As my analysis prof said: You can safely claim that almost all mathematicians are stupid. Because the mathematicians know that "almost all" means "all with finitely many exceptions". But do not publicly claim that almost all lawyers are stupid...
I used to joke a lot with my best mate who is a frighteningly smart mathematician working on logics.
I think mathematicians do it on purpose to annoy physicists. A function that is everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable, you say? You're just being perverse for the sake of it!
The correct statement would be that the herd cannot be divided amongst any number of sons, except 1 son or a number of sons equal to the number of cattle.
dividing by one?
that would be the "gender"of mathematics, the point were the two opposing propositions are equal and interchangeable.
It's malicious nonsense. The foreground was prepared a generation ago, maybe even two generations ago. Who of us thought that the word gender, synonymous for most of us with 'sex', would be so hard to describe in 2018 or 2022. Not us, but some certainly knew why they were preparing the ground.
Gender is not synonymous with sex, that's the source of the "confusion". People have been thoroughly indoctrinated to think of the two as synonymous, but that doesn't make it true.
Hats off to you for your consistent articles! This Substack is worth much more than I pay for it, which is, it appears, zero (or as I say, female; one obviously being male in this miraculous binary that occasionally turns into a very pleasant unary).
Unfortunately people who have been in this gender business for awhile are VERY good (and honestly passionate about) presenting their argument as "compassion and kindness toward people, many of whom I know and love" vs. hate and bigotry. And regardless of how much power the movement now has, and from whence the power arises, that is something they built from the ground up-- a way to win an argument but not necessarily the path to wise action. I do think we need to push back a bit even though we'll be called all the names, and i'm glad you did.
Yes! Reality, truth, and Western Civilization are at stake here.
It's funny how those pleading for "compassion and kindness" are positively vicious towards those not on board with the current nonsense, whether it be vaccines, climate change, or men in stilettos LARPing as women.
It's quite easy. [GENDER] contains any number of genders, defined ad hoc as needed by the discreet individual in any given context. It actually follows the same logic as Shroedinger's cat example: not the physics it describes and criticises, but a literal interpretation of cat+box+unknowable variable created by the act of defining it. Defining [GENDER] collapses the probability manifold, so to speak, into 1 definite form, but every such 1 is different from every other 1. Which takes us to the darned cave:
Every [GENDER] is a [gender], but no 1 [gender] is [GENDER], just as all apples are apples but no two apples are the same apple, nor the idealised logical and linguistical apple.
So, to solve your conundrum re: who am I fucking and who is being fucked so to speak, we turn to our old chum Diogenes (the one of the barrel famous). Plato's semantic shenanigans dressed up as logic and reason are easily stripped bare by a plucked hen: "Here Plato, behold your man" as Diogenes' said, showing that linguistics, logic and semantics does bow to observable reality every time. (And starting a riot in town too. Academia never changes, does it?) Poor Plato. If not for Sokrates, he would have been the premiere philosopher, not just a fanboy who copied down his master's voice and made a mint from tutoring.
So what we do is, we strip down [GENDER] and what do we see? Penis or vagina? It's one or the other, barring surgery. (Or in fewer than 1/100 000, one and a bit of the other. Point is, those are the parts and there are no other parts for [GENDER] to originate from: first come the crotch, then comes the mind.)
Penis? Man. Vagina? Woman. What gender-theorists conveniently do to keep you confused, is they purposefully do not distinguish between measurable differences in behaviour and atributes: clothing, traditions, and so on - theatre as they dismissively call 30 000 years of divergent yet cohesive and recognisable societal evolution... . Men are measurably more competitive, violent, aggressive and adventurous; women are measurably more manipulative (not in the pejorative sense!), more verbally persuasive and more socially observant.
To keep with the Star Wars theme:
Sex leads to babies;
Babies leads to nursing;
Nursing leads to division of labour;
Division of labour leads to gender roles;
Technological progress changes the balance.
And honestly, lightsabers? I think Mel Brooks nailed the symbolism good and hard in 'Spaceballs: The Movie'.
The use of the word "gender" in place of the word "sex" enables this whole load of garbage. Consider using only the word "sex" to describe WITAF you're saying. :)
This little controversy is a tool. It's obvious that male and female are biological attributes, and masculine/feminine/neuter are attributes of affect. The confusion is by design, it's part of a strategy, a game which is being played -
"In essence, a thought reform program is a behavioral change technology applied to cause the learning and adoption of an ideology or set of behaviors under conditions. It is distinguished from other forms of social learning by the conditions under which it is conducted and by the techniques of environmental and interpersonal manipulation employed to suppress particular behavior and to train others .
