gender recognition certificate will lead to male abusers fraudulently gaining gender confirmation certificates naming them to be female in order to enter bathrooms or changing rooms to… oh, well, you know the rest. And I get that that’s a prospect that many people find really concerning (especially, as you said, people with a history of abuse who can find it quite viscerally terrifying).

Here is what does not make sense and has never made sense to me about this scenario, though. Please tell me if you think I’m missing something, but…

Nobody has to show proof of gender to get into public toilets or changing rooms anyway.

(Warning: this discussion has the potential to be triggering to people who fear the thought of male abusers getting into women’s spaces.)

There is no-one standing outside women’s toilets making sure only people who are legally female get in. There usually is someone standing outside changing rooms, but that’s only to make sure people don’t steal the stock; I’ve never heard of anyone checking documentation on the people who go in. So, how does having or not having a gender recognition certificate make any practical difference to these things at all?

As far as I can find, it isn’t even illegal for men to enter women’s toilets. I mean, stop me if I’m wrong about that; I’m not a lawyer, I’m someone who spent five minutes doing an internet search. But I can’t see how it could, in practice, be made illegal for men to enter women’s toilets without causing masses of problems. There are cleaners who are male, there are severely disabled people who need help in toilets and have carers of the opposite gender, there are times when one set of toilets is out of order and the only option is to let people into the other set, there are people with medical conditions that mean they sometimes need a toilet so urgently they can’t take even a few seconds to run round a building looking for the one they’re supposed to be in. There are also thousands of transgender people who don’t have a gender confirmation certificate and thus, even if they’ve transitioned, are still legally recorded as whatever gender was assigned to them at birth. A blanket law stating that men can’t go into women’s toilets would affect people from all those groups… without actually doing much about the very group that we’re worried about here, since a sexual abuser is pretty much by definition not put off by the prospect of breaking the law.

Why is there all this worry that an abuser might go to the work of filling out a form and paying a fee (currently £140) to get access to a public toilet, when he can just walk straight in anyway?

I get that, for the people who are scared about this, that probably doesn’t help much. I get that fears aren’t logical and don’t just vanish as a result of being told that the thing in question isn’t actually harmful. I get that trying to put legal barriers in the way of people with male anatomy or male chromosomes getting into female spaces makes some women feel safer even if it isn’t doing one darned thing in practice to make them safer. I get that fears of things that don’t in practice actually increase your danger level are still fears and still horrible and still real and important emotions. I feel deep sympathy for any woman or girl who’s frightened by the thought of a person with a penis possibly being in a public toilet next to the one she’s in. I hope that anyone who does feel that way has help and support to deal with her fears, and if you have any ideas that might help you or other people affected by this fear feel safer without harming or risking another group of people, I would love to hear about them and see them implemented.

But ‘keep gender confirmation certificates difficult to obtain’ isn’t such an answer. The reason people are campaigning to make GRCs easier to obtain is because the current process is horrendous. (See also this article which I linked to above.) So, when you advocate keeping GRCs difficult to obtain, you are in fact supporting a system that causes massive problems for transgender people without having any actual benefit.

It’s even worse than that, though. In the USA, this myth about trans rights increasing the risk of sexual abuse is one that is being deliberately and actively weaponised by powerful hate groups with anti-trans ideologies. Warning here for descriptions of very serious assaults at some of the following links… because this climate of whipped-up fears drastically increases the risk of assault on trans people generally, and it also increases the risk of public bathroom use for any woman who can potentially be mistaken for a man, whether this is because she actually is trans, because she’s gender non-conforming, or because she just happens to look androgynous. Trans people have to live in fear of something as simple and everyday as using public bathrooms, because for them it is actually dangerous to do so.

I don’t think the UK is as bad from that point of view – we don’t have the Religious Right to the same degree as they have on that side of the Atlantic – but trans people here still suffer transphobia and anti-trans bigotry and even violent assaults, and the fears you’ve described here are a big part of what drives this. I believe you completely when you say that this is not what you want, that you want everyone including trans people to be safe and protected and free from harm. But good intentions don’t mitigate the effects of supporting harmful policies; the policy you’ve just supported above (not to mention the transphobic activists whose pages you read) are, in practice, contributing to the climate that causes these assaults.

