No male Bonding

Actress Lashana Lynch will take on the iconic spy role of 007 in Bond 25, according to reports.

Not really; the click bait headline tricks you into learning she’s just been given his code name after James Bond has “retired”.

Putting aside the ridiculous journalistic contortions required to rely on “reports” as a source of news, and who the hell is Lashana Lynch anyway… who cares?

But seriously, who gives a stuff whether Bond is played by a man, woman, Indian, Eskimo or African? It’s a fictional character in a film, a make believe story with people pretending to be someone they aren’t.

If people watch the movie and judge it to be fun and/or credible, they’ll tell other people who will then pay money to watch it. If it stinks, everyone who sees it will loudly say so at every opportunity.

Unlike, say the appointment of a diversity hire CEO of bank, movies have quite a rapid feedback mechanism. The studio accountants will know within weeks of the premiere whether or not a break from the standard formula has worked with the ticket-buying public.

Bill’s Opinion

The next James Bond could be played by a wheelchair-bound gay Native American amputee with a pet squirrel for all I care.

James Bond is not some sacred religious figure who can only be played by a macho white English alpha male. If fact, Daniel Craig is only the 2nd Englishman to have played the part (3rd if you count the David Niven spoof).

If a Bond movie with a non “traditional” actor gets good reviews from sources I trust, I’ll pay to see it. If it gets Ghostbuster-esque reviews (Guardian – 4 stars vs everyone else who doesn’t write for a Woke media outlet – very few stars) I won’t.

Ghostbusters could only reach 22nd place on a list of 2016 films by revenue, by the way.

A rose by any other name?

It’s too easy to point at this kind of thinking, shake our heads and mutter, “…and this is why you got Brexit and Trump”. The thing is with clichés is that they are obviously based on an observable phenomenon other people can see as clearly as the person offering it. Whether or not the pithy cliché is completely accurate or not isn’t the point; there’s something true within the theme.

Witness this outstanding article by Brandon Ambrosino;

The invention of ‘heterosexuality’.

Before you click that link, a warning; it’s a 3,000+ word essay, so have a comfortable seat and a hot beverage ready if you’re planning on reading it.

A good rule to apply before reading anything on any subject is to consider the motivation of the writer when creating the content. This rule is particularly relevant to articles about sex in “news” media. My personal view is that these can be broken down into broad categories of;

1. Designed for prurient titillation – most stories about the sex lives of celebrities fall into this bucket,
2. Medical/informative – a new treatment for an STD, for example. There can be quite an overlap with category (1) at the same time, though, and
3. Persuasive – this is a variation on Sailer’s First Law of Female Journalism. Put simply, “you normies are doing it wrong and, if only you would find me hot, you’d be so much happier and a better person”. Hence the current swathe of opinion pieces explaining how straight men are being transphobic for not getting aroused by men in dresses.

Guess which category Brandon’s BBC essay fall into?

An early clue can be found as to the motivation of the article;

“Sex has no history,” writes queer theorist David Halperin at the University of Michigan, because it’s “grounded in the functioning of the body.” Sexuality, on the other hand, precisely because it’s a “cultural production,” does have a history. In other words, while sex is something that appears hardwired into most species, the naming and categorising of those acts, and those who practise those acts, is a historical phenomenon, and can and should be studied as such.

It’s fascinating, isn’t it? The “queer theorist’s” statement that sexuality is a “cultural production” is accepted as fact and remains completely unchallenged for the remainder of the article.

Everything that then follows is built upon that foundation;

Or put another way: there have always been sexual instincts throughout the animal world (sex). But at a specific point in time, humans attached meaning to these instincts (sexuality). When humans talk about heterosexuality, we’re talking about the second thing.

We then have a potted history about the invention of the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual”, chucking in reference to another term invented at the same time, “heterogenit”, which was a synonym for bestiality. Because shagging animals is such a normal part of life’s rich tapestry that it needs a less pejorative term, doesn’t it?

One could be excused for wondering at this point whether the article’s headline could be amended to “The invention of the word ‘heterosexuality’’ and result in a much shorter opinion piece?