Six conditions are simultaneously present in a thought reform program:
obtaining substantial control over an individual's time and thought content, typically by gaining control over major elements of the person's social and physical environment,
systematically creating a sense of powerlessness in the person,
manipulating a system of rewards, punishment. and experiences in such a way as to promote new learning of an ideology or belief system advocated by management,
manipulating a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in such a way as to inhibit observable behavior that reflects the values and routines of life organization the individual displayed prior to contact with the group,
maintaining a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure in the organization and
maintaining a non-informed state existing in the subject.
The last two conditions work because there is no effective way for the subject to influence the system and because the program moves along in such a way that the subject is unaware of being changed for a hidden organizational purpose. In a closed system of logic, criticism or complaints are handled by showing the subject that he or she is defective, not the organization. Observations may be turned around and argued to mean the opposite of what the critic intended. When a subject questions or doubts a tenet or rule, attention is called to factual information that suggests some internal contradiction within the belief system or a contradiction with what the subject has been told: the criticism or observation is "turned around" and the subject made to feel he or she is wrong. In effect the subject is told, "You are always wrong; the system is always right." The system refuses to be modified except by executive order. In addition, by keeping a subject in a non-informed state, he or she functions in an environment to which he or she is forced to adapt in a series of steps, each sufficiently minor so that the subject does not notice change in him- or herself and does not become aware of the goals of the program until late in the process (if ever).
WITAMF.
Is that missing an I?
Yes, thank you for catching that! Corrected :-)
IEMCN
I hereby concede defeat to your acronymizing powers (while simultaneously having no idea what is meant by that 😆).
"I'm even more confused now"
🤣
What-in-the-actual-mega-f…
Is that a Polish W?
Like "welcome MF"?
As my analysis prof said: You can safely claim that almost all mathematicians are stupid. Because the mathematicians know that "almost all" means "all with finitely many exceptions". But do not publicly claim that almost all lawyers are stupid...
I used to joke a lot with my best mate who is a frighteningly smart mathematician working on logics.
I think mathematicians do it on purpose to annoy physicists. A function that is everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable, you say? You're just being perverse for the sake of it!
Oh, come on, physicists rarely differentiate when they differentiate.
that is probably true, but I feel we have more integrated personalities than mathematicians
The correct statement would be that the herd cannot be divided amongst any number of sons, except 1 son or a number of sons equal to the number of cattle.
dividing by one?
that would be the "gender"of mathematics, the point were the two opposing propositions are equal and interchangeable.
Just butcher one, have a barbecue with all your self-identified sons, and discuss about dividing 16 until the cows come home.
Gender should be confined to languages to define masculine, feminine and neuter nouns. The rest is all nonsense.
It's malicious nonsense. The foreground was prepared a generation ago, maybe even two generations ago. Who of us thought that the word gender, synonymous for most of us with 'sex', would be so hard to describe in 2018 or 2022. Not us, but some certainly knew why they were preparing the ground.
Gender is not synonymous with sex, that's the source of the "confusion". People have been thoroughly indoctrinated to think of the two as synonymous, but that doesn't make it true.
It more or less was before this concept of men in skirts are really women came in.
Of course it's not now but that just means that gender = nothing at all.
Hats off to you for your consistent articles! This Substack is worth much more than I pay for it, which is, it appears, zero (or as I say, female; one obviously being male in this miraculous binary that occasionally turns into a very pleasant unary).
Unfortunately people who have been in this gender business for awhile are VERY good (and honestly passionate about) presenting their argument as "compassion and kindness toward people, many of whom I know and love" vs. hate and bigotry. And regardless of how much power the movement now has, and from whence the power arises, that is something they built from the ground up-- a way to win an argument but not necessarily the path to wise action. I do think we need to push back a bit even though we'll be called all the names, and i'm glad you did.
Yes! Reality, truth, and Western Civilization are at stake here.
It's funny how those pleading for "compassion and kindness" are positively vicious towards those not on board with the current nonsense, whether it be vaccines, climate change, or men in stilettos LARPing as women.
"being called all the names" - that's not argument, it's what third graders do, it's an immature emotional response. Don't fall for it.
It's quite easy. [GENDER] contains any number of genders, defined ad hoc as needed by the discreet individual in any given context. It actually follows the same logic as Shroedinger's cat example: not the physics it describes and criticises, but a literal interpretation of cat+box+unknowable variable created by the act of defining it. Defining [GENDER] collapses the probability manifold, so to speak, into 1 definite form, but every such 1 is different from every other 1. Which takes us to the darned cave:
Every [GENDER] is a [gender], but no 1 [gender] is [GENDER], just as all apples are apples but no two apples are the same apple, nor the idealised logical and linguistical apple.
