Troll level; Jedi

We wrote about the Cloggy Kaas Kop who is taking the Dutch government to court in an attempt to change his age from 69 to 49.

At first blush this looked like a serious request and simply a logical extension of the “everything is a social construct” lunacy.

However, it’s increasingly likely this is an excellent exercise in trolling and is having the desired effect.

Hilary Brueck over at Business Insider, for example, is tying him/her/zherself in knots trying to explain why age isn’t a social construct but gender is.

In fact, no she isn’t, leaving this statement hanging awkwardly without any reasoning to explain why what Retelband is attempting is “problematic” (now there’s a great word to look out for when you suspect you’re being bullshitted).

Depressingly, there was no further “logical” explanation as to why age can’t be changed than what is written above. It would seem that simply saying the words, “problematic”, “offence” and “nonsense” constitutes an argument these days.

Here’s Shon Faye’s “takedown”, by the way;

Which seems to be saying, “it’s not the same because it’s not the same“. Again, not really an argument is it? Feelings trump facts.

Predictably, the Grauniad’s Komment Macht Frei gets in on the act with an article pointing out that our Dutch friend has a long and glorious history of trolling and mischief but never quite gets to the part we are, by now, desperate for someone to articulate. Namely, how is it that biological gender is a social construct but chronological age isn’t?

Bill’s Opinion

People such as Ellie Mae, Shon and Hillary might want to consider counting the assumptions required to be correct for each of these statements to also be true;

1. Gender is a social construct that can be altered by a change in societal attitudes of acceptance, application of hormones and surgery.

2. Age is a social construct that can be changed by societal attitudes, legal edict, and editing numbers on government databases.

3. Biological gender is determined by, erm, biology and gender dysphoria is an unfortunate mental illness that should be treated with sympathy rather than complicit fantasy.

4. Emile’s court case is what you get when people realise a large group of society has agreed to ignore a illogical and indefensible idea and are making significant practical real life changes based on the fallacy.

Loving your work, Emile.

I’ll take, “Things that didn’t happen” for $800, Clementine

Clementine Ford has been allowed out on day release again.

My friend’s son is banned from wearing a tutu in his ballet class.

A friend of mine moved to Queensland some time ago and enrolled her two children in a small, local ballet school. They both adore dancing, and her young son especially has embraced wearing tutus and other dance paraphernalia.

I have a friend who encourages her son to wear girl’s clothes. Much hilarity ensues, as I will now explain“.

Recently, the school began preparing for its end of year concert. What followed was a disturbing insight into how deeply people still hold on to their assumptions and phobias about binary gender expression and the challenges this presents.

The rest of the world has a problem. Not my friend or me, you understand, but the rest of the world“.

My friend’s son – we’ll call him “John” – was excited to join the other little dancers, wearing his tutu and dancing along with them. But apparently this didn’t accord with the teacher’s vision.

The teacher planned a dance concert with each child playing a particular part. This involved a specific costume for each role. My friend encouraged her son to rebel and wear something else.

Because the rest of the world has a problem, not my friend and me“.

John was told that not only would he not be allowed to wear the same costume as the other dancers, he would also be performing in pants as the role of The Doctor, the character who (vomitously) gets to give all the little girls their spoonful of medicine.

Sounds like they were performing The Nutcracker by Tchaikovsky.

Girls can be doctors and wear trousers too, by the way.

For the past few weeks, my friend had been locked in a battle with the coordinator of the school. She has always been a strong advocate for both of her children, allowing them to express themselves and their personalities through their clothing as they please.

Remember, the rest of the world has a problem, not my friend“.

She had thought the issue was resolved, telling the teacher John should be supported to wear his tutu over the pants if that’s what he chose. This is what he wanted, and so he and his entire family turned up to the concert that day wearing tutus.

Sounds like one side of the discussion agreed something the other side didn’t.

Imagine my friend’s horror when she watched as the teacher forced John to the side of the stage and began to remove his clothing to take the tutu off him.

A teacher undressed your child in public? When is the court case?

Oh.

My friend tried to intervene, repeatedly telling the teacher that she was not okay with what was happening while her son stood there crying. To make things worse, the teacher then gave John lollies to stop his tears.

The rest of the world has a problem, not my friend. This is upsetting for my friend’s child, for some reason. Also, lollies contain gelatine which isn’t vegan so is not compatible with our family diet“.

