The conflation of the terms “gender” and “biological sex” concomitant with the term “gender” as being something separate and distinct from biological sex, has led to the existence of biological sex being dismissed as a “social construct”. Free of any ties to reality, “gender” is not limited by the biosocial binary of sex.
Nonetheless, “gender,” when used as a synonym for biological sex, it is untrue to say that there are more than two “genders“:
“Male and female. There is a penchant in left-leaning academia to distinguish between gender and sex, but the distinction is sophistry. Sex refers to biological differences between men and women, and gender refers to cultural or social differences between men and women, but since the vast majority of social differences are rooted in biology, it’s a bit of a moot point.
“The promotion of the idea of multiple genders is part of a larger, liberal project to engage the chaos and destruction of anarchy. Why the left wants to do this is difficult for me to understand. Base hedonism? I don’t know. But the central idea is this: the insistence that there are more than two genders prioritizes feelings over facts. The simple fact that some people feel confused over their identities doesn’t change the fact that there are only two genders, any more than the existence of people born with out legs or who have had legs amputated proves that humans are not bipedal. The left insists it does.
“Feelings > facts
“The actual individuals who embrace this kind of nonsense cannot see this, of course. They are also literally incapable of thinking critically. The wildly left wing college campuses are designed as propaganda factories that deliberately and consciously impair student’s ability to examine issues with their full critical faculties engaged.
“Patients who need hip operations or cataract surgery could be refused treatment for four months after health chiefs in the north west of England said they could no longer afford to fund all NHS services.
“St Helen’s Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) in Merseyside, could become the first in the country to temporarily suspend all non-essential hospital referrals by GPs in a bid to balance its books.”
Or, how the WorldCon is society and art writ small—”she would know”.
Another WorldCon which hosts the Hugo Awards has come and gone. Yet again the two “puppies” slates (Sad Puppies and Vox Day’s Rabid Puppies). And yet again, the old guard of the WorldCon and SMOFs of “fandom” either voted “No Award” or voted for Politically Correct alternatives.
One of the “No Award” votes was for the category of “Best Related Work”. Multiple entries were about the dark underbelly of “fandom”, specifically the covering up of child molestation and abuse to protect Politically Correct authors. One of the nominees was “The Story of Moira Greyland” by the daughter of Marion Zimmer Bradley, outlining the molestation she was a victim of by her mother, and of her child molester father, who died in prison after being convicted of molesting an eleven year old boy.
During the awards ceremony, between announcing the title and author, and the announcing of the publisher which was in this case the website “askthebigot.com”, the toastmaster, Pat Cadigan, slipped in the aside “she would know”.
That moment validated the complaint that the “inner fandom” protects their own, particularly if they were into “alternate sexualities”. The Hugo Awards have indeed become insular an incestuous in nature.
The award winners were largely predictable. Unless otherwise clearly supported, the vote was against the puppies and either “No Award” was announced, or there was a rally round the most politically correct alternative. A bid hubbub was made out of how White males were shut out of the top literary awards (novel, novella, novelette, short story). In particular, the acceptor of the award for Best Novel read a statement by the author that belittled the puppies and reveled in the brave new world of a glorious science fiction future free from oppressive White males oppressively oppressing hack Politically Incorrect writers.
The other “puppy kicking” speech came from the Best Graphic Story winner Neil Gaiman who celebrated the puppy kicking… despite both Puppy Slates finding his work to be Hugo worthy.
Toastmaster Pat Cadigan engaged in the classic “DARVO” trick of accusing the accuser:
“DARVO refers to a reaction that perpetrators of wrong doing, particularly sexual offenders, may display in response to being held accountable for their behavior. The perpetrator or offender may Deny the behavior, Attack the individual doing the confronting, and Reverse the roles of Victim and Offender such that the perpetrator assumes the victim role and turns the true victim into an alleged offender. This occurs, for instance, when an actually guilty perpetrator assumes the role of ‘falsely accused’ and attacks the accuser’s credibility or even blames the accuser of being the perpetrator of a false accusation.”