So, when I disagree with you, when I stand up against the beliefs you’re supporting, it is not because I dismiss your fears. It is not because I don’t sympathise or want to help. It is because your fears and my sympathy should not be used to support actions that, while doing nothing to change the risk of the abuse you fear, will increase the abuse risk for transgender people and the level of other problems they face. It’s not OK for them to be the collateral damage of your attempts to ease your fears.

J. K. Rowling, if you do ever read this, thank you for all the joy your books have given to me and to my daughter over the years.

Be well,

Sarah

 

(I will hereby stress once again that all comments – from whichever side of the issue – should be polite and respectful. Yes, this means you. Think of how you would wish someone to talk about an issue that’s extremely sensitive to you, and use that same level of respect. Thank you.)

A TERF Turfed: Rowling is a three time loser this week

First time: Around May 19, JK Rowling (aka TERFling, aka Scowling) retweeted a hate filled, anti-Trans post by Fred Sargeant.  He is a cis white gay male who was around and part of the elimination of Transgender and non-white people from the New York pride parades in the early 1970s.

Second time: Nicola Spurling of Vancouver (former Green Party candidate and Transgender activist) posted an innocuous comment on twitter:  “Definitely something to keep a close eye on. In recent years, Rowling has made it clear that she can no longer be trusted around children.”  Being unhinged as only a TERF can be, TERFling and her overeager lawyers threatened Spurling into silence.

TERFling has made it clear opposes internationally recognized WPATH medical care for Transgender childre.  Given that TERFling does not have a PhD in pediatrics and has given Wakefield-level quality “advice” on Transgender kids, it could hardly be called libellous for Spurling to say TERFling is a danger to the health and welfare of Transgender children.

Third time: TERFling incompetently spat profanity filled anti-Trans hate speech in the direction of a nine year old child.

Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling has continued her streak of endorsing anti-transgender speech, but this time the beloved writer has accidentally involved a nine-year-old girl in her prejudice.

Rowling has been retweeting children’s drawings of an upcoming character for a project she’s working on. But when she shared the girl’s sketch, she also included a line copied from an anti-transgender website that included the f-bomb and extremist rhetoric.

Did TERFling have another “senior moment”, as she calls it?  Was she tired when she wrote it?  Or was she perhaps feeling emotional after her bigotry was twice pointed out in a week?  (Those are questions, not accusations or statements.)

J.K. Rowling: Defending Abusers.

When Johnny Depp was cast as Grindelwald, I thought he’d be wonderful in the role. However, around the time of filming his cameo in the first movie, stories had appeared in the press that deeply concerned me and everyone most closely involved in the franchise.

Harry Potter fans had legitimate questions and concerns about our choice to continue with Johnny Depp in the role. As David Yates, long-time Potter director, has already said, we naturally considered the possibility of recasting. I understand why some have been confused and angry about why that didn’t happen.

The huge, mutually supportive community that has grown up around Harry Potter is one of the greatest joys of my life. For me personally, the inability to speak openly to fans about this issue has been difficult, frustrating and at times painful. However, the agreements that have been put in place to protect the privacy of two people, both of whom have expressed a desire to get on with their lives, must be respected. Based on our understanding of the circumstances, the filmmakers and I are not only comfortable sticking with our original casting, but genuinely happy to have Johnny playing a major character in the movies.

I’ve loved writing the first two screenplays and I can’t wait for fans to see ‘The Crimes of Grindelwald’. I accept that there will be those who are not satisfied with our choice of actor in the title role. However, conscience isn’t governable by committee. Within the fictional world and outside it, we all have to do what we believe to be the right thing.

Given Rowling’s love of colonialism and her staunch embrace of bigotry, this comes as no surprise to me. I walked away from her some time back, when she made it clear that her bigotry was more important to her than respecting indigenous peoples and portraying their traditions and stories correctly.