Bill’s Opinion

If you’re looking for a fight, telling a dance school owner that your child isn’t going to wear the costume for the role they have been allocated for the end of term concert is a great way to start one.

One wonders what the dance school owner’s version of this story would read like?

Organising an end of term concert is a nightmare, with 60 kids to train in specific parts and then to sort out the costumes for each. It only takes one or two awkward parents or kids and the whole event becomes a complete pain in the arse.

I should have known that the blue-haired lesbo and her misbehaved kids would cause a problem.

I tried to tell her when she ranted at me a couple of weeks ago that each kid gets a part to play and we allocate the costumes out based on size and fit.

She’s pulled her kids from the school now. Thank fuck.”

“Mr. Chesterton, tear down this wall!”

One of the constants of our age is that, no matter how obscure and bizarre the question, it can be asked by the Guardian.

Well, apart from questions like, “how many genders are there?” or, “how does the Scientific Method relate to climate science?“.

We digress.

Here’s the Grauniad’s Komment Macht Frei section asking, “why do we even need prisons anyway?“.

Amazingly, the article is longer than number of words in the sentence, “because we don’t want Jeffrey Dahmer or Myra Hindley living next door“.

As is the Grauniad’s idiom, sub-editing and logical consistency are unknown concepts. Therefore we have the usual rambling bounce around many disparate points desperately trying to find a consistent narrative.

For example, the reason Australia has jails is because it was a penal colony;

For a settler nation that began as a penal colony, it is no coincidence that we have an obsession with putting people in prisons. 

If only there was a control experiment we could use as a comparison, something like a country that wasn’t originally a penal colony. We could then check to see whether there are prisons in that country or confirm whether they’ve found a more progressive solution. Ah.

It is also no coincidence the ninth biannual Sisters Inside conference held this month, previously titled “Are Prison’s Obsolete?”……….

Probably not as obsolete as that Grocer’s Apostrophe.

…..named after the Professor Angela Davis book and work, was retitled “Imagining Abolition … A World Without Prisons”. It propelled beyond begging the question and instead imagined a future. The conference attracted more than 300 people from Australia and abroad.

That must have been a fun conference. One wonders whether the organisers bothered with hiring security or not?

Redefining language is a key part of the progressive tool kit. This, for example;

At the heart of the three days of the conference were women who have experienced criminalisation and have been imprisoned, self-determination and the role of colonisation and white supremacy in the formation of the prison industrial complex. 

Can be translated back to English as, “female criminals“, unless the authors are suggesting they were (all) victims of miscarriages of justice, in which case the conference should have been concentrating on justice reform not prison abolition.

The rambling goes on;

Despite Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people make up roughly 3% of the nation’s total population, 28% of the total prison population is Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people, with Indigenous women representing the fastest growing of these numbers.

There seems to be an obvious solution staring us in the face here, something along the lines of……. don’t break the damn law.

That’s not how progressive logic works though, is it? A lefty will look at those statistics or the ratios of female to male CEOs and automatically know the root cause is (pick your preferred combination) sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, islamophobia.

Just to ensure we run the gamut of fallacies, there’s a strawman chucked in the mix;

Any time a black person dies in custody the public often responds with “well they are criminals they deserve it”. 

Do they? Which people say that? Got any examples?

We also rarely see or give platforms for those who have been criminalised to speak to this in their own words.

Have been criminalised is an interesting turn of phrase, almost as if they have no agency or personal responsibility for the outcome. As for not having a platform; do you mean apart from an all expenses trip to Melbourne for a three day conference?

How about this for classic cognitive dissonance;

To build a world without prisons is to disrupt a society built on inequity, patriarchal violence and colonisation.

This means addressing the roots of poverty and trauma.

Nationally, 70-90% of Aboriginal women incarcerated have experienced family violence and most Aboriginal women in prison have experienced sexual trauma. 

That sounds suspiciously like the results of a fully-cultural patriarchy…. and the culture at fault isn’t Western European post-Enlightenment, is it?

But somehow it’s the fault of that Western European post-Enlightenment culture for not fixing it, of course;

This reflects a failure of the state to protect black women….

More intersectional language is deployed but nothing tangible or actionable is actually offered as a solution.

