What does anyone actually expect here?

“Purality” may be the least easy to grasp. Damore et al. explained it in a footnote. “For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as ‘a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin’ and ‘an expansive ornate building’ presented a talk entitled ‘Living as a Plural Being’ at an internal company event,” the suit read.

In addition to “furries,” some people have adopted an animalistic sexual identity. For instance, at least one transgender man didn’t stop with identifying as a woman. He — or, as he would prefer to be called, “it” — has “become” a dragon lady, and has undergone painful and expensive surgery including tooth removal, horn implants, nose modification, and the creation of a forked tongue. Born “Richard Hernandez,” the 55-year-old ex-human adopted the name “Eva Tiamat Baphomet Medusa.”

In common parlance, this transgender dragon lady would fit into the broader category of “Otherkin” — those who identify as non-human. (No word on how soon they’d clamor for the removal of human rights.) Indeed, one particularly crazed individual had surgery to become an extraterrestrial.

If you take all the social inadequates (aka “nerds”) and stick them in one place then what do you expect to happen?

54 comments on “What does anyone actually expect here?

  1. This must be a sign to short Google? And indeed the entire US tech sector? All this BS has to end in a disaster eventually surely?

  2. one transgender man didn’t stop with identifying as a woman. He — or, as he would prefer to be called, “it” — has “become” a dragon lady, and has undergone painful and expensive surgery including tooth removal, horn implants, nose modification, and the creation of a forked tongue. Born “Richard Hernandez,” the 55-year-old ex-human adopted the name “Eva Tiamat Baphomet Medusa.”

    No further evidence is needed that transgenderism is a mental illness. ‘It’ is evidently a batshit crazy, narcissistic, exhibitionist. And ‘it’ is too late to get a bit part in Game of Thrones, so the Google soap opera will have to do.

  3. “it” — has “become” a dragon lady,

    That’s a particularly long-winded and involved way for an otherwise boring and inconsequential person to:

    a) get attention, and
    b) impose themselves on others, i.e. to exercise power over them.

  4. ” all the social inadequates (aka “nerds”)”

    Tim, think you have definitely missed the point here. Those two terms are nowhere close to being synonymous. Actual nerds spend quite a bit of time trying quite hard not to be noticed at all, even for doing good work.

    I rather strongly suspect that your dragonkin is in fact making a fuss about being a dragonkin quite specifically to distract from the fact that they are not even doing good work.

    That is rather the point.

  5. “If you take all the social inadequates (aka “nerds”) and stick them in one place then what do you expect to happen?”

    Car bomb?

  6. TP-G: True. I’m a nerd and have never thought of being other than the white heterosexual male that I am. I might even have added some value for my employer over the years. I do wonder what value these ‘people’ add to Google. Perhaps the dragons are shit-hot programmers or designers, but I have my doubts.

  7. As always, the notable thing is not the particular game of pretend these people are playing, nor the self-destruction it will entail, but their eventual trip to the State House to testify for new laws to force the rest of us to play along.

    @Pedant-General – “Not doing good work” will out, and for that reason or other idiosyncracy, Baphomet will eventually leave Google and expect society at large to be equally protective. Me, I will not even buy a used car from him.

  8. I’ve decided that the reason lefties love foreigners and weirdos as a matter of routine, regardless of whether they are nutters or criminals is that this is evidence that they are lovely, good people.

    So when they say that their fellow white nationals are idiots, fascists and should be shot, they can fall back on the excuse that “Hey, I love this Dragon Lady here, that proves I’m a nice caring person and that when I call you a nasty little shit and treat you badly, it’s nothing less than you’re due.”

  9. TP-G is certainly correct to suggest leaving “nerds” out of this. They’re generally inoffensive & upset no-one. I’m not even sure they’re “socially inadequate”. Nerdish people seem to get along very well with other nerds, discussing nerdish things. They’re just differently orientated. And let’s be honest. There’s a whole spectrum of different orientations, right across society. No doubt a lot of the people post here would find themselves “socially inadequate” at a coven of 4th-wave feminists. As 4th-wave feminists have occasionally found themselves here. To be socially adequate you do have to have some basic assumptions in common with the people you’re socialising with.
    And I can’t say anything particularly against the batshit crazy exhibitionists either. A few of those around the place lightens the atmosphere & makes the world a better place. Of course they’re narcissistic. They’d have to be. They need to know somebody loves them.
    It’s the aggressively confrontational exhibitionists that piss me off. The one’s that are in your face, whether you want them or not. That wish to subjugate & control rather than entertain & inform.
    Or basically, anyone who writes for the Guardian.