But of course, we know where this is going….

“Normal” is a loaded word, of course, and it has been misused throughout history. Hierarchical ordering leading to slavery was at one time accepted as normal, as was a geocentric cosmology. It was only by questioning the foundations of the consensus view that “normal” phenomena were dethroned from their privileged positions.

Normal” in my world describes the frequent naturally-occurring version of something. I’m not aware of a radically-different meaning universally-accepted by English speakers. If that makes the adjective “loaded”, we’ve not got much common ground on which we can converse.

Subsequent paragraphs continue to convince us that commonly-understood nouns and adjectives have a different meaning to those we previously thought. Everything you hold as true is wrong, is a theme we are being told, for example;

Socially, too, heterosexuality is losing its “high ground,” as it were. If there was a time when homosexual indiscretions were the scandals du jour, we’ve since moved on to another world, one riddled with the heterosexual affairs of politicians and celebrities, complete with pictures, text messages, and more than a few video tapes. Popular culture is replete with images of dysfunctional straight relationships and marriages. Further, between 1960 and 1980, Katz notes, the divorce rate rose 90%. And while it’s dropped considerably over the past three decades, it hasn’t recovered so much that anyone can claim “relationship instability” is something exclusive to homosexuality, as Katz shrewdly notes.

Sure, being outed as gay was a scandal in the past…..perhaps because it was illegal?
Heterosexual affairs by the rich and famous are scandals….. perhaps because the participants are rich and famous?
Affairs, in general, are scandalous…..perhaps because they are evidence of a failure of trust and human nature is to be shocked by this?

Let’s cut to the main message, found in the final paragraph. Clearly this isn’t a category 1 or 2 article about sex, it’s a “please find me hot” category 3. What is it the writer is trying to convince us to do that we currently frustrate him by refusing to?

The line between heterosexuality and homosexuality isn’t just blurry, as some take Kinsey’s research to imply – it’s an invention, a myth, and an outdated one. Men and women will continue to have different-genital sex with each other until the human species is no more. But heterosexuality – as a social marker, as a way of life, as an identity – may well die out long before then.

Bill’s Opinion

This article was paid for by the British taxpayer. They have paid for someone to explain to them that they are having the wrong kind of sex.

The reason they are having the wrong kind of sex is because, according to Critical Theory, as hinted at by the “queer theorist”, we are born with no inherent qualities. Everything we desire and act upon is a result of societal factors. We are empty vessels, tabula rasa, and if only we could start again, we could build a utopia where everyone would be happy to stick their bits into anyone or anything.

You can believe that to be true.

I don’t believe it to be true and my evidence is my existence; an inherent desire to put their bits into members of the opposite sex for thousands of preceding generations, predating language and recognisable societal groups has resulted in my birth. If that innate desire didn’t exist and was simply a result of a social construct, how did the society come into existence in the first place?

It’s a strange thing to boast

Boastfulness is a weird character trait to observe. We all do it to varying degrees, our reasons are unique but often have some similarities; self-justification and validation are major underlying factors in most boastful behaviour.

Anonymous boasting to strangers is a particularly strange and modern phenomenon, examples include writing a blog under a pseudonym (*waves in the mirror) or commenting on someone else’s blog to explain how astute an investor or business person one is (*waves to the newly-unemployed Bardon).

What we boast about is also quite instructive.

Take, for example, Sarah Thompson’s public boast about an abortion ten years ago.

Let’s give Sarah some dues here; she’s setting herself up for serious judgement and negative comments, not only under the Op Ed but on her Twitter and Instagram accounts.

That this criticism will include some that will be brutally personal and judgmental does not invalidate the act of criticism or allow Sarah a free victim pass to avoid scrutiny. We can judge her boast in a respectful manner instead.  

The anectboastful OpEd is ostensibly about the latest law in the US state of Georgia to limit the abortions under the so-called “heartbeat rule”. I suggest you do some research across multiple news sources to familiarise yourself with what this does and does not mean, before picking a side of the argument to support.