People everywhere are demanding that senators, congress critters and various public personalities to resign over harassment and abuse. But not Ms. Rowling, no. She makes it more than clear that she does not believe Ms. Heard, given her understanding of the circumstances. Uh huh. Rowling & Co: “Did you do that, Johnny?” Johnny Depp: “No! Bitches lie!”

Fantastic Beasts director David Yates previously defended casting Depp, calling Heard’s domestic abuse allegations “a dead issue.”

There’s a sweet sentiment for you. There has been, of course, quite a reaction, but I doubt it will be enough of one to put a dent in Ms. Rowling’s pockets.

There’s more at Raw Story.

J.K. Rowling: The Colonial Heart of an Indifferent Bigot.

screen-shot-2016-03-07-at-11-31-23-am-e1457368430989

This is not the first time Ms. Rowling’s bigotry has come up, far from it, but it turns out it it’s much worse than I thought. Ms. Rowling is now far past the doubling down stage, she’s pretty much etched her bigotry and indifference in stone now. I would never have read any of the Potter books if it hadn’t been for the astonishing reaction of Christians, all in a frenzy of “Witchcraft and Demons, Oh My!” I was an adult, and don’t have kids. Anything that got Christians so remarkably riled up deserved a look, though. I enjoyed the books, even though they were repetitive, and on the problematic side of seriously white and straight along with tokenism. I probably enjoyed the movies more, which were fun, because who doesn’t like magic? They were fun, a nice nerdy escape. Also, I’m a massive Maggie Smith fan, I’ve had a crush on her since early sproghood. I had planned on seeing Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, but that’s not going to happen now. I already know just how angry and upset that would make me.

In April this year, I posted about Dr. Adrienne Keene’s post on Native Appropriations regarding Magic in North America. If there’s one thing I’d like to make very, very clear, it’s that there are many Indiginerds who love the Potterverse, which makes it all the more heart-breaking and infuriating to see Ms. Rowling’s use of bigotry to further her own ends, and refusal to listen to the many Indigenous fans she has, and her apparent indifference to all the bullying and stereotyping she is subjecting Indigenous people to by sticking to her bigotry. As Dr. Keene said:

It actually makes me kind of want to cry. Harry Potter was such a formative series for me, and holds such a deep place in my heart–and to see and hear this feels like such a slap in the face to me and other Native Potter nerds.

So, if you’re a Potter fan, all prepared to be bristly in offense or defense, don’t. Just listen, please, because these criticisms are not coming from a place of hate. They are coming from a fellow place of love, and a deep well of disappointment. The Problematics of Potter came up on Ask N NDN at ICTMN, and Loralee Sepsey answered, in passionate detail. Here in the States, a great many people think Indians are dead and long gone, an almost mythical race of people, so everyone can play and be as bigoted as they like. I’ve encountered the belief of “oh, I thought Indians were dead” myself. There’s an article up at ICTMN about a young Indian, 12 years old, who wants to cut his braid off, because he lives in a primarily white suburb, and it’s not acceptable to be an ethnic Indian, and he’s tired of being teased, bullied, and stereotyped, at 12 years old. Non-native people, no matter how well intentioned, rarely think about such things. If they happen to be aware of the fact that Indians are not dead, they are rarely interested in the particular cultures, traditions, or languages of Indians. A great many non-natives are content to enthuse about “Native Americans” in the most embarrassing manner. There’s no knowledge to be had there, either. Quite the opposite, in fact. The ignorance can be appalling, and no, enthusiasm does not make up for it. Learning about a particular people, that would be a good thing to do. Understanding that there’s no such thing as one lump of ‘Native Americans’ would be a good thing. Understanding that Indigenous people care about how they are represented, and how their particular mythologies, cultures, and traditions are represented, that would be a great thing.