  10. BiS: To be socially adequate you do have to have some basic assumptions in common with the people you’re socialising with.

    I think that’s a bit restrictive and people who are reasonably articulate, have something of a sense of humour, are broadly polite and slow to take offence can probably manage a coven of 4th-wave feminists.

    There’s obviously a limit to this argument and one would additionally need the social skills of Nurse Ratched to cope with the “Plural Beings” at Google.

  11. People have been saying the same things about D&D players, and those people who turn up at fantasy/SF conventions in costume for ages. Some people evidently take it a little more seriously than others.

    What possesses an adult man to spend his spare time sitting in a basement with his friends, some 12-sided dice and a lot of books of numerical tables, and battle Orcs across the Mountains of Zarg for weeks on end? What possesses adult men to spend their money on a sophisticated ‘realistic’ computer simulation of shooting zombie-Nazis with a shotgun in a maze-like castle for weeks on end? It’s easy to laugh.

    Society sets *rules* on how people are allowed to behave, what they are allowed to do with their own lives, and enforces them by various means ranging from derision and bullying all the way up to being stoned to death. Damore’s complaint, perfectly valid, is that Google tolerates many of these lifestyles, but applies its own rules against the ‘conservative’ lifestyle that the old rules previously enforced.

    Consistency requires that either Google admits to being just as intolerant and authoritarian as the old regime it condemns, or it has to tolerate conservative views and lifestyle choices *too*. But conversely, so do conservatives. If you’re going to heap derision and pressure to conform on the heads of alternative lifestyles, then you need to expect the same treatment when your own lifestyle goes out of fashion. If you want to claim the benefits of tolerance and inclusivity for your own lifestyle, then you have to play the game.

    The reason Damore has phrased his case this way is that he knows the law is based on the principle of universal tolerance, so he has a better chance appealing for the conservative lifestyle to be tolerated under the new rules than he would asking for society to return to enforcement of the old. But opinions differ, evidently.

    Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflecting persons perceived that when society is itself the tyrant—society collectively, over the separate individuals who compose it—its means of tyrannizing are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates: and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practises a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.

    Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough: there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling; against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development, and, if possible, prevent the formation, of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence: and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs, as protection against political despotism.

    […]

    The likings and dislikings of society, or of some powerful portion of it, are thus the main thing which has practically determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion. And in general, those who have been in advance of society in thought and feeling, have left this condition of things unassailed in principle, however they may have come into conflict with it in some of its details. They have occupied themselves rather in inquiring what things society ought to like or dislike, than in questioning whether its likings or dislikings should be a law to individuals. They preferred endeavouring to alter the feelings of mankind on the particular points on which they were themselves heretical, rather than make common cause in defence of freedom, with heretics generally.

    The only case in which the higher ground has been taken on principle and maintained with consistency, by any but an individual here and there, is that of religious belief: a case instructive in many ways, and not least so as forming a most striking instance of the fallibility of what is called the moral sense: for the odium theologicum, in a sincere bigot, is one of the most unequivocal cases of moral feeling.

    Those who first broke the yoke of what called itself the Universal Church, were in general as little willing to permit difference of religious opinion as that church itself. But when the heat of the conflict was over, without giving a complete victory to any party, and each church or sect was reduced to limit its hopes to retaining possession of the ground it already occupied; minorities, seeing that they had no chance of becoming majorities, were under the necessity of pleading to those whom they could not convert, for permission to differ.

    It is accordingly on this battle field, almost solely, that the rights of the individual against society have been asserted on broad grounds of principle, and the claim of society to exercise authority over dissentients, openly controverted. The great writers to whom the world owes what religious liberty it possesses, have mostly asserted freedom of conscience as an indefeasible right, and denied absolutely that a human being is accountable to others for his religious belief.

    Yet so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about, that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realized, except where religious indifference, which dislikes to have its peace disturbed by theological quarrels, has added its weight to the scale. In the minds of almost all religious persons, even in the most tolerant countries, the duty of toleration is admitted with tacit reserves.