The facts presented are that when she was 27 (ten years ago) she had an abortion because she felt that becoming a mother then would negatively impact her career and she assessed her boyfriend at the time as not good life partner material.

Apparently, the procedure was illegal at the time in the Australian State within which she resided. We’ll not bother addressing this as the more interesting element of the story is the boasting about it. Also, legislation tends to be downstream of the public perception of morality on a subject, hence why we aren’t currently governed by laws on dowries under the Code of Hammurabi.

There are many cases made by the “pro-choice” lobby in favour of abortion. Pregnancies due to rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life in medical emergencies, are all compelling arguments that require the judgement of Solomon to navigate through. Career inconvenience seems one of the weaker reasons offered to prevent an otherwise viable fetus from gestating to term, by comparison.

A skip through Sarah’s Twitter and Instagram account history shows a fashionable 37 year old woman who is employed by an extreme left-leaning charity (more on that in a moment), enjoying a life replete with frequent visits to the tattoo parlour, nail bar and overseas holidays. Significant others and children? Not so much.

Is she happy? Who knows? If she is happy now, will she remain so in future? Again, who can tell?

An obvious fact though, is she invests a lot of time and resources in to her job at ActionAid, a charity helping women around the world. When I suggest above that it is an extreme left-leaning charity, I am referring to the order of priorities listed on their website; apparently, what women in places like Afghanistan need most is protection from climate change. Not countering denial of access to education, self-determination in who to marry and at what age, physical safety in an actual patriarchal and violent society, prevention of rape and murder, access to proper nutrition and sanitation, etc. etc.

Whether or not that prioritisation is borne out in the targeting of resources on the ground or whether it’s a canny marketing ploy to gain access to the huge amounts of cash thrown at anything labeled as fighting climate change, we can’t know.

Bill’s Opinion

Sarah looks like she’d have been a bloody awful mother and at 37, with no obvious life partner in tow, chances are she’s missed her main opportunity to find out. With enough cash though, she still has options available, and failing that, pet shops all over Australia will be more than happy to sell her a few cats.

Sarah and I share similar qualifications to comment on USA Constitutional Law, Roe vs Wade and the legal autonomy of the states. i.e. neither of us are qualified to comment.

For what it’s worth, my view is that Roe vs Wade was a Federal overreach and each state should be free to legislate on abortion as their electorate deems fit. That way, people who want to live in a society that wants abortion to be safe, early and rare can move to Georgia while people who have no issue with killing a baby on its way out the birth canal can move to California. That is, after all, the system of government the USA has, resulting in a healthy competition between states to find the best legislation for the morality of our time.

Some folk recuse themselves from commenting on abortion, Scott Adams for example, because they take the position it’s an exclusively female issue. This is moral weakness disguised as sensitivity.

My views on abortion have become less ambiguous the further away in time I am from potentially benefiting from its convenience. It’s clear to me that, if you wanted to define the point of commencement of a new human life, conception is the only obvious moment. All other versions I’ve seen of the definition have a logical fallacy at their heart.

I understand though, from a pragmatic point of view, those who are determined to not carry an unwanted child to term are going to find a way not to, regardless of the law. I like the statement; safe, early and rare as a imprecise compromise to a horrid choice, therefore.

Sarah would define herself as pro-choice. She is correct, she has had many choices, many of which she is refusing to acknowledge. Let’s list the relevant ones in chronological order;

  1. Abstain from having sex.
  2. Abstain from having sex with someone you know you don’t want to be be with for the rest of your life.
  3. Use contraception – the OpEd has a conspicuous omission by not explaining how two well-educated people in their late 20s had a contraception failure.
  4. If an “accident” happens, carry the baby to term and decide whether you can cope with parenthood after it’s born.
  5. Offer the child up for adoption to one of the desperate couples who can’t conceive naturally.
  6. Kill the damn thing like a virus.

As brave as Sarah is for putting her head above the parapet, and a cynic might say she’ll actively benefit from this within her “in group“, the situation she describes isn’t exactly our generation’s Rosa Parks.