Here’s the final paragraph in full. You may recognise the meaning of the individual words but good luck with understanding them in this combination;

Through the centring of those with lived experience and solidarity between those affected by criminalisation and allies, this conference highlights this movement is growing and strong, and has moved beyond imagining a world without prisons and is ready to build it.

Bill’s Opinion

If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

By the way, the authors of this utter guff were;

Nayuka Gorrie is a Kurnai/Gunai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta freelance writer.

That’s five different “nations” they are claiming to belong to, which makes Elizabeth Warren’s Cherokee claims seem quite reasonable.

Witt Church is a white social worker living in Naarm (Melbourne). Their work focuses on abolition and supporting communities impacted by criminalisation.

Why do we care about his/her/zher skin tone? Also, if you’re going to use a proper noun to describe a place, it’s probably best to use one universally recognised. To understand why, perhaps try booking a flight to Carthage for your holidays.

When did you stop beating your wife?

There’s been a campaign running since 1991 called the White Ribbon which seeks to get men to pledge to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women and girls.

Very laudable, we’re sure.

Let’s consider the 27 year campaign as an experiment. Is there any evidence it has made a difference?

The Australian version of the campaign publishes selected statistics here. There are a lot of highly-cherry picked data points on that page, feel free to browse them yourself. There is no mention of how these data points have changed over time, however. Which seems an unusual omission if you are requesting generous public donations to a charity that’s had a single purpose for nearly three decades. It’s not unreasonable to ask, “….and how successful has this approach been since 1991?” before handing over a chunk of money.

Fortunately, the source data is linked here at the Government statistics department, the ABS.

Halfway down the page, this gem appears;

Changes in partner violence prevalence rates over time

The proportion of women who experienced partner violence in the previous 12 months has remained relatively stable over the last decade. In 2005, approximately 1.5% of women aged 18 years and over experienced partner violence in the previous 12 months, whilst in 2016 the figure was 1.7%.

Oh, that’s inconvenient. It’s almost as if nearly 30 years of virtue signalling and hectoring of regular law-abiding citizens has had little to no impact to problems in the real world.

Perhaps there’s a clue to be had as to why from the White Ribbon website’s data page;

Indigenous Australia
Statistics show that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women experience high levels of violence and abuse. Family violence among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people impacts on the health and social outcomes of women and children.
Indigenous women are 32x more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence than non-indigenous women.

Wait, what? 32 times more likely to be beaten so severely that hospital treatment is required? That’s a shocking data point by any reasonable measure.

Bill’s Opinion

We can argue over the causes of the incredible asymmetry of severe abuse between the indigenous population and everyone else, and perhaps that will be the subject of a further discussion here at another time.

What seems incontrovertible is that White Ribbon Australia’s resources and campaign are incompetently directed. If the charity’s organisers truly wished to reduce serious physical domestic abuse of women, instead of buying hugely expensive TV, radio and internet advertising, running poster campaigns and events in white-collar offices and similar events in major metropolitan centres, it would seem obvious that the resources should be directly-targeted at a particular and easy to identify demographic.

Of course, however noble the original aims of the charity, eventually it becomes a self-sustaining organism.

If this statement seems incorrect, try the following thought experiment; imagine White Ribbon was approached by a pharmaceutical company with a study that suggested they could produce an effective prophylactic with no side effects that could be added, like fluoride for dental health, to the water supply and would immediately prevent men from beating their partners. What would be the response of the charity, do you think?

Well, for a start there would have to be immediate job losses for the full-time staff (who currently account for $2m p.a. of the charity’s operating costs). That’s not going to be popular. Turkeys voting for Christmas, an’ all that. The army of researchers and other hangers on would need to find other sources of income too.

There would also be an end to the need for the following lucrative programme of extortion which, according to the annual accounts, brings in over $2m a year in “fees”;

The White Ribbon Australia Workplace Accreditation Program is our world leading violence-prevention initiative focused on providing organisations with the tools and strategies to actively prevent and effectively respond to violence against women and drive gender equality.
Organisations that demonstrate a commitment to tackling violence against women and meet and exceed 15 criteria across three standards as independently assessed, become accredited as White Ribbon Workplaces.

It’s likely a safe assumption that the current list of accredited organisations is heavily-skewed to those who can pay the fee rather than, say, a liquor store in a town with a large aboriginal population.