    One person will bear with dissent in matters of church government, but not of dogma; another can tolerate everybody, short of a Papist or an Unitarian; another, every one who believes in revealed religion; a few extend their charity a little further, but stop at the belief in a God and in a future state. Wherever the sentiment of the majority is still genuine and intense, it is found to have abated little of its claim to be obeyed.

  12. I’m new to all this transgender mularky, I still have this old fashioned view its all about daft men wearing tights and prancing around the house in secret.

    Now they wan their own shithouses for fucks sake.

    What I wan to know from the panel on here who take great interest in the subject is does having a cock or not make any difference to anything?

  13. “What I wan to know from the panel on here who take great interest in the subject is does having a cock or not make any difference to anything?”

    It’s a good question. I’ve answered it in a lot more detail on the many, many previous discussions on this site – you shouldn’t have any problem finding them. But for a quick summary:

    Male and female brains have about 20-30 different anatomical features that are correlated with one or other sex about 90-99% of the time. However, there’s a 1-10% cross-over, at least some of which is due to genetic mutations, some possibly to other developmental factors in the womb. For example, a broken version of the androgen receptor gene, by which cells elsewhere in the body detect dihydroxy-testosterone in the blood, has been associated with transgenderism.

    At least some of these brain features are related to the mental differences between men and women, and some people get the ‘wrong’ one. (Others are for things like reading maps, or liking maths, and people don’t care so much.) It’s like the difference between an introvert and an extrovert – you can play act being the other one for a while, but it’s likely to cause misery and intolerable stress.

    Because the social pressure and bullying causes about 40% of people with the condition to attempt suicide, and because medical technology has no way to rewire the brain (besides the ethical issues of doing that), the best available treatment is to modify the body.

    “I still have this old fashioned view its all about daft men wearing tights and prancing around the house in secret.”

    Transgenderism is sometimes confused with transvestism, which is an acquired fetish. The theory of this is that the brain’s emotional circuitry isn’t very sophisticated, and what we regard as different emotions are all actually the same emotion, just associated with different thoughts. So happiness is emotional activation associated with happy thoughts. Sadness is emotional activation associated with sad thoughts. The strongest emotions we can feel are associated with fear, pain, shame, and humiliation, and if these are combined with sexual arousal, the emotional activation intensifies the arousal to the same sort of levels, which is addictive. It’s the same reason we like scary funfair rides or horror films – fear combined with fun intensifies the fun

    But it’s completely different to transgenderism, both in its cause and in much of the behaviour, and those who practice it rarely have any desire to do it permanently..Of course, the same tolerance principle applies to that, too. It’s nobody else’s business what other people wear. And if there was no shame and stigma attached to it, it wouldn’t work anyway.

  14. What I wan to know from the panel on here who take great interest in the subject is does having a cock or not make any difference to anything?

    A bloke who gets his cock chopped off is still a bloke, for the same reason that my moobs don’t make me a woman.

    Y chromosome == male. End of.

  15. Yarp. Left to their own awkward, sweaty devices, nerds would just do nerdy stuff.

    What’s happened to Google (and most of Silicon Valley) is social justice convergence. The nerds generated enough excess wealth and the company expanded sufficiently to make Google a tempting target for the “women in tech” crowd (who don’t do much tech but do a lot of angry screaming about being a woman), blue-haired freaks, the genderspazzed, and other parasitic sociopaths.

    It’s a common glibertarian mistake to assume all firms are profit maximisers, Google proves otherwise. Social justice convergence is like HIV or ophiocordyceps unilateralis. Once it reaches critical mass in its host, the host begins to actively work against its own stated mission and interests.

    NB though, this is both a bottom-up and top-down problem. Western elites, including the tech billionaires, have adopted a nihilistic ideology which favours every social pathology imaginable.

    See also: British police and social services prioritising anti-racism over protecting children from rape.