So, to solve your conundrum re: who am I fucking and who is being fucked so to speak, we turn to our old chum Diogenes (the one of the barrel famous). Plato's semantic shenanigans dressed up as logic and reason are easily stripped bare by a plucked hen: "Here Plato, behold your man" as Diogenes' said, showing that linguistics, logic and semantics does bow to observable reality every time. (And starting a riot in town too. Academia never changes, does it?) Poor Plato. If not for Sokrates, he would have been the premiere philosopher, not just a fanboy who copied down his master's voice and made a mint from tutoring.
So what we do is, we strip down [GENDER] and what do we see? Penis or vagina? It's one or the other, barring surgery. (Or in fewer than 1/100 000, one and a bit of the other. Point is, those are the parts and there are no other parts for [GENDER] to originate from: first come the crotch, then comes the mind.)
Penis? Man. Vagina? Woman. What gender-theorists conveniently do to keep you confused, is they purposefully do not distinguish between measurable differences in behaviour and atributes: clothing, traditions, and so on - theatre as they dismissively call 30 000 years of divergent yet cohesive and recognisable societal evolution... . Men are measurably more competitive, violent, aggressive and adventurous; women are measurably more manipulative (not in the pejorative sense!), more verbally persuasive and more socially observant.
To keep with the Star Wars theme:
Sex leads to babies;
Babies leads to nursing;
Nursing leads to division of labour;
Division of labour leads to gender roles;
Technological progress changes the balance.
And honestly, lightsabers? I think Mel Brooks nailed the symbolism good and hard in 'Spaceballs: The Movie'.
The use of the word "gender" in place of the word "sex" enables this whole load of garbage. Consider using only the word "sex" to describe WITAF you're saying. :)
Ahhhhh, good ol’ phlogiston. Poster child of “settled science”…
Sex is determined by chromosomes, XX and XY - although there are very rare intersex syndromes, such as Swyer Syndrome, where a biological male - XY chromosomes - has outwardly female genitalia (https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/5068/swyer-syndrome), and Klinefelter Syndrome (https://www.genome.gov/Genetic-Disorders/Klinefelter-Syndrome) and for people with XX chromosomes, Turner Syndrome (https://www.genome.gov/Genetic-Disorders/Turner-Syndrome). It's impossible to change from XX to XY or vice versa by means of hormones or surgery,
Gender is determined by environmental and psychosocial conditions.
The two are not synonymous.
This little controversy is a tool. It's obvious that male and female are biological attributes, and masculine/feminine/neuter are attributes of affect. The confusion is by design, it's part of a strategy, a game which is being played -
"In essence, a thought reform program is a behavioral change technology applied to cause the learning and adoption of an ideology or set of behaviors under conditions. It is distinguished from other forms of social learning by the conditions under which it is conducted and by the techniques of environmental and interpersonal manipulation employed to suppress particular behavior and to train others .
Six conditions are simultaneously present in a thought reform program:
obtaining substantial control over an individual's time and thought content, typically by gaining control over major elements of the person's social and physical environment,
systematically creating a sense of powerlessness in the person,
manipulating a system of rewards, punishment. and experiences in such a way as to promote new learning of an ideology or belief system advocated by management,
manipulating a system of rewards, punishments, and experiences in such a way as to inhibit observable behavior that reflects the values and routines of life organization the individual displayed prior to contact with the group,
maintaining a closed system of logic and an authoritarian structure in the organization and
maintaining a non-informed state existing in the subject.
The last two conditions work because there is no effective way for the subject to influence the system and because the program moves along in such a way that the subject is unaware of being changed for a hidden organizational purpose. In a closed system of logic, criticism or complaints are handled by showing the subject that he or she is defective, not the organization. Observations may be turned around and argued to mean the opposite of what the critic intended. When a subject questions or doubts a tenet or rule, attention is called to factual information that suggests some internal contradiction within the belief system or a contradiction with what the subject has been told: the criticism or observation is "turned around" and the subject made to feel he or she is wrong. In effect the subject is told, "You are always wrong; the system is always right." The system refuses to be modified except by executive order. In addition, by keeping a subject in a non-informed state, he or she functions in an environment to which he or she is forced to adapt in a series of steps, each sufficiently minor so that the subject does not notice change in him- or herself and does not become aware of the goals of the program until late in the process (if ever).
The tactics of a thought reform program are organized lo destabilize individuals' sense of self by getting them to drastically reinterpret their life's history, radically alter their world view, accept a new version of reality and causality, and develop dependency on the organization, thereby being turned into a deployable agent of the organization operating the thought reform program." https://www.culteducation.com/group/1153-margaret-thaler-singer-ph-d/995-thought-reform-programs-and-the-production-of-psychiatric-casualtiess.html