In their little world, they Deny that the Hugo Awards and the “core fandom” have become insular and incestuous with the awards—supporting themselves and the select few authors to the exclusion of more popular works—and then Attack those who called them on it while Reversing the role of Victim and Offender by portraying themselves high priests of Science Fiction and Fantasy defending their hallowed institution from a bunch of wreckers. The “Sad Puppies” started, not to destroy the Hugo Awards, but to save them by promoting what they believes to be quality works that were outside of the Politically Correct and/or insular fandom vein. Vox Day’s “Rabid Puppies” were a response to reaction of the WorldCon inner sanctum against the “Sad Puppies”.
The old guard of the WorldCon and the Hugo Awards portray themselves as defending a wide Science Fiction and Fantasy fandom against a few “wreckers”. Perhaps the wisdom of James FitzJames Stephen would illuminate the preposterousness of this position:
“[Mills] appears to believe that if men are freed from restraints and put, as far as possible, on an equal footing, they will naturally treat each other as brothers, and work together harmoniously for their common good. I believe that many men are bad, a vast majority of men indifferent, and many good, and that the great mass of indifferent people sway this way or that according to the circumstances, one of the most important of which is the circumstances is the predominance for the time being of the bad or good.”
Unsurprisingly, the Business Meeting of the WorldCon, where about two hundred people changed the rules for nominations. The first major change, which will be in effect for the 2017 Hugo Awards, was the “E Pluribus Hugo” (EPH) method of choosing nominees. Rather than include the top five in nominations in each category, ballots in each category were given a single “point” which was divided up equally for each nomination on a submitters ballot. Thus, one point if a single nomination is made, half a point for each nomination if there were two nominations, &c. Thereafter, the nominees with the lowest point totals are moved into an elimination phase where the one with the fewest notifications is eliminated. The process is repeated until only the top remaining final ballot is finalized.
At the business meeting, advocates for EPH were very open about this change being made solely to kick out the puppies. To be fair, there was a significant minority of the meeting that, while also speaking out against the puppies, were reluctant to change the voting system because it would also affect non-puppy nominees, such as a Hugo Award winner who would have been purged from the final nomination list if EPH had been in effect. This could, if played correctly—and if the number of Puppy voters increased enough—result in a flip situation from the present, where one Puppy nomination is made per category, and ends up winning because the increase in Puppy (or at least not Puppy-adverse) voters voted for the Puppy nominee. This is not far-fetched, and a number of people at the Hugo Awards mentioned never having even heard of the winner of “Best Novel” and had no idea who voted for it. The final nomination ballot for the past three WorldCons (including 2016) were compared under the old system and under EPH. Interestingly enough, the results can not be independently validated because it would require access to the raw data, which is not released. Because EPH did not exclude all puppies, further changes were proposed, which if approved at the 2017 WorldCon in Helsinki, would be in effect for the 2018 WorldCon in San Jose, California. Further major changes were: “Three Stage Voting” (3SV) and the EPH+. In the case of the 3SV system, the top fifteen finalists would be subject to a “reject” phase where any work, regardless of how many nominations or “points” it received could be reject if: 1). The work receives 60% reject vote amongst the total of “accept” and “rejects” votes (abstentions are allowed); and 2). the number of “reject” ballots is the higher of 600 or 20% of all eligible voters. This was proposed because those with the inside skinny on the numbers said that there were less than four hundred full puppy slate voters while the total number of votes was “an order of magnitude” higher. Thus, the non-Puppy voters could kill off the Puppy nominees, even if they received both the highest number nominations and the highest number of “points”, while the Puppies could not do the same… assuming that the Puppies don’t “zerg rush” the nomination process. The EPH+ would change the dividing up the “point” by assigning for each successive nomination in a single catagory an increasingly smaller share of the “point” (e.g. “1 point for 1 remaining nomineed, 1/3 of a point each for 2 remaining nominees, 1/5 of a point each for each 3 remaining nominees, &c.). In all three cases (EPH, 3SV, and EPH+), the proposals will have to be approved at each WorldCon meeting up until and including the 2022 WorldCon, with each WorldCon before that being allowed to vote to suspend these changes for the next Worldcon. Considering that the business meeting only had about two hundred people present, it would only take a few hundred Puppies going to the Business Meeting at just one of the next half-dozen WorldCons to kill off any of these proposals.