  16. @NiV
    I’d profoundly disagree with the first two paragraphs of your long quote. It’s nonsense. The “tyranny of society” is exactly why it’s possible to have some society to live in.Without societal norms & compulsions to stay close to them, you simply don’t have a society. You just have a gaggle of disparate individuals.
    And this has nothing whatsoever to do with law. Law may be behind societal change. Or it may, as it’s rapidly seeming now, in advance of societal change in whatever strange direction it’s gone off in.
    And this is why you fail to make any headway with your arguments here. It doesn’t matter what so-called scientific opinion you care to marshal. Or legal opinion. Whether a bloke in a frock is regarded as a woman or a man depends on the individuals doing the regarding. And the sum of their opinions is the society you, they & the bloke in the frock are living in.

  17. @Niv, thanks for the explanation, its still confuses me about gender neutral people wanting their own shithouses as Sadiq Khan says helping transgender people who don’t define themselves as male or female have a piss.

    Does having a cock make any difference?

    what happens if non cock transgender types walk into a shithouse and see a cock?…would they be horrified and want their own shithouse…..same goes for transgender changing rooms

    Are normal male urinals banned from such shithouses?

    When its left to people to make their minds up what they are, or be confused or haven’t defined themselves its a certainty your ordinary joe bloggs won’t have a clue either…and probably the law too.

    My solution is there hasn’t been a problem for the last 2 million years…why invent one know.

    Cocks use male toilets…end of.

  18. It’s why I’d disagree with TMB’s comment above.
    “people who are reasonably articulate, have something of a sense of humour, are broadly polite and slow to take offence can probably manage a coven of 4th-wave feminists.”

    Sorry TMB. It’s not going to work. You only have to listen to & read 4th wave feminism. What they believe in is what they are & proselytising it is what they do. Wouldn’t matter how polite, considerate & humorous you are. Particularly the humorous. Unless you’re along with them in proselytising 4th wave femininism, you’re going to be an outsider. No-platformed.

    It’s why the “tyranny of society” is so valuable. When people go off at a tangent, scorn & derision deter other people from following them & coerces them back towards the norm. The penalties of being different are applied. But maybe the experiment moves society a little way in their direction.
    You may not like it, but this is how it works. And it works.

  19. Yeah, right; because of a rare disorder that affects a handful of people we have to pretend (a legally enforceable pretence no doubt) a larger (but still relatively small) number of loony blokes are the birds they claim to be.

  20. a broken version of the androgen receptor gene, by which cells elsewhere in the body detect dihydroxy-testosterone in the blood, has been associated with transgenderism .

    This suggests that transgenderism is a pathology. Once the relevant gene therapy is available, these unfortunates can be cured, and we can forget about this nonsense.

    Because the social pressure and bullying causes about 40% of people with the condition to attempt suicide…

    No, society is not to blame. These people are tormented because they are mentally ill.

    To treat TGs by modifying their bodies is like treating a schizophrenic by indulging his delusions.

  21. @BiS

    I wouldn’ quarrel with any of that – I was taking “socially adequate” to mean being able to rub along with other people in a social context.

    Being able to withstand a tidal wave of proselytizing feminists goes further than I had intended.

    For heaven’s sake, I can’t even bother to read Auntie Penis NiV’s comments and there’s only one of he/she/it though it does seem like more.

  22. An apparent symptom of virgins who into their 20’s, finally accepting they will never, ever be laying pipe.

  23. For those of you wondering what Eva Tiamat Baphomet Medusa looks like currently as she wends her way through life, this article has pictures.

    I should warn you that the article discusses Christianity and the effect the loss of that religion has on the ongoing collapse of western civilisation.

  24. “I’d profoundly disagree with the first two paragraphs of your long quote. It’s nonsense. The “tyranny of society” is exactly why it’s possible to have some society to live in.Without societal norms & compulsions to stay close to them, you simply don’t have a society. You just have a gaggle of disparate individuals.”

    Of course – that’s the justification all authoritarians use. That’s why SJWs and feminists think it’s OK to eliminate views they disagree with, by the same means.

    There are two basic political philosophies: the authoritarian view that society has the right and duty to dictate to its members how they live, what they believe, and what they do and say, “for their own good”, or for “the moral good of society”; and the libertarian view that individuals have the right to do whatever the hell they like, even if other people are offended or annoyed by it, or disagree with its wisdom or morality, so long as it doesn’t do anyone else any harm. Society can intervene to prevent one person harming another (without their informed consent) and to preserve liberty for all, but it can’t dictate beyond that.

