17 Comments
Sep 8, 2022Liked by Rudolph Rigger

Statement 1 and 2 are both true at the same time. It's Shrödinger's sex. Until you ask (open the box) you don't know the sex of the one asked. By asking you collapse all possible states into one defined sex.

Tangent, Molly Bloom-style:

This is not weird: the ability to hold self-contradictory, paradoxical or mutually eliminating/exclusive opinions-perceptions about reality is key to human intelligence beyond the animalistic level. That is also why AI is so far impossible to create beyond sets of limits being given by the program, no matter how large, adaptive or neuralnet-emulating the AI algorithm, software, whatever, is. The AI must be able to be in a state of 0, 1, and neither/nor plus either/or simultaneously without conflict.

Including backwards in time, meaning it must be able to in real time edit it's own memory without realising it is doing it, and then be able to re-edit it again and again as circumstances dictate.

Applied to gender-whatever, this should serve to explain why the bald man to right in the picture is a woman, a man, a faker, mentally ill, a put upon minority, a magpie, a vicar, War Rocket Ajax, and any other thing it itself could choose to call itself.

It is entirely possible that humans in the future will be able to breed via parthenogenesis. There have been at least one case of a person born with dual sets of ovaries and gonads, both producing ova and sperm. The zygotes were terminated by week 8, but up until then cell replication (is that the correct terminology?) was normal for pregnancy. So in theory, you could have a person impregnate themselves, being the 'donor' of both sets of chromosomes. What then would this entail for sex/gender?

We don't know.

What we do know is that when a society starts down a certain path civilisationally, it becomes impossible for it to correct its course on its own. It takes the culture, people, race, ethnicity, pick you favourite term to be outraged over being almost exterminated, or at best subjugated and dominated by another - one who hasn't gone down that path yet. Then, the original culture may experience a new spring and a rekindling of its power, perhaps even achieving Empire-status eventually before repeating the fall once again.

Worshipping degeneracy, belief in rights as were they physical objects, and disconnect from material reality are all key signs of this decay.

Expand full comment
author

Shrödinger's sex? I thought that was when your girlfriend asks "is it in yet?"

Expand full comment
Sep 9, 2022·edited Sep 9, 2022Liked by Rudolph Rigger

That would be "Shrödinger's ex", wouldn't it?

Old joke:

Do you know how you get a woman to scream from sex?

When you're done, wipe your thing on the drapes.

Edit: by the way, the answer to this question:

"But you're right - how do we attack this shit without furthering the division that is the ultimate goal?"

Think judo, aikido, jiujitsu as models for how to construct arguments and rethoric. Also, look up the books 'Crystalizing Public Opinion' and 'Propaganda' by Edward Bernays, the man who was a great inspiration to Joseph Goebbels when it came to forming self-propagating narrative truths and memetic infections among other things.

Expand full comment
Sep 8, 2022·edited Sep 8, 2022Liked by Rudolph Rigger

I find it ludicrous, absurd, and really pathetic that we are entertaining, giving any substance to, and/or discussing this as if it were actually anything with any substance to it at all.

If I walked into a party and announced that from now on, if you wish be known as a human being, you'll have to be tested to see some kind of biological proof of it.

THIS kind of attempt to be rational and serious about what is CLEARLY AN ATTACK on our sanity as people, to confuse, obfuscate, distract, and otherwise SIDETRACK us from the very real and very dangerous problem at hand by the very same people WHO ARE THE PROBLEM.

No offense, Mr. Rigger, but really????????????????

Hormone schmormone, women are the FIRST SEX, and it is a hormonal wash IN THE WOMB that makes a person male, and NOTHING WE DO LATER is going to make a male into a female, period. Arguing about sexual attraction, social/political/financial equality, what is "fair," what "expected," what is "God's Plan," and so forth, is about SOCIAL perceptions and decisions made as a group.

WE ARE BEING DISTRACTED, SIDETRACKED, AND DIVIDED, while the panting oligarchs are trying desperately to keep us from stopping them TAKING OVER OUR COUNTRIES, OUR RIGHTS, FREEDOMS, AND AUTONOMY. Not of one race, one country, one continent, or even one sex, but of ALL OF US.

If we don't soon stand up and take back our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, our inalienable RIGHTS, we are going to have to clean up a mess FAR FAR worse than what it's going to be anyway, regardless.

EYES ON THE PRIZE.