She’s made a lifestyle choice which, a decade later, she feels the need to boast about.

In the meantime, a ten year old boy or girl isn’t making any choices.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Straw man/woman/other

A number of prominent former athletes, including Martina Navratilova and Paula Radcliffe, have been openly critical of transgender women competing in women’s sports.

One of their main arguments is that it is theoretically possible for a cisgender man to “decide” to be a woman, take hormones, win and earn money while competing as a female, then go back to living as a man.

One of their main arguments“.

Ah, but is it their main argument?

The reason I ask is that my main argument against transgender women (ie men who believe they are women) competing in female sports competitions is that they’ve effectively been on hormone treatment during the main physical developmental stages of their lives.

That is, a boy growing up and experiencing puberty will have a bone and muscle mass advantage over a girl of the same age.

To suggest that a subsequent course of female hormone treatment somehow levels the playing field seems to be wilfully ignoring what has happened to zher in the preceding years.

Flip it the other way round; do we knowingly allow male sportsmen to compete if they’ve been caught taking performance-enhancing drugs for decades? Nope.

Bill’s Opinion

Martina Navratilova isn’t transphobic, she’s simply a biological realist.

Unfortunately, a vocal minority of activists have currently hijacked the narrative to the point where otherwise credible news sources such as Business Insider are publishing obvious strawmen arguments against reality.

All aboard the Malthusian Chu Chu train

It’s Steven Chu’s turn to fall down the rabbithole of Malthusian pessimism, with a public statement claiming the world’s population is a Ponzi or Pyramid scheme, where the people at the top (old people) are only supported because an increasing number of new entrants (children) enter at the bottom. Apparently, “economists don’t like to talk about this”, which is a funny thing to say given that climate change and a thousand adjacent and dependent pseudo-scientific research fields has become a global industry worth an estimated $1.5 trillion annual to the participants.

That’s a lot of dosh to splash on the problem that dare not speak its name…..

But, let’s go with it for a while and see whether Chu’s claim stands up to an objective test.

In his public statement, Chu suggests that the world economy relies on new entrants to maintain and improve the standards of living for those people in God’s waiting room.

Ok, but when has that not been the case in human history? Surely one of the main incentives for adults to have children was an health care insurance policy for their old age?

We’ve been running this model for tens, possibly hundreds, of thousands of years. Yet, now we are on the brink of collapse? Does the evidence support that? Chu suggests it does.

Yet, our old friend HumanProgress.org begs to differ. This is just one of their research articles explaining how a larger global population produces wonderful results. In fact, by any reasonable measure, things are getting better, nearly everywhere for nearly everyone. Even North Korea seems to be warming up to the idea of playing nice with the world, for heaven’s sake.

In fact, the only places where life expectancy, education levels, wealth, the environment, aren’t improving are where there governing class are still labouring under the illusion that, if only they could have more control, they’d manage things for the betterment of everyone (or at least their mates). Hello Venezuela.

Bill’s Opinion

If you really worry about the overpopulation of the planet, you’re faced with very few choices:

  1. Forcibly impose contraception, sterilisation and limits on family size.
  2. Kill the excess people.
  3. Do everything possible to encourage and enable trade with the poorest parts of the world.

#3 works because the well-documented result of increased wealth in a human population is a dramatic lowering of the birth rate.

Whenever you hear someone complain about the dangers of over-population and they don’t enthusiastically-proselytise free trade, you have to assume that they’ve already come to terms with and accepted options #1 and #2.

Thomas Robert Malthus – Still utterly wrong after 221 years.

I played a round with my secretary

…..and she’s hoping I will get her in the club.

From Creepbook for Business;

Golf is a male pastime, apparently. So presumably these ones are simply the most convincing transgender women of all time who just happen to play golf?

Angela is correct however, golf is bollocks. It’s played exclusively by people who were never any good at team sports when they were young. It’s one of those hobbies (let’s not flatter it by pretending it’s a sport) where the gear and clothing is as important as the game itself. Basically, it’s cycling for fat fuckers who want to spend most of Saturday away from their families.