    These two philosophies are at war, and the authoritarian philosophy is also at war with itself, as people with each set of preferences and prejudices compete for the power to enforce their way of life on others. When they’re in the ascendant, they see nothing wrong with authoritarianism. When they lose their majority and suddenly find themselves on the receiving end, they’ll see the disadvantages as well.

    The smart ones may recognise that power is fickle, and their best chance in the long run is liberty. Others think that the concept of liberty is nice in principle but is practically unrealistic, and see only the fight to ensure *they* stay on top. Even after it’s long become clear they’re not.

    Lots of people are authoritarians, and by their own definition of morality there’s nothing wrong with that. The first step is just to recognise what it actually is.

  25. For heaven’s sake, I can’t even bother to read Auntie Penis NiV’s comments and there’s only one of he/she/it though it does seem like more.

    Ditto, though I just configure my browser to automatically remove them from view. Makes it much easier to scroll past them.

  26. “Because the social pressure and bullying causes about 40% of people with the condition to attempt suicide…

    No, society is not to blame. These people are tormented because they are mentally ill.”

    This. Times a squillion. By personal experience.

  27. Google has affirmative action for those who are not white males, or NE Asian males (i.e. productive hires). Perhaps pretending to be a sexual pervert is the way to get hired there if you’re not an absolutely top-shit coder, but you aren’t some kind of mystery-meat?

  28. @The Pedant-General, January 13, 2018 at 1:01 pm

    ” all the social inadequates (aka “nerds”)”

    Tim, think you have definitely missed the point here. Those two terms are nowhere close to being synonymous. Actual nerds spend quite a bit of time trying quite hard not to be noticed at all, even for doing good work.

    I rather strongly suspect that your dragonkin is in fact making a fuss about being a dragonkin quite specifically to distract from the fact that they are not even doing good work.

    That is rather the point.

    +1

    James Damore is the archetypal nerd, very clever and very introverted. He looks rather uncomfortable “being noticed”, credit to Fox/Tucker for not pressuring him and letting his lawyer do the talking. Well done James for fighting back, it may encourage more nerds to do the same.

    See:
    James Damore explains why he believes Google discriminates against conservative white men. #Tucker

  29. “NiV: People who aren’t cunts understand the context of remarks. Cunts just chose to pick holes.”

    I understood the context of the remarks perfectly well, thanks. You was lying, claiming personal experience of something you obviously have no experience of to try to give your claim more credibility.

    But I agree that I do indeed like to point out holes. If that’s your definition…

  30. “But I agree that I do indeed like to point out holes”

    Try looking at your own self-serving arguments – which have more holes than a Swiss cheese.

  31. @NIV – god your’e a moron. By personal experience he probably means that of a close relative or friend. I suggest that someone who’s committed suicide is unlikely to be posting comments.

  32. “There are two basic political philosophies:”
    yes. It’s a wide sea. And those are the opposing shores. But there’s a wealth of ocean in between.
    Societies are cooperative endeavours. A totally libertarian society is a contradiction in terms. To cooperate, members of a society need to model each other’s needs, viewpoints & experiences. If you don’t have some sort of agreed structure, that’s impossible. One wouldn’t have a clue what one’s actions might provoke in other people. The oft quoted, “that which does no harm” is a simplistic, first order fantasy. It ignores second, third… order effects would result in harm. Societal structure is the calculator we use to work those out, behaving in the same way a market does.

  33. “Try looking at your own self-serving arguments – which have more holes than a Swiss cheese.”

    But which none of you can ever seem to point out.

    *Claiming* there are holes is insufficient. You have to actually *demonstrate* their existence, present *evidence*, *sustain* an argument.

    “@NIV – god your’e a moron. By personal experience he probably means that of a close relative or friend.”

    Which isn’t personal experience – it’s a second-hand experience at best. How can you tell what it’s like inside somebody else’s head, even if they’re a friend/relative? Do you think you’re qualified to diagnose mental illness? And do you think that a sample size of 1 tells us anything?

    I know several people who are mentally ill, and they’re all cis-gender. Therefore I can say “from personal experience” that cis-gender people are mentally ill? Ridiculous!