There were two other changes of note. Previously a nominee required at least 5% of the nominations to be on the final ballot; this has been repealed effective the 2017 WorldCon. Additionally, a proposal for a new category, “Best Series”, will be up for ratification at the 2017 WorldCon. The most extreme proposal, which would allow the WorldCon committee to add two nominees to the final ballot, even if the new nominees had receive no nominations, was not voted upon.
The spread of “Social Justice” at the WorldCon is not limited to the Hugo Awards. Many panels included panelists making Donald Trump jokes, even when the panel had nothing to do with anything even remotely connected to Donald Trump. Many of the panels, further, were explicitly about celebrating “Social Justice” and the sidelining of straight “cit-het” White males.
For example, a panel about “S[cience]F[iction] as Protest Literature” included a panelist who proudly declared himself a Social Justice Warrior who loves “Safe Spaces” and is studying “Critical Analysis”, an outspokedn anti-Capitalist, and an association of “right wing” protest literature with the Turner Diaries. “Dick and Jane” was declared to have a political agenda, presumably because it involved White children who represented the dreaded “gender binary”. One panelist, Jo Walton, did acknowledge that she included many Gay characters because in her circle of friends, there were many Gay individuals. That many people complain that the Politically Correct writers push Gay and other “non-Kyriarchs” far in excess of their actual representation in broader society may be due to those many people in their experience do not live in areas with an inordinantly high number of LGBTQ&c. individuals, or live in areas with White majorities, and thus those many people are complaining that the new Politically Correct stories do not jive with their own experiences, and thus feel it is being pushed on them for the sake of it being pushed in an attempt to normalize the “Social Justice” worldview. That the response to this was to shout out “we exist” to the cheer of a room full of individuals who are not representative of anything other than the demographics of Tumblr, sheds doubt upon the case of the panelists.
The WorldCon has never been under the sway of conservatives, but it is only now becoming exclusive of those who are not head-over-heals for “Social Justice” and far-Left insanity. It is yet another example of O’Sullivan’s First Law: “Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time.” While popular authors will continue to do well, the Hugo’s will likely go the way of “modern art” which is appreciated only by a snobbish exclusive elite.
“Brazil’s Senate voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to indict President Dilma Rousseff on charges of breaking budget laws and to begin an impeachment trial that is expected to oust her from office and end 13 years of rule by the Workers Party.
“With the eyes of the world on the Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, senators in the capital Brasilia voted 59-21 against the suspended leftist leader in a raucous, 16-hour session that began on Tuesday.
“Her opponents mustered five votes more than they will need to convict Rousseff at the end of the month, allowing interim President Michel Temer to serve the rest of her term through 2018.
“The result showed Rousseff had even less support in the Senate since the 55-22 vote to suspend her on May 12. She is charged with manipulating government accounts and spending without congressional approval, which her opponents say helped her win re-election in 2014.”
Unsurprisingly, Rousseff is blaming this on “a right-wing conspiracy that used an accounting technicality to illegally remove a government that improved the lot of Brazil’s poor”.
Using the checks and balances afforded by Brazil’s Constitution is neither a technicality nor a conspiracy. It is a proper republic working properly.
The Guardian, of course, has come out with an opinion piece that is calling to abolish the jury system in order to convict more men of rape. Julie Bindel, the writer of this insanity, claims that 94% of rapists get away with it and that thus rape is de facto legal.