Anyway, shared prejudices against golf aside, what does Angela’s posting on the social media platform for professionals say about Practicus and her?

Bill’s Opinion

Without knowing anything else about Practicus or Angela, we can safely conclude the following;

1. Practicus need to amend their mailing list for future invitations to networking events to exclude whining harridans, and

2. Angela, ironically, really needs to get out more and lighten up. Oh, and consider quite how ungrateful and spiteful she appears by this sort of virtue signalling…. except self-reflection is probably an alien concept to her.

Finally, here’s a close up of Angela’s profile picture.

When I zoom in, I’m certain I can count the hairs of at least three different cats on her clothes. Thank goodness smell-o-vision isn’t an option on LinkedIn yet.

The patriarchy of board and card games

This piqued my interest this weekend:

Wait, what?

Geir Helgemo, who is Norwegian but represents Monaco in bridge events, tested positive for synthetic testosterone and the female fertility drug clomifene at a World Bridge Series event in Orlando in September.

Now I’m really confused, but probably not as confused as Geir sounds.

We could wander down the well-worn path of laughing at the logical knots the Cultural Marxists tie themselves into trying to square mental illness as normal, but we’ve been there enough times recently.

What’s more interesting is looking at the inconvenient facts that undermine the claims that gender is a social construct.

If that were the case, and that a “male brain” can exist in a female body and vice versa, we might expect competence to be reasonably well-distributed across human endeavours not requiring the physical advantages of a male body.

Bridge being one such example. Chess and Scrabble are others.

Bridge then; we’ve just ascertained that the top player in the world is male, albeit a little confused about things.

Full disclosure; I have no idea about the game of bridge and I must also report that the world ranking system seems equally as impenetrable to the outside observer.
However, it would seem that there isn’t a female in any of the 21 players listed as the best of the best.
Chess rankings are a little easier to decipher, fortunately. We can categorically state that Hou Yifan is the 59th best player in the world and the best female player.

Here’s the Scrabble player world rankings

They don’t state a gender and some of the names are a bit ambiguous but, helpfully, there are profile pictures. 
The first woman on the list? Lisa Odum at #64.
What does this all mean?
Bill’s Opinion
I suppose there are multiple explanations that might help us understand what’s going on here; the first is the Cultural Marxist go-to answer that there’s no difference between men and women (the tabla rasa argument) AND that a pernicious patriarchal conspiracy has and is preventing any and all women from moving 16 chess pieces across an 8×8 playing board better than men.
The alternate explanation is that men and women have innate differences which manifest themselves at the extremes of the distribution.
Our razor suggests the fewest assumptions point the way……

Oh, if you aren’t convinced, go to the Twin Galaxies leaderboard for any arcade game hi-score and see if you can find a female name.

I’ll wait.

Bitchin’

More nonsense on my Creepbook For Business timeline. This one is about “Like minded bitches drinking wine“.

A networking club which excludes people on the basis of gender? I thought we’d moved on from those anachronisms ages ago?

Oh, it’s a networking club exclusively for women. Ah, I see. It’s like the difference between Spinal Tap’s album cover being sexy or sexist…..

The comments under the post underline the rule of our time, never read the comments under articles. They are basically a bunch of sycophants saying, “you go girl!” or people wondering why anyone trying to portray themselves as professional would use the noun, bitch.

Anyway, Jane Lu is fighting the good fight for equality equity.

Here’s a photo of her team at Showpo;

Gender diversity is clearly very important to Jane.

Bill’s Opinion

Jane is simply responding to the incentives offered to her. She’s self-promoting and benefiting from the congratulations and social rewards due to those who loudly proclaim the correct messages.

It’s devoid of dignity though, which doesn’t seem to be completely aligned with the point of feminism.

Not all heroes are Geoff Capes

Two boys won gold and silver in the Connecticut State girls indoor track competition.

Yes, you read that correctly.