    No argument, evidence, or detail of this “personal experience” was offered. It was a bare assertion, and the claim of “personal experience” was clearly intended to take the place of an argument, and distract attention from its absence. People who have an actual argument that can stand up to scrutiny are usually only too pleased to give it. Not giving it probably means there either isn’t one, or one whose flaws would become apparent if it was presented.

    You’re welcome to prove me wrong, of course. 🙂

    “A totally libertarian society is a contradiction in terms. To cooperate, members of a society need to model each other’s needs, viewpoints & experiences. If you don’t have some sort of agreed structure, that’s impossible.”

    Libertarianism is basically a free market of ideas, and in exactly the same way it neither needs nor is compatible with a centralised, planned morality. The “command morality” like a command economy, runs into the problem of not knowing what people want. Bureaucrats and politicians decide that for us. Libertarianism lets everyone decide what they want for themselves. Just as free trade does.

  34. “Libertarianism lets everyone decide what they want for themselves.”
    You’ve described the demand side
    “Just as free trade does.”
    Requires both buyers & sellers.
    And a fair analogy for a society. Where we bargain desires & the fulfilment of desires.

  35. Damore isn’t a nerd. He’s a geek. This is an important difference. I am a geek but not a nerd. I’m exceptionally highly acculturated and adept in social situations. I just happen to find intellectual stimulation in concretising abstract concepts, which is why I’m a software engineer. People like me are more akin to poets than bank managers.

    As for the transgender stuff, I’ll buy the idea that brains’ representations of their owners’ sex can be at odds with their owners’ chromosomes, but is identifying as a dragon or a building due to a brain lesion or just being a time-wasting piss-taker?

  36. So I made the mistake of looking at Kevin B’s link.

    Jeez, wtf is that?

    It wants to be a female, but has a f*king beard. Wants to be a reptile? (A mythical one at that)

    Why isn’t this person in a f*king mental hospital?
    (!? – is it offensive to call them a person if they want to be referred to a reptile? Don’t answer that, it is rhetorical and I literally couldn’t give a f*ck)

    Why are people tolerant of this nonsense? This man thinks he’s not even human.

    More pics in The Daily Mail article as well

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3524063/Transgender-woman-Eva-Tiamat-Medusa-ears-nose-removed-dragon-lady.html

    What is the correct response to someone who pretends they’re a dragon?
    We’re “Supposed” to pretend men who pretend to be women are women and vice versa.
    If someone pretends to be a dragon, are we supposed to dress up as a knight and try to slay them? The village folk need defending after all…

  37. I rather strongly suspect that your dragonkin is in fact making a fuss about being a dragonkin quite specifically to distract from the fact that they are not even doing good work

    There are easier ways to cover up non-performance and uselessness – join Marketing, for example.

    Anyway, as in all things Progressivism swings back again and suddenly Bedlam is acceptable again.

  38. If this geezer’s claiming to be a female reptile, I’m looking forward to hearing he’s laid his first clutch of eggs. Or maybe a bouncing baby annex, in his other persona.

  39. But he does raise an interesting question. There seems to be ample evidence in the literature that the “reptile brain”, the brainstem and the cerebellum, is responsible for much basic mental function. If this guy’s claiming this part of his brain is dominant, then perhaps we should take him at his word. It’s hardly more far fetched than NiV’s claim that men who believe they have women’s brains are actually women.

  40. We’re descended from some sort of rat like creature that survived the dinosaur extinction.

    If I identify as one of these, can I demand a safe space free from these scary reptile dragon people who used to prey on us?
    Or is that discrimination?

    It’s all just f*king stupid.
    People like this have the mind of a child. Pretending to be a dragon/cat/whatever is fine when you’re developing and learning about the world. Such behaviour should stop in a mentally normal person around puberty.

  41. ““Libertarianism lets everyone decide what they want for themselves.”
    You’ve described the demand side
    “Just as free trade does.”
    Requires both buyers & sellers.
    And a fair analogy for a society. Where we bargain desires & the fulfilment of desires.”

    People complain when I give long answers, but you want me to explain the entire theory of libertarianism in one paragraph?!

    Yes, there are both buyers and sellers. You can’t tell me what to do, but I can’t tell you what to do either, so if I want to do something requiring your active cooperation (as opposed to your mere non-interference), I have to bargain. I can’t use force of law. And if you and me agree to do something together, no third party can tell us no. If they want to stop us, they have to bargain, and offer us something we want more. And so on.

