Men’s superior brains give them an edge, I guess

I’m not all clear on the logic here, but trans women have been banned from chess competitions.

The world’s leading chess federation voted this week to bar transgender women from its women’s competitions.

Federation Internationale des Echecs, or FIDE, acts as the governing body of all international chess competition. In a ruling approved Monday, the organization said that a competitor who changes their gender may gain competitive advantages.

No one has come out to say what those competitive advantages might be. More cc of brain tissue? Should we break out the calipers and ban people with cranial capacities larger than 1500cc? Let’s teach those big headed freaks a lesson.

Fox News is brave enough to say it, though. They consulted super brain scientist Riley Gaines about the matter, because real scientists would just snort and tell them to fuck off. Gaines, whose sole claim to fame is that she tied with a trans woman for 5th place at a swim meet, and made a huge stink about it, was asked whether she agrees with this discrimination. Of course she did. Maybe she can explain the biological reasoning behind it?

No, she can’t. What is that argument about brain size and ability anyway? I need one that wasn’t debunked a hundred years ago.

Consent is obedience

Also, up is down. George Orwell saw it coming. A woman named Kelly Schenkoske gave a talk in Philadelphia and made a remarkable assertion.

During the session, Schenkoske strongly objected to the concept of “consent” being included in sex ed curriculum. She argued that teaching kids about consent is counterproductive and leaves children vulnerable to sexual exploitation. “[K]ids are often taught to be obedient.” Schenkoske said. “And to teach kids consent is a shift away from really strongly teaching, it’s okay to have those really strong boundaries and to say no, because not always do kids have that faculty to strongly say no.”

So, she opposes sex ed and the principle of consent because knowing that you have the power to refuse sex is a suggestion that you will obediently consent. It makes no sense. But then, Schenkoske is a member of Moms For Liberty, so you already know it’s garbage.

She even makes the Orwellian comparison explicit.

On August 15, Schenkoske promoted a post stating, “Diversity is segregation” and “Inclusion is exclusion.”

Her audience was just as awful.

The session concluded with the opportunity for audience members to ask Schenkoske questions. “In Michigan, we voted on Proposal 3… we literally voted our parental rights away,” one audience member said. “[W]e have lost our parental medical rights of our children… the schools have all the things that they are able to pass out, the abortion pills, they are able to start transgender, trans, you know… Your child can go to the clinic between 2nd and 3rd hours and have their abortion pill… This is in our middle school and high schools.” Later the audience member said, “[a] boy can start the process of cutting his penis off right there in his high school on his lunch.”

Now there’s an image. What is gender affirming care? That’s when you hand a schoolkid a steak knife and let him hack away at body parts. I don’t know what they were thinking to specify that it happens on lunch hour — does he saw it off and slap it on a hot dog bun? There are weird twisty things going on in these people’s brains.

“Barbie crotch”?

Uh-oh. I’m contributing to the Barbie mania a little more. Sorry.

But this was interesting, and I hadn’t thought about it before! The Vagina Museum posted a thread about the long history of portrayals of the female genitalia, and I was surprised to realize that Greek sculpture did the same thing — Praxiteles was sculpting Aphrodite with a Barbie crotch in the 4th century BCE. It was a whole trend for centuries: male nudes get the anatomically correct treatment, while female nudes get a smooth featureless curve.

This says something about Western cultures different attitudes towards men and women. I wonder what effect this has had on women’s ideas about their bodies.

At least we took a step towards gender equality in 1961 when Mattel castrated Ken and made his crotch identical to that of Barbie.

Dawkins embarrasses himself again

Oh no, Richard Dawkins, stop. He’s asked in an interview what he thinks of doctors being arrested for gender affirming care, and his old eloquence is completely gone. He stutters, he stammers, he struggles to get an answer out, and he looks for an excuse to evade the question — for adults, he asks, or children. Like it makes a difference, like there’s an age that justifies suffering. He finally gets out…

I would have strong objections to doctors injecting minors, children, or performing surgery on them to change their sex

Note that this does not answer the question. Should doctors be jailed for providing gender-affirming care? I don’t care if someone has opinions and objects, the question is whether it is right for the state to arrest care-givers for giving care?