Oh look, our old friend Brian “virtue signalling” Hartzer is all over it like a bad case of genital warts.

Corrupt narrative as child abuse

Remember the perfectly rational and sane mother of a young boy who claimed to be transgender at the age of three?

Let’s check in with Emma Salkild, shall we?

Ok, so the young lad is still trans and now has a girl’s name.

The fact that his/her/zher details have not been amended on the healthcare system is an offensive oversight to Emma and, apparently, triggered an argument with a Doctor’s receptionist.

Perhaps we can pause for a moment and ponder whose responsibility it might be to update a minor’s changed personal details on the Medicare database?

Oh yes, the parent or guardian’s.

Just to spell it out; Emma is upset that the new doctor’s surgery didn’t know that she’d decided to rename her son, despite the fact that she’d not actually submitted the requisite request to update his details.

Does that seem like the response of a rational and functioning adult human?

Of course not.

But this is just a minor level of irrationality when compared to her acceptance of the following statements;

– Sex and gender are social constructs, disconnected from biology.

– A 3 year child is able to articulate complex statements about their gender identity.

– It is in the best interests of the child if the parent and wider society agrees to go along with their fantasy that they are the opposite sex than their biology might suggest.

Bill’s Opinion

We all carry irrational and illogical beliefs in our head. Internal consistency is an ideal to be strived for but an impossible ideal.

A surprisingly large number of our irrational beliefs have almost no impact on our or other people’s well-being, however. You can believe the world is only 3,000 years old and we are all descended from Adam and Eve but still wake up, drive to work and manage the Accounts Payable function for a company without those beliefs interfering at all.

However, if you are of the belief that sex and gender are social constructs and, if we could reverse all social conditioning, an individual born with a penis and Y chromosomes can be a woman, AND you act upon these beliefs by imposing this view on a child, we have a problem.

Specifically, this woman is guilty of abusing a 6 year old boy in Sydney, Australia.

It is not unreasonable to anticipate there will be significant legal ramifications to this case in the future.

Where is the intervention by the relevant authorities mandated to consider the child’s well-being? Who is Emma’s Case Officer and what are they doing about this?

This Be The Verse
BY PHILIP LARKIN
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had,
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn,
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf,
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.

“Orwellian” is often over-used

This isn’t one of those occasions.

Male middle school teacher is disciplined for refusing to oversee a female student, who identifies as male, undress.

Follow the link to the story but here’s a summary of the situation;

  • A girl, between the ages of 11 and 13 (USA middle school) identifies as male
  • The school has agreed to allow her to undress in the boys’ changing room
  • A male PE teacher has refused to be present in the changing room while she is undressed
  • The teacher has been disciplined

Stop for a moment and re-read that.
Assuming motivation is claiming to be capable of mind-reading, so we won’t engage in that here. Instead, we will look at what is being asked of individuals by the actions being undertaken;

The student is demanding the teaching staff and male students accept her claim of being male and ignore any physical evidence to the contrary.

The school has agreed to these demands and has passed the requirement to agree to these demands to the male students and the teaching staff.

The male students haven’t agreed to these demands.

The male PE teacher hasn’t agreed to these demands.

Bill’s Opinion

The problem with the school’s decision to accept the demands and require similar acceptance from others is that the school is not the only party which might incur “cost” from the consequences.

It’s not mind reading to assume the male students might feel somewhat uncomfortable about having a naked girl in their changing room. It’s also not mind reading to assume the male teacher doesn’t want to be subject to a criminal prosecution for an inappropriate association with a minor.

By demanding the students and teaching staff agree to the statement, “I’m now a boy” , the school is requiring others to change their thoughts. In the case of the male PE teacher, the school is demanding he ignores his knowledge of criminal legislation, regardless of whether or not the requirement is contrary to his moral or ethical views.

Obviously this is insanity.

More importantly though, what role are the parents, guardians and other responsible adults playing?

Specifically, what on earth are the parents of the girl thinking by allowing her to be naked in the company of naked boys who are going through puberty?

Where’s the duty of care by the school, the Board of Governors, the district education authorities, etc.?

This is the point where the truth and practical consequences of theoretical virtue signalling is tested. A hashtag on Twitter is one thing, going to jail for watching a minor of the opposite sex get undressed is quite a different thing.