Ms. Rowling had a great opportunity in front of her. She could have not only learned herself, and met with members of the tribes she planned to write about, she could have helped to empower native people, along with showing basic respect, by allowing natives to own their own stories, their mythologies, their cultures, and their traditions. This story could have been a rich, strong, empowering, respectful, and accurate one. Instead, it’s the same old business of stealing from native people, disrespecting them, and promoting an appalling ignorance, deliberate lies, and propagating stereotypes. What will this latest installment teach children about Indigenous peoples? Nothing true. Ms. Rowling chose to go with using people as costuming, and having the same old colonial, white “saviours”, while not even bothering to give any native character a prominent role, let alone names, as only one native character is deemed worthy of a name. We get to be Ms. Rowling’s red shirts.

J.K. Rowling, with the release of the Ilvermorny School and Magic in North America stories on her website Pottermore, has joined the long list of people who portray indigenous cultures in a contextless and offensive manner, but she could become one of the most dangerous people on that list.

[Read more…]

Ignorance and hate go well together

In May of 1933, Nazis stormed the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft in Berlin, and walked off with cartloads of books from their library, which they then burned, publicly. This is one of the most famous photographs of the pre-war period, illustrating their process for purging “Jewish” literature from Germany.

On May 6, 1933, Nazi demonstrators raided the libraries of the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft, a German name that roughly translates to the Institute of Sexology. The Institute was a privately operated research space for studies of human sexuality. More than 20,000 books were taken from shelves and burned days later in the streets by Nazi youth groups.

A book publisher named Rubin Mass afterwards found a few scorched pages that survived the fire, and preserved them to remember the criminality of the right-wing mob.

They were from Hirschfeld’s Sexualpathologie. Hirschfeld was Jewish, gay, and a scholar, so of course he was hated by Nazis. Most people who know anything about the rise of Hitler’s regime know this — it’s common knowledge that the Nazis regarded anything to do with deviations from a Christian heterosexual norm as degenerate. You have to be soaking in the anti-intellectual, ahistorical circle-jerk of right-wing apologetics to be totally unaware of these facts.

Cue JK Rowling.

J.K. Rowling is once again making ignorant and anti-trans comments online. On Wednesday, the Harry Potter author’s name began trending on X thanks to an ill-advised post in which she denied the claim that Nazis burned “books on trans healthcare and research.”

“I just… how?” Rowling wrote above a screenshot of a nameless user’s post. “How did you type this out and press send without thinking ‘I should maybe check my source for this, because it might’ve been a fever dream’?””

I wish the murder of six million Jews, gays, transexuals, Romany, and political opponents had been nothing but a “fever dream,” but it wasn’t. It was a horrible reality that now a famous author of children’s fantasy books would like to bring back.

I’m ashamed to say that I contributed to her coffers years ago, by buying several of her books for my kids. That was before she grew the invisible toothbrush mustache and started openly courting fascists, though. At least I never paid to see any of those Harry Potter movies, and never will.

I get email

From Jerry Coyne fans!

I am appalled at the ad hominem attacks which you – as a scientist – seem willing to deliver against people like Prof Jerry Coyne et al.

No, no, no. An ad hominem attack would be something like “Coyne’s cowboy boot fetish is stupid, therefore his ideas about trans people are wrong.” Just pointing out that his ideas about transgender biology are stupid is not an ad hominem.

This is just an annoyance. A lot of my hatemail flings around the “ad hominem” accusation without understanding it.

Having read pretty much all of Coyne’s comments on this issue it is quite apparent that he is not a transphobe as you falsely claim.

As the definition of a phobia is ‘an irrational fear’ this means that I too am not transphobic.

OK, this is another common trope: literal dictionary translation of a term to weasel out from under it. That’s not how it works. A transphobe is someone who opposes allowing trans people rights and opportunities, who has an irrational contempt to justify their biases.

If you’re not afraid, then why oppose them at all? I mean, I would concede that I am “Republicanphobic,” because I am afraid of what they’re doing to our country, but not transphobic, because even if I thought they were wrong (I don’t), I’m not at all concerned about letting them participate in sports or write books or talk to people about their experiences. Leave them alone!