Do not allow the Nasties to DIVIDE AND CONQUER us. Sex, gender, whatever, DOESN'T MATTER when you are a SLAVE, or more pointedly, DEAD.

Sorry for all the capitalizing, but... shit!!!!

Expand full comment
author

Oh I agree it's all absurd - an accelerating ride down slide stupid.

I think we need to attack it from all angles - but ridicule is probably the strongest weapon. You never know what argument/approach is going to strike home, even a bit. It's like the mindless devotion to covid measures - not easy to figure out how to get through to those who appear to have been hypnotised.

I also believe this whole gender smorgasmbord is being driven by a smaller group of people who know exactly what they're doing. Most 'normal' people, if they knew what's going on, would be horrified by the gender woo woo. A lot of people have no idea, still. What's most worrying aren't the number of dicks on twitter (in more than one meaning of that word) but the capture of institutions and educational establishments. So I think we do need to spend at least some time attacking this as if it were serious.

But you're right - how do we attack this shit without furthering the division that is the ultimate goal?

Despite my attempt to treat it seriously I hope it's very clear that their whole edifice doesn't stack up and is ridiculous even on its own, supposedly serious, merits.

Expand full comment

I know, I was feeling particularly irritated already when I responded to this... sorry for being so obstreperous. I know you have good intentions. I like your writing, etc. It's not about YOU, I'm just sooooo sick of these people-- I guess they're "people"-- maybe not-- I'm sick of all the mindfuckery and the insidious tactics, and the EVIL that's behind it all. SO. SICK. OF. IT. It doesn't help either that I am going through a microcosm of the same vomitous behavior in my own family. So I'm just bitchy sometimes (woof!), watching the trees dying from their fake "clouds" while they bring down a hellish rain of no heat this winter and no food... I'm just beside myself with fury, and I need to start actually doing something in the real world to FIGHT BACK... Sorry I took out some of my rage on your page!

How do we attack this shit? I think you said it-- ridicule. The Nasties hate that. xo

Expand full comment
author

No worries WH, I didn't take it personally - because I feel exactly the same kind of frustration as you do. How the holy batshit fuck can **anyone** take this gender crap seriously?

It isn't just gender woo woo - it's happening on lots of fronts. A lot of the racist CRT crap, for example, is based on similarly potty notions and a very warped view of history. Our kids are being force-fed this absolute horseshit and it is not good at all.

The gender woo woo is already causing problems for women, for many of the L,G, and T parts of the alphabet people, but men seem a little bit more unaffected. I mean, most straight men if you ask if they find the woman™ Ms Slaphead in the article picture attractive will look at you like you've grown an extra head. They'll just laugh at then being accused of transphobia.

There are signs of pushback - various sports bodies, for example, have woken up to the threat and are appropriately protecting the rights of women over women™. As more and more people become aware of this gender idiocracy we'll see things turn back around. And then we'll see politicians realise that supporting the gender nonsense is not the vote winner they thought it was.

The gender ideologues, and those opposed to it like us, are really the wings of a bell curve. They, and we, know about this stuff, read the articles etc. Most people don't have the time or energy to devote to this lunacy and so see the odd headline here and there - and the more of it they see, the more things will turn sour for the gender loons.

I hope . . . .

Expand full comment

Yes, I hope, too... The photo of the swimmers, forgive me for forgetting names and places, with the three winners standing on the medal blocks, two women and a huge, clearly male, First Place medal thief, looming like a living joke, a visual insult to all women... But I do think all this is DISTRACTION.

I'd just like to add that there is something else, besides ridicule and various forms of shouting epithets in public venues, that we can do, and that is to take down the very clear and present dangers of these towers emitting the five and seventh letter not-just-toxic, but deadly, means of harm... They are everywhere, and while they may be TALL, they are vulnerable to things like small missiles sent from instruments of human design that can collide with, and damage, these means of human, and other living things, being horribly damaged or killed... Without having to "overthrow" anything or hurt anyone else... Maybe even a boomerang would suffice.

Expand full comment

Agreed. This is not just another political football we can ignore, as it would have detrimental consequences to society, especially our youth. We need to educate ourselves on what's truly going on, keep spreading the word, and put a stop to it before even more lives are needlessly destroyed.