OK, so he doesn’t think children should be treated for this issue — not that they’re getting sex change operations anyway, they might at best be given therapy and reversible puberty blockers. What about adults?

If they’ve thought about it properly

As if trans people don’t even think long and hard about it, and as if he’s the right person to judge if they’ve properly thought about it. He goes on to say that it might be OK if if they struggle and suffer over it. You can be trans, according to Dawkins, if you’ve been made sufficiently miserable.

What we’re seeing now is a fashion, a craze, mimetic epidemic which is spreading like an epidemic of measles or something like that

Oh, just go ahead and spit out the words woke mind virus, it’s what you really want to say, boomer.

That doesn’t even make sense. Is measles a meme now? Is it really a good idea to compare a fashion to a serious, life threatening disease? Is the state of being trans a biological disease at all?

Dawkins really needs to learn that if he doesn’t have an informed opinion on a topic, he should refrain from answering…especially if he’s just going to regurgitate that anti-trans crap that is so popular over there on the other side of the Atlantic.

Two hours of Shaun?

Oh god, two hours of anything on YouTube is absolutely deadly, but in this one, he absolutely shreds Kellie-Jay Keen AKA Posey Parker. You can’t listen to this without realizing that yes, she is a horrible anti-feminist Nazi sympathizer, and you can’t possibly argue against it.

Also, if anyone asks you to name one thing that makes JK Rowling a raging fascist TERF, thanks to this video, you can just point to her promise to use her wealth to shield Kellie-Jay Keen.

Fortunately, it’s mainly just the guy talking, so play it on your headphones like it’s a podcast while you get other stuff done.

I hope William Deresiewicz never tries to defend me

He starts his little essay with an observation he claims is true.

“The army of unfuckable hate nerds”—Marc Maron’s term for the mass of young men who pollute the internet with their misogyny. “They play video games all day,” the comedian said on his podcast, “then they watch MMA, then they spend the evening jerking off to … porn, then they put a few hours” into attacking women online.

He’s right, of course. There are hordes of these young men (and, no doubt, of not-so-young ones). They congregate on Twitter, in comment threads, on forums and platforms like Reddit, Discord, Kiwi Farms, and 8kun, the successor to 8chan. They trade in misogyny, racism, antisemitism, and assorted other hatreds. Their words are violent and vile.

OK, but I would have gone on to qualify that with a “not all men,” because I do think he’s talking about a small vocal minority of horrible young men. That’s not Deresiewicz’s tack, though. Instead, he’s going to ask his readers to sympathize with them, because — brace yourself, he’s going to merge with the mob of misogynists — women are bad and have it so easy.

Any young woman who is even moderately attractive will be courted, complimented, paid attention to, by women as well as men. Older men will buy them things. People will hang on their words even when they aren’t interesting and laugh at their jokes even when they aren’t funny. They will have entry into places—private clubs, backstage after a show—young men can only press their noses against. They will be able to advance professionally by batting their eyelashes at powerful men. Young men, meanwhile—those losers, those loners, those apes—are left to pick their psychic zits on the periphery.

There’s more. Young women can have sex whenever they want. For most young men, persuading a woman to sleep with them is like trying to crack a safe. You understand that it’s theoretically possible, but you have no idea how to do it. Which means that you’re stuck with your hard-on. Unfuckable? No one needs to tell you that. You are unfucked: unwanted, unattractive; in the most literal sense, unloved.

Wow. No wonder he saw truth in Maron’s description. It’s because he was one of those awful women-hating young men, and he never outgrew it! He’s unable to see the world through the eyes of the women he describes, a world where they are rewarded for being subservient and dependent on older men, where they can advance by clinging to the coattails of men, where they are expected to submit to sex at will with men who might kill them.