Finally, even if everyone involved genuinely signed up to the changes, has anyone thought about the consequences that in a few years the, now older, girl has a change of mind and decides that she was exploited and shouldn’t have been indulged in her teenage mistakes?

Oh, and for the benefit of the anonymous corrector yesterday; yes, I call this Cultural Marxism. What do you call it?

The left can only project. Part 3

The Rabble Rouser is a blog by American social psychologist, Lee Jussim. It’s interesting because he’s clearly got enough “fuck off money” to be able to write about what he believes to be true, rather than what his profession’s echo chamber demands. The broad accuracy of gender stereotypes, for example.

His most recent content is a guest post by Michael Millerman. While the post itself is interesting, discussing the climate of fear in educational establishments preventing students from expressing opinions, it’s the comments below the article that are more intriguing.

Millerman describes trying encourage a class to discuss what aspects of the human condition are a result of social constructs. He was met with a fearful silence.

Note that, as he relates the situation, he didn’t offer a position himself, but tried to start a discussion but none was forthcoming.

In the blog post, he also doesn’t offer an opinion on which aspects he thinks may or may not be a result of social constructs. The blog post is about the reluctance to discuss topics, not what the “correct” answers are to those subjects.

So it’s fascinating therefore that several of the comments accuse him of “dogwhistling”, transphobia and of being a right wing troll.

Bill’s Opinion

Two of the commentators accurately explain what is going on;

Your comment is designed from the start to attack the moral standing of Professor Mllerman. You do not address his arguments in the least, but instead attack his moral character so you can consequently disqualify every argument he makes.

And;

DARVO means “Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender”, and this is exactly what the regressive-Left are doing to their ideological opponents (including other Lefties, progressives, and dedicated feminists). I think people should keep DARVO in mind the next time they see someone being attacked as “phobic”, to help them better analyze what is actually happening.

The negative commentators are either unconscious to the fact that they are not taking on the arguments but reverting to “playing the man not the ball“, or, they are deliberately utilising “DARVO” as a strategy.

Be it deliberate or accidental, the result is the same; Millerman’s points are not addressed as existing in isolation from Millerman as a person. For these people, the speaker IS the argument, not simply the vessel in which it is delivered.

This is a pernicious form of mental illness; by finding an objectionable aspect of Millerman’s history, background or personality, the difficult task of disproving anything uncomfortable or complex that he might say is avoided. The trick to doing this and still being able to function is to convince yourself that it is a reasonable strategy. Denial, in other words.

It’s science, Jim, but not as we know it

At first blush, this seems like yet a further example of the debasement of science in the cause of cultural Marxism; Scientists petition the Trump administration over changes to Title IX rules.

As scientists, we are compelled to write to you, our elected representatives, about the current administration’s proposal to legally define gender as a binary condition determined at birth, based on genitalia, and with plans to clarify disputes using “genetic testing”. This proposal is fundamentally inconsistent not only with science, but also with ethical practices, human rights, and basic dignity.

The temptation is to dismiss this as propaganda because it runs counter to the everyday human experience; 99.999% of the interactions you will likely have today will be with people who are clearly male or clearly female.

However, if you like your world view to be informed by objective truth rather than dogma, it can be worth employing an alternative approach when faced with a statement that is counter-intuitive; “steelman” the position. That is, assume they are arguing in good faith and look for the strongest argument and facts in support of their position.

Let’s give it a try, shall we?

Picking up a few statements made, let’s look for the one most likely to be difficult to falsify;

The relationship between sex chromosomes, genitalia, and gender identity is complex, and not fully understood.

That’s fair enough. The word “identity” is most important in that sentence. Without it, most people would disagree, probably even disagreeing with the “not fully understood” part too.

It’s not a very strong argument to use as a basis of how we define gender though. Your identity and how I and the rest of the world perceive it are not necessarily aligned.

There are no genetic tests that can unambiguously determine gender, or even sex.

Let’s assume the authors are arguing in good faith. If so, we would need them to explain what they mean by the inference that gender and sex are different concepts. In the contemporary version of the English language, these nouns are interchangeable.

Without this common understanding of definitions, it’s impossible to agree or disagree with this statement. Therefore it’s not the best argument they have.

Even if such tests existed, it would be unconscionable to use the pretext of science to enact policies that overrule the lived experience of people’s own gender identities.