    “As for the transgender stuff, I’ll buy the idea that brains’ representations of their owners’ sex can be at odds with their owners’ chromosomes, but is identifying as a dragon or a building due to a brain lesion or just being a time-wasting piss-taker?”

    I would guess it’s someone acting out a fantasy. But I don’t know, I’ve not looked into the matter. It might even be somebody who, like you, doesn’t agree with the “transgender nonsense” and is taking the piss out of it. The point is it’s still nobody else’s business. Is it really any weirder than body-builders?

    “It’s hardly more far fetched than NiV’s claim that men who believe they have women’s brains are actually women.”

    If he’s got brain scan evidence that he has an actual reptile-pattern brain, it would be a lot harder not to take him seriously.

    Like this:

    http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00325-0/fulltext

    Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated MtF transsexuals falls halfway between the pattern of male and female controls. The nature of these differences suggests that some fasciculi do not complete the masculinization process in MtF transsexuals during brain development.

    Or there’s the way they can get their hypothalamus to respond to sex pheromones like the opposite sex? (An autnomic reaction people have no control over.)

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037295/

    The odorous steroid androstadienone, a putative male chemo-signal, was previously reported to evoke sex differences in hypothalamic activation in adult heterosexual men and women. In order to investigate whether puberty modulated this sex difference in response to androstadienone, we measured the hypothalamic responsiveness to this chemo-signal in 39 pre-pubertal and 41 adolescent boys and girls by means of functional magnetic resonance imaging. We then investigated whether 36 pre-pubertal children and 38 adolescents diagnosed with gender dysphoria (GD; DSM-5) exhibited sex-atypical (in accordance with their experienced gender), rather than sex-typical (in accordance with their natal sex) hypothalamic activations during olfactory stimulation with androstadienone. We found that the sex difference in responsiveness to androstadienone was already present in pre-pubertal control children and thus likely developed during early perinatal development instead of during sexual maturation. Adolescent girls and boys with GD both responded remarkably like their experienced gender, thus sex-atypical. […] We present here a unique data set of boys and girls diagnosed with GD at two different developmental stages, showing that these children possess certain sex-atypical functional brain characteristics and may have undergone atypical sexual differentiation of the brain.

    Given your “they’re just making it up” hypothesis, how do you explain the way they change their brain structure and biochemistry? Do they think real hard at it?

  42. When I’m told something, NiV, my first question is “Why am I being told this?”
    So why was the great body of research undertaken? I’d imagine it was substantiate an hypothesis. Because that’s how modern, funded research works. And the evidence you’re submitting draws its conclusions from a whole string of other hypotheses about how various parts of the brain Interact with various chemicals. All done with a great big thumb on the scales, because disproving an hypothesis has a real cost in lucrative careers. And biology is a very fuzzy subject. Unlike physics*, it’s largely observational, not experimental. No-ones introducing these chemicals into otherwise normal brains to see if they produce trannies.
    So interesting but not conclusive.

    *And physics can get fuzzy when it’s not experimental. According to the current paradigm, 90% of the universe is composed of dark matter & dark energy. Although, so far, no physicist has succeeded in identifying or synthesising either. I wouldn’t be the least surprised if they find neither exist. That the hypothesis of how the universe requires them to conform to observation is incorrect. You can’t experiment with universes. What difference would it make if the rate time progresses is not a constant over time? Or that the velocity of light in a vacuum changes over time? (Those two are probably expressions of the same thing) Even pi is determined by the curvature of space/time. It doesn’t apply to gravitational singularities. Or that’s the hypothesis. No-ones got a tame black hole to play with.

  43. “So why was the great body of research undertaken? I’d imagine it was substantiate an hypothesis.”

    Various researchers from various positions put forward *several* hypotheses,. The experiments were done to see which of them was correct.

    “All done with a great big thumb on the scales, because disproving an hypothesis has a real cost in lucrative careers.”

    Disproving an established hypothesis both makes and breaks careers. The one doing the disproving can make their reputation that way. The ones who came up with the hypothesis will no doubt try their hardest to discredit the disproof, but they have to do so by providing *better evidence*, or by pointing explicitly to the flaws in the evidence presented. You can’t just say “Evidence is overrated. I’m going to stick with my hypothesis no matter *what* evidence is presented.”