How does she get to this 94% number? She assumes that all accusations are true and that failure to provide evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is tantamount to a “rape culture” ruled by Teh Patriarchy™! She goes on to say that:
“Why do away with one of the fundamentals of a decent justice system? Is the jury system not set up in order to better ensure fairness and justice, rather than relying on a crusty old Etonian in a wig?
“Not in rape cases. If jurors were to receive the level of training and awareness-raising necessary to challenge the deep-rooted and highly persuasive myths about rape, the jury system would be more effective in dealing with sex crimes – but this would take more than a few words from the judge at the beginning of a trial, which is how it works at the moment.”
In other words, the populace hasn’t been sufficiently propagandized to believe Feminist myths about how all men are rapists, or “systems of oppression” that keep women down.
She further blames the media reporting on false rape accusations, because they raise doubt about a man being guilty just because the prosecutor wants to convict someone.
Her solution to this?
“One potential solution to this worrying state of affairs is to do away with jurors in sex crime trials, and appoint a specially trained judge. I am wholly in favour of our jury system, but even more in favour of ensuring that rapists and other sex offenders do not walk free. New Zealand could be the first country to rid sex crime cases of jurors if one key recommendation from a recently published report by its Law Commission is implemented. The commissioners have suggested that there is a case for having sexual violence trials decided by a judge, either alone or with two expert ‘lay assessors’.”
The jury system has evolved as a check on the state prosecuting innocent individuals. Note that one of the “solutions” is to have two “experts” guide the judge to the “correct” verdict in the name of “justice”. This is eerily similar to the calls to abolish elections in the name of “democracy”.
The National Institute of Health planning to lift its moratorium on funding that could lead to the development of catgirls:
“The federal government announced plans Thursday to lift a moratorium on funding of certain controversial experiments that use human stem cells to create animal embryos that are partly human.
“The National Institutes of Health is proposing a new policy to permit scientists to get federal money to make embryos, known as chimeras, under certain carefully monitored conditions.
“The NIH imposed a moratorium on funding these experiments in September because they could raise ethical concerns.
“One issue is that scientists might inadvertently create animals that have partly human brains, endowing them with some semblance of human consciousness or human thinking abilities. Another is that they could develop into animals with human sperm and eggs and breed, producing human embryos or fetuses inside animals or hybrid creatures.”
Research that could lead to the creation of catgirls is already happening, and the use of Federal funds will only accelerate this.
While allowing the development of catgirls for domestic ownership there is a potential secondary benefit:
“[S]cientists hope to use the embryos to create animal models of human diseases, which could lead to new ways to prevent and treat illnesses. Researchers also hope to produce sheep, pigs and cows with human hearts, kidneys, livers, pancreases and possibly other organs that could be used for transplants.”
Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.
The focus this time: Me not know education? That’s unpossible!
First, a little mood music:
The Advanced Placement test is used by colleges to help asses the knowledge of students, and to even give them college credit for a high enough score. The knowledge that is being tested, however, tends towards how knowledgeable the students are in Progressive Propaganda.
“The invaluable National Association of Scholars is publishing a 12,000-word critique of the new AP European History (APEH) exam. The report, written by David Randall, is titled The Disappearing Continent.
“Here are Dr. Randall’s key findings.
“1) APEH presents the history of government rather than of liberty.
“2) APEH presents religion throughout as an instrument of power rather than as an autonomous sphere of European history.
“3) APEH treats the movement to abolish slavery without mentioning how it was inspired by religious faith, led by saints such as William Wilberforce, and hymned to Amazing Grace.
“4) APEH underplays British history throughout, thus minimizing the importance of Britain’s distinctive history in the European tradition as the champion of liberty.
“5) APEH minimizes and extenuates the evils of Communism, the brutal destructiveness of Soviet rule, and the aggressiveness of Soviet foreign policy.
“6) APEH virtually ignores Europe’s unique development of the architecture of modern knowledge, which made possible almost every modern form of intellectual inquiry.
“7) APEH doesn’t argue that European history is important or interesting in itself. APEH never gives a reason why students should study Europe’s history in particular.
Of course, it doesn’t get better at the college level