Again, without knowing what you mean by gender versus sex, this statement has no persuasive merit.

Though scientists are just beginning to understand the biological basis of gender identity, it is clear that many factors, known and unknown, mediate the complex links between identity, genes, and anatomy.

This is a re-worded version of the opening statement. We agree, as long as the word “identity” remains.

In intersex people, their genitalia, as well as their various secondary sexual characteristics, can differ from what clinicians would predict from their sex chromosomes.

Yes, not disputed. Caster Semenya, for example. The causes and symptoms of intersex are not the same as transgenderness or body dismorphia.

It’s a strong argument for intersex people but, as they are only 0.05% of humans, it would be disingenuous to then expand this for other groups.

The proposed policy will force many intersex people to be legally classified in ways that erase their intersex status and identity, as well as lead to more medically unnecessary and risky surgeries at birth.

If true, the legislation is poorly-worded. It’s not apparent how the changes to school funding rules would result in gender surgery at the birth of an intersex person.

This might be a strong argument for intersex people but the case hasn’t been made with enough supporting detail to persuade sceptics.

Millions of Americans identify as transgender or gender non-conforming, or have intersex bodies, and are at increased risk of physical and mental health disorders resulting from discrimination, fear for personal safety, and family and societal rejection.

The bundling of transgender (a condition which seems to be underpinned by mental causes), gender non-conforming (this requires a definition before we can address it) and intersex (a physical condition caused by hormonal variances during gestation), is either erroneous or deliberate.

It’s hard to determine the truth of statements about the causes of mental health disorders when multiple conditions are bundled together as if they were Triple A mortgage-backed securities.

This is not their most persuasive argument, therefore.

Our best available evidence shows that affirmation of gender identity is paramount to the survival, health, and livelihood of transgender and intersex people.

There is definitely significant scientific dispute and debate on this point and what the best available evidence is showing. The work of Debra Soh and Lee Jussim, for example.

Again, not the most persuasive argument.

Bill’s Opinion

The opening statement is inaccurate by omission; the administration is not proposing to “legally define gender as a binary condition determined at birth“, it’s much more specific than that. The missing part of that sentence might be, “for the purposes of the Title IX clause of the United States Education Amendments of 1972“.

It’s an important omission. The proposed changes are specific to funding decisions of schools, and have no wider societal or Constitutional impact. Arguing such is to invoke the slippery slope fallacy.

The strongest arguments made in the scientists’ letter are relating to intersex individuals, the “I” in LGBTQI. If the proposed Title IX changes bundle the handling of this medical condition with that of the wider “TQ” groups of the LGBTQI consortium, the legislation has made the mirror image of the error the scientists have made. That is, making sweeping generalisations about multiple categories of people where great differences are very apparent.

My conclusion is, if we assume both sides are arguing in good faith and with the best interests of all concerned at heart, the letter writers might want to offer solutions to the pragmatic societal problems caused by gender being defined to be whatever a person says it is.

Similarly, the Trump administration legislation drafters might want to think about what approaches should be taken for different categories of condition.

Lastly, to fall back to an Ad Hominen, the entire letter risks being dismissed as complete hogwash because of one signatory, an utterly discredited Malthusian;

Paul R. Ehrlich, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus of Biology,

Stanford University

A word of advice to letter writers and petition creators in general; there are some signatures it’s just better not to collect.

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

File under: “to man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail“.

We can save lives by taxing red meat.

The British taxpayers recently funded a generous research grant resulting in a report that explained to them why they need to pay more money for luxuries such as food because they are too stupid to eat a sensible balanced diet.

Taxing red meat would save many lives and raise billions to pay for healthcare, according to new research. It found the cost of processed meat such as bacon and sausages would double if the harm they cause to people’s health was taken into account.

Well, if you put it like that, who can disagree?

Presumably this research is solid and isn’t predicated on any assumptions that are easily falsifiable?

Oh;

Governments already tax harmful products to reduce their consumption, such as sugar, alcohol and tobacco. With growing evidence of the health and environmental damage resulting from red meat, some experts now believe a “sin tax” on beef, lamb and pork is inevitable in the longer term.

Really? Tobacco is taxed to reduce consumption?

How successful has that strategy been over time do we think, compared to other potential strategies such as an outright ban or simply reducing the locations where smoking is permitted?

And this tax on alcohol to reduce consumption, hows that working out?