    (Like: “Candidly, your evidence and data is all produced by neoliberal troll economists with hypotheses and careers to defend, and I reject it. Listen instead to my fuzzy economics.”)

    If you only accept evidence as valid if it supports your favoured hypothesis, and reject it when you find the conclusions uncomfortable, your conclusions are *not* evidence-based or scientific. It’s *your* thumb on the scales. Or more accurately, you’ve just thrown the scales away because “scales lie” and *told* the customer how much the goods weigh.

    It’s not a very convincing approach, in general.

    “And biology is a very fuzzy subject.”

    Oh, I agree! In fact, that’s exactly what I’m arguing. It isn’t just the simplistic, black-and-white “Y chromosome = male” story they teach in school. It’s fuzzy around the edges. The Y chromosome contains the SRY gene (which can break) which triggers the development of testes (based on a whole stack of other mechanisms, which can also break), which produces testosterone (unless the gene for that is broken), which is converted to dihydroxy-testosterone (unless the gene that does that is broken) and so on through a cascade of a dozen or so sex hormones, each of which is picked up by the developing cells elsewhere in the body (unless the genes for the receptor proteins are broken, of course), and they trigger those cells to develop in various ways (via another multitude of mechanisms with plenty more opportunity for breakage) to yield dozens, possibly hundreds of sex-related changes in both brain and body.

    There are a multitude of opportunities for the intricate mechanism to go wrong, and indeed it goes wrong *somewhere* in almost everybody. Most of those faults are minor, and easily tolerable. In about 95-99% of cases people fit the stereotypical “Y chromosome = male” pattern that the simplistic non-fuzzy story is based on. It’s just the first of the Lies-to-Children that we tell people, before we can fill in the finer details and exceptions for them. Sex/gender is fuzzy.

    “No-ones introducing these chemicals into otherwise normal brains to see if they produce trannies.”

    I understand it’s been done in rats and other animal models. There are limits to how much you can deduce about humans from that, of course, but nevertheless it’s not entirely passive investigation that has led to the current state of knowledge.

    “And physics can get fuzzy when it’s not experimental. According to the current paradigm, 90% of the universe is composed of dark matter & dark energy. Although, so far, no physicist has succeeded in identifying or synthesising either. I wouldn’t be the least surprised if they find neither exist.”

    Neither would any physicist. That’s why critics of the theory posit the MOND models as an alternative, and why it’s still regarded as unproven.

    However, the point is that the MOND supporters are not simply dismissing the evidence of dark matter or dark energy unconsidered. They’re having to generate specific and detailed alternative models to explain the observations, and pointing out where the dark matter observations could have gone wrong. They’re trying to produce better evidence. And so far, even they would agree that they don’t have anything solid.

    This is how it works in science. You follow the best evidence available at the time, accepting that it’s always subject to being overturned, but until it *is* overturned with specific evidence, not *liking* a conclusion is not considered valid grounds to reject it.

    And you always have to be on the lookout for such evidence. That’s one of the main reasons I enjoy discussing it here! If anyone was motivated to find such evidence, it would be you guys! You don’t have my blindspots, just as I don’t have yours, so we can help one another check the support for our beliefs in our mutual search for truth. You force me to look stuff up, fill in the gaps in arguments, or find better explanations for the complicated bits. That’s very useful (and enjoyable!) for me. And it serves a variety of other purposes, like making clear to anyone watching that not *everyone* on the right is transphobic.

    If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t discuss it. But so long as the subject keeps coming up so often, and so long as people keep arguing with me about it, I’ll assume you’re OK with that.

  44. @Bloke in Costa Rica, January 14, 2018 at 7:37 am

    Damore isn’t a nerd. He’s a geek. This is an important difference. I am a geek but not a nerd. I’m exceptionally highly acculturated and adept in social situations

    Nerd vs geek? No idea. However, Fox/Tucker vid shows James Damore is uncomfortable and not “highly acculturated” or verbally articulated. No problem with that, he’s very skilled in his field and not a publicity whore – even better.

    imho James Damore is a nice guy being punished for not fitting in – Spanish Inquisition.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.