On that note, have you heard of Jennifer Bilek? She offers a very compelling perspective: https://www.the11thhourblog.com/post/who-owns-big-pharma-and-the-billionaires-invested-in-the-gender-industry

And if you want to go further down the money trail rabbit hole, there's this extremely disturbing piece: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/billionaire-family-pushing-synthetic-sex-identities-ssi-pritzkers

Expand full comment

That rabbit hole ain't got rabbits in it, but something far more demonic... Yes, it's all about screwing up our poor kids... These parasites are perverts, too... oh, gawd, the irony of them calling US "useless eaters" is sooooo heavy.

Expand full comment

Do you think, that in 3 or 5 or 10 years, a new word will have emerged to fill the need to name that individual who possesses the anatomy formerly identified as female? Because it seems to me two things are colliding here: the scientific and altogether human need to precisely describe, identify, classify, and name physical phenomena and the fact that, in the absence of a name for "people who hold a certain set of feelings and thoughts that they identify as being 'of women'", an old name is being applied inaccurately, leaving a vacuum for those of us who are the former (physically female) but not the latter (convinced that we are female based primarily on our identification with the term).

I do appreciate that "transwoman/transman" are attempts at new words for a new claim, except they're too confusing: it takes several beats to remember what each of those is actually trying to tell you about the person's identity AND anatomy. And they are problematically non-inclusive of the non-trans people who call themselves cisgender and should be lumped together with trans in a system that categorizes based solely on personal identity. But this system cannot replace one that is useful and describes fundamental realities-- it goes against everything that makes us human.

Expand full comment
Sep 8, 2022·edited Sep 8, 2022Liked by Rudolph Rigger

From my understanding, not too long ago, "gender" and "sex" were used interchangeably. All further discussion would end if we returned to this biology-centered standard.

Also, it's interesting to note for the record, before we started to tinker with the word "woman", we radically changed the meaning of "marriage." And it turns out that gay folks have a rather non-traditional view of the institution: https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/06/most-gay-couples-aren-t-monogamous-will-straight-couples-go-monogamish.html

Expand full comment
Sep 8, 2022·edited Sep 8, 2022Liked by Rudolph Rigger

I haven’t had a lot of successes trying to change people’s minds with logic. Pretty often, the effort appears only to strengthen them in their current opinion (something along the lines of them not wanting to be on the side of the weenie wasting their time with the incremental steps involved).

Still, for self-evident truths explicated by formal propositions, I’ll give it to you for brevity over Whitehead and Russell, who took more than 300 pages to get to “1 + 1 = 2.”

(I suppose your Gödel will be someone screaming, “Shut up and die, you f***ing transphobe! Transwomen are women! Q.E.D!!”)

Expand full comment

You need to do this with Venn diagrams.

We have the following categories: "Women" (the large circle) and "TransWomen" (the smaller circle that is completely encompassed by the large "Women" circle. Clearly there is a category of "Women-Who-Are-Not-Trans". My question is why doesn't this category have rights separate from the category of "TransWomen"? In fact, we can see that there are only two categories: "TransWomen" and "Women-Who-Are-Not-Trans", so we can dispose of the overall category "Women" entirely.

Expand full comment

Why not two circles side by side, called "Men" and "Women" respectively, with a miniscule dot overlapping them, called "trans-"?

That's more in line with actual reality, as opposed to narratively perceived reality.

Expand full comment

Maybe the problem is the "is". You (and not only you) are taking the verb "to be" as describing a transitive relation (a BMW is a car, cars are means of transport, therefore a BMW is a means of transport). These people don't. Trans women are women. Women are menstruating. Trans women do not have to be menstruating, bigot. Trans is not short for transitive.

Expand full comment

I like the logic you are using. Estrogen and testosterone levels influence feelings and behavior, and brain development. And from a kind of anthropological perspective, whether one is inherently biologically made to grow and feed children from their very body, and with the help of estrogen have a propensity to be attuned to what a baby needs. Or to have a larger frame and muscles to build, hunt, and with testosterone have healthy aggression to protect the vulnerable.

On the spiritual level, we are all one, no difference. On the biological level, we, along with the rest of life in this earth, have amazing diversity and difference. On the cultural level, we get to decide. For some, the cultural includes the spiritual (for example cultures based on religion. "Spritual" can have a wide range of meaning). Trans activists want the cultural to not include the diversity of biology. In which case, you are right, they can't take a biological word then and use it for a cultural category. Not only does it take the meaning out of words, it's been damaging to women in particular.

Expand full comment