The Washington Times article is hilarious, especially if you read it out aloud in a sarcastic and sceptical tone:

Yearwood, a 17-year-old junior at Cromwell High School, is one of two transgender high school sprinters in Connecticut, transitioning to female.

She recently finished second in the 55-meter dash at the state open indoor track championships. The winner, Terry Miller of Bloomfield High, is also transgender and set a girls state indoor record of 6.95 seconds. Yearwood finished in 7.01 seconds and the third-place competitor, who is female not transgender, finished in 7.23 seconds.

…..Critics say their gender identity amounts to an unfair advantage, expressing a familiar argument in a complex debate for transgender athletes as they break barriers across sports around the world from high school to the pros.

…..“I have learned a lot about myself and about other people through this transition. I always try to focus most on all of the positive encouragement that I have received from family, friends and supporters,” Yearwood said. “I use the negativity to fuel myself to run faster.”

Well yes, that and a lifetime of physical development using male hormones.

Yearwood acknowledges she is stronger than many of her cisgender competitors, but says girls who are not transgender may have other advantages.

The Washington Times is using “cisgender” instead of “girl“. Thats the official end of that newspaper then.

“One high jumper could be taller and have longer legs than another, but the other could have perfect form, and then do better,” she said. “One sprinter could have parents who spend so much money on personal training for their child, which in turn, would cause that child to run faster.”

Quite right, and one child might pretend to be a girl and win every fucking competition.

The Connecticut Association of Schools-Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference, which governs high school sports in Connecticut, says its policy follows a state anti-discrimination law that says students must be treated in school by the gender with which they identify.

“This is about someone’s right to compete,” executive director Glenn Lungarini said. “I don’t think this is that different from other classes of people, who, in the not too distant past, were not allowed to compete. I think it’s going to take education and understanding to get to that point on this issue.”

Fuck me, so boys running in girls’ races is the same as Rosa Parkes riding the bus now, is it?

Yearwood is hoping to qualify for this year’s National Scholastic Athletics Foundation national championships in March. The group recently adopted new rules allowing pre-pubescent girls to participate with their affirmed gender, though no ages are specified.

What the Washington Times means when it says, “pre-pubescent girls” is actually “pre-pubescent boys“, such is the upside down clownworld they are inhabiting.

Bill’s Opinion

Lunacy encouraged by mendacious media.

Baby Hubris

Let’s hope this young journo doesn’t look back on this piece with regret.

Throughout 2018, I literally had recurring dreams where I would find out I was pregnant. Part of me blames Kylie – I often watch her content before going to sleep. Stormi is ridiculously cute. Part of me also blames my 26-year-old uterus’ own increasingly vocal biological agenda.

Having a baby right now doesn’t square with my career ambitions or financial reality. And, yet, Kylie has somehow hacked my brain into thinking having my own little Stormi right now is exactly what I want.

So far so biology or another woman’s fault. But wait, surely we can blame men for something?

Oh yes:

Patriarchal societies have a vested interest in making motherhood look like the ultimate utopic end goal women should prioritise above all else. This keeps women feeling “bad” if they can’t have or don’t want kids and naturalises their role as “caregivers” in society, thus helping to keep them from accruing the same influence as men in other domains like business, law, politics and culture.

Wait, what?

You’ve just admitted that your uterus is shouting at you to have a baby but somehow that’s duh patriarchy?

Men keep you feeling “bad” for not having a baby? Do women have any agency in this decision?

Bueller? Anyone?

Bill’s Opinion

Listen, Natasha Gillezeau, if your career was so important to you that you’d put your instinctive desires to give birth on hold, one would hope that it would have paid off by now.

As it is, you’re being paid a pretty crappy salary (you are on the books, right, and not just a freelancer?) working for a company that is very much in decline even for an industry that is in decline in general.

Mr Scientist puts it more eloquently:

No Natasha, if you want a baby and you’ve found the right person to have one with, chuck the contraception away and get on with it.

Finally, the financial reason you mention, which I assume will be something along the lines of, “we’re only renting a small apartment“, is just an excuse. Kids don’t give a stuff whether you’ve got a mortgage or a rental contract.