I was a young loser once, too, but I managed to get over it by not thinking of women as bodies to be exploited, but as my peers who were trying as best as they could to make it through life. There are no excuses for “misogyny, racism, antisemitism, and assorted other hatreds.” But for Deresiewicz, the problem now is misandry. After stereotyping young women as having it easy, he thinks the solution is that we have to stop stereotyping young men and treat them with love and respect. Sure. Too bad he has no respect to offer women.

Man, Deresiewicz just let his ugly self hang out exposed, thinking that more misogyny would justify young men’s misogyny. It just doesn’t work that way.

Another stereotype squashed by the evidence

An Awá woman holds hunting bows and arrows in Brazil’s Caru Indigenous Territory in 2017

A thousand just-so stories have suddenly cried out in shock and died a miserable death. Hunter-gatherer societies don’t think that hyphen separates men from women? This is what you learn when you don’t do your anthropological research by surveying Psych 101 classrooms in Western colleges. These researchers actually did a world-wide survey of foraging cultures!

For decades anthropologists have witnessed forager women—those who live in societies that both hunt and gather—around the world skillfully slay prey: In the 1980s, Agta women of the Philippines drew bows and arrows as tall as themselves and aimed at wild pigs and deer, and Matses Amazonians struck paca rodents with machetes. Observations from the 1990s described Aka great-grandmothers and girls as young as age 5 trapping duiker and porcupine in central Africa.

A study published today in PLOS ONE has united these reports for a first-of-its-kind global view of women hunters. Reviewing accounts penned by scholars who study culture, known as ethnographers, as well as those by observers between the late 1800s and today, the researchers found that women hunted in nearly 80% of surveyed forager societies.

These data flatly reject a long-standing myth that men hunt, women gather, and that this division runs deep in human history.

It makes sense. You’re not going to tell half your community that they can’t exploit a rich and highly-valued food source, so of course women would poke tasty animals with sticks when they could. Restricting women’s choices is a pathological condition that could only be tolerated in a wealthy society with a wasteful surplus already. There were some gender differences, and hunting was a wholesome activity that could be enjoyed by the whole family!

The reports also revealed considerable flexibility and personal preferences, both within and across cultures. Individuals wielded various weapons including spears, machetes, knives, and crossbows. Some relied on hunting dogs, nets, or traps. Women followed tracks to big game and beat the ground with sticks to flush out critters. Child care posed little problem: Mothers carried infants or left them at camp with other community members; older children often tagged along, hunting as well.

The team did discover differences between male and female strategies. For example, among the Agta, men almost always wielded bows and arrows, whereas some women preferred knives. Men were more likely to head out solo or in pairs, whereas women generally hunted in groups and with dogs.

Despite gender differences, the team found little evidence for rigid rules. “If somebody liked to hunt, they could just hunt,” Wall-Scheffler says.

That’s just what people do. But what about the CHILDREN?

Suggestions that children are put in danger by accompanying hunts can be mediated with current literature on the numerous ways in which infants and children are carried during expeditions by parents and alloparents. The importance of infants remaining with adults (versus being parked) is an important part of our lineage, with children accompanying the wide range of expeditions consistently evidenced in the archaeological, as well as the ethnographic record. Data explicitly mentioning that infants are carried while hunting exist for the Aka and the Awa, as well as for foraging bouts that might result in opportunistic hunting (e.g., among the Batek and Nukak). Among both the Hadza and the Aka, children (potentially as young as age three) accompany adults on over 15% of hunting trips. The idea that women are hindered by childcare and thus cannot hunt is an area where increasing data collection and thoughtful interpretation is lending a much richer lens to our understanding of human mobility strategies.

But what about vegetarians?

Is everything a binary?

I don’t think so, but if it were, then Jordan Peterson has just announced that he is trans.

Either that, or he is a liar.

It is most weird how some people get worked up over a simple, non-judgmental descriptor. There is no opprobrium attached to being cis — in fact, it’s a social advantage. So what has got these people irate?

Maybe it’s the implicit acknowledgment that if cis people exist, then trans people do, too.