Hmm, not the most successful initiative in human history, then.

Bill’s Opinion

As Tim Worstall points out, this study fails to consider one very important fact in its faux economic analysis; if people are dying early due to an unhealthy diet, they aren’t costing the taxpayer-funded health service a single penny the day after they die.

The great thing about the negative health consequences of eating too much red meat is that heart attacks often occur quite suddenly and the victim shuffles off this mortal coil with little warning or chance to incur expensive palliative care.

Prima facie, this is yet another politically-motivated report disguised as academic research. The answer was known before the study commenced.

Interestingly, I discovered this chart whilst researching relative prices for beef around the world.

The Uk is ranked #37 most expensive for a 1kg lump of cow. Counter-intuitively, that’s slightly cheaper than the US and Canada.

Amusingly, India and Venezuela are significantly cheaper. For very different reasons, best of luck finding a steak in either of those locations!

Grandad, what did you do in the Culture War?

I took the battle back to them, laddie. They don’t like it up ’em.

What follows is meant as “open source” for people to tweak as they see fit. Find out what works for you and let people know the versions that are successful.

Also, it’s not a completely original thought; it was inspired by a line in a TV show I watched recently (Bodyguard on Netflix).

Part of my current working week involves a status discussion with a representative from an adjacent department. The particular representative is a young (just turned 30) female.

Some background colour I’ve learned about this individual; she’s a divorced single mother of two children, she’s vehemently anti-Trump (but, when asked which of his policies were offensive, struggled to name one), and she’s morbidly obese.

During our previous 2 meetings she has offered the opinion that I am a privileged, old, white, heterosexual, male. For reasons of courtesy, I’ve ignored these statements as they were irrelevant to the facts and purpose of our meeting.

It’s tempting to drop down a rabbit hole and try to become amateur psychologists based on those sparse facts, but we won’t.

Instead, here’s a summary of how I shut this annoyance down during our third meeting;

Angry Overweight Single Woman: “Blah blah blah, financial reporting, blah blah blah, programme governance, blah blah blah, you’re a privileged, old, white, heterosexual, man“.

William of Ockham: “Excuse me, but did you just assume my ethnicity and gender? Do you not realise I am mixed race and identify as non-binary?”.

Angry Overweight Single Woman: (silence for a full minute while she stared at me, blinking frequently, then changed the subject and never mentioned it since).

Throughout this interaction I maintained an impassive poker face, giving as few visual clues as possible to indicate what I was saying might not be completely grounded in fact.

I have not subsequently told her it was a joke, untrue, or a social experiment, etc. I have no plans to do so either; my statement will not be reversed.

Amusingly, if I get a call from the HR Director, I could bring my ancestry.com DNA result that shows I’m only 27% ethnically British. The question they would then need to grapple with is, how do you define race? Good luck with that one.

It would also be interesting to learn how they would prove or disprove my claim of identifying as gender non-binary. Is there an objective test we can apply?

Bill’s Opinion

If the cultural Marxism disease has overtaken your employer, this passive aggressive approach, or a variation of it, might be a useful strategy to begin the process of remediation. It’s turning their own weapons of sentimentality for diversity back on them to demonstrate that the opposite outcome is being achieved; you can’t be truly inclusive if you are prepared to exclude and demonise an entire group of individuals based on immutable characteristics such as age, genital configuration, melanin levels and sexual orientation.

If you are prepared to take this step with me, there are several important points that you will need to commit to and practice;

– Poker face. This is a potentially serious step you are about to take with career-damaging implications if you get it wrong. Do not smirk or offer any visual or verbal clues that you are being in anyway insincere.

– Don’t back down. Saying, “Sorry, it was just a joke” is not going to end well for you. I repeat, saying sorry is going to result in very negative outcomes for you. There are enough examples of apologies only serving to embolden the cultural Marxists.

– Believe what you are saying. Everybody on planet Earth is mixed race, especially given there is no scientific definition of race, only generalisations based on bell curves of statistical distribution. As for the gender claim; remember that they believe there are far more than two genders, so you will need to see their definitions of each before you can, in good faith, confirm which one most closely matches the version you identify with this week.

Hopefully this helps you on your journey through the institutional insanity that is modern corporate life. Please do share this advice and report back in the comments how it went for you and any lessons from which we can all learn.