So perfect I had to use it:

Why on earth would you then presuppose that JK Rowling, Helen Joyce, Kathleen Stock, Richard Dawkins et al are ‘transphobic’ – particularly as all of them have expressed supportive views towards the trans community.

Oh, wow. Rattle off the names of some of the most notorious transphobes in the public sphere, and then think it excuses you and Coyne because you’re just like them. OK, you win, you’re no more transphobic than Rowling & Joyce & Stock & Dawkins. Great defense.

Utter nonsense on your part.

However, what Coyne and I share in common is in the defence of biological women, and in their right to retain women-only spaces and sports etc, and which should not be invaded by individuals who possess male genitalia and male musculature, but who wish to be regarded as women.

Perhaps you need to take a step back and consider the rights of (biological) women who have fought against male oppression for centuries?

Great. Now we get the “biological women” canard. We’re all biological, you know, we’re all people. All these traits people use to put people into two categories exhibit a wide range of overlapping variation. The one reason Coyne fans have retreated to basing their arguments on gametes is because there, at least, they can find one criterion that is binary…never mind that all the other features are not, and can contradict the evidence from gametes. Get used to it — humans are complicated and don’t fit into just two bins.

I do wonder if your personal attacks represent the weakness of your position on this issue?
They certainly represent a failure on your part to adhere to Science.

Back in the day men who wished to dress as women regarded themselves as being cross-dressers, or transvestites. What they never claimed to be was a ‘woman.’

I consider extreme reductionism — such as claiming that human identity can be reduced to two simple categories — to be a failure of science. Simplistic explanations make me skeptical.

Has it occurred to you that unsubstantiated, unscientific views like yours are actually doing harm to the cause of trans people, a group of our fellow humans who no doubt you would want to claim you support?

You haven’t demonstrated that my views are unsubstantiated or unscientific. The basis for your disagreement is that you don’t like my position because it contradicts your superficial biases.

Also, I kind of suspect that denying their existence does more harm to the cause of trans people.

As a result, the extreme right and extreme left will no doubt welcome you into their nasty little cliques with open arms…..

Both sides! The correct answer is in the middle!

This is just like slapping down creationists.

Richard Dawkin’s Discontinuous Mind

I mostly agree with Dawkins on this:

Everywhere you look, smooth continua are gratuitously carved into discrete categories. Social scientists count how many people lie below “the poverty line”, as though there really were a boundary, instead of a continuum measured in real income. “Pro-life” and pro-choice advocates fret about the moment in embryology when personhood begins, instead of recognising the reality, which is a smooth ascent from zygotehood. An American might be called “black”, even if seven eighths of his ancestors were white. …

If the editor had challenged me to come up with examples where the discontinuous mind really does get it right, I’d have struggled. Tall vs short, fat vs thin, strong vs weak, fast vs slow, old vs young, drunk vs sober, safe vs unsafe, even guilty vs not guilty: these are the ends of continuous if not always bell-shaped distributions.

Imposing discrete boundaries on something which lacks them is quite dangerous, indeed. It’s also necessary to survive: imagine if I had to stop and consider whether or not a portion of a wall could be opened via the application of force, and where that force should be applied, instead of going “looks like a door with a twist handle, lemmie twist it to escape the fire behind me.” Some level of imposed boundaries are a must, otherwise words cannot exist, but it’s also important to remember these are abstractions imposed for convenience instead of fundamental features of the universe.

As a biologist, the only strongly discontinuous binary I can think of has weirdly become violently controversial. It is sex: male vs female. You can be cancelled, vilified, even physically threatened if you dare to suggest that an adult human must be either man or woman. But it is true; for once, the discontinuous mind is right.

…. Oooo-kay. Dawkins is claiming that biology has a discrete boundary, between the vast majority of the subject that lacks discrete boundaries, and one small portion (sex determination) which has discrete boundaries on a fundamental level. This smells heavily of special pleading. What makes sex determination distinct from the rest of biology? [Read more…]