It’s the illogical conclusion

No, it’s not the first day of April; a white person claims to be “transracial.

Not content with being transgender, Adam Wheeler explains that, despite being born into a body that wouldn’t look out of place on a rugby pitch, he believes that he’s actually a Filipino woman.

Here’s Adam;

And here’s a Filipino woman;

The resemblance is uncanny, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

In Adam’s own words;

“I think things that made no sense to most people make sense to us on an individual level in almost every person, like a swelling feeling you feel when you listen to dramatic music.” 

Bill’s Opinion

It’s worth considering that everybody’s world view is incorrect, none of us have a clear epistemological understanding of how the universe works. For most of the time, this doesn’t matter, we seem to bumble along quite well with the strange worlds inside our heads coming into conflict with each other surprisingly rarely.

It’s probably also true that most people are irrational and use retrospective reasoning to make sense of their decisions and views.

In a world where there is a growing consensus among some of those irrational world views that gender is fluid and humans are not actually dimorphic, it was perhaps only inevitable that someone would eventually consider themselves of a different ethnicity. Presumably, different species and inanimate objects will be next on the shopping list.

Back on Planet Reality, it’s obvious to most humans that Adam has either an irrational craving for attention regardless of the negative consequences or he’s nuttier than squirrel shit.

The bet that dare not speak its name

We would have used the Voltaire quote, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise” as today’s title, except a cursory search suggests he never said it.

Nonetheless, this is quite an interesting discovery;

Apparently, Sportsbet and Crownbet have previously accepted bets on the result of the same sex marriage plebiscite but have bowed to pressure and removed their offerings.

In fact, we have been able to find only one Australian (well, British but their Australian subsidiary) betting agency willing to take bets on the Same Sex Marriage plebiscite.

For those not aware of the Australian betting formats, they use the decimal method. Under this method and using the odds expressed by William Hill, a $10 bet would pay a $60 return if it wins.

Bill’s Opinion

Brexit and Trump surprised the pundits possibly due to voters understanding and being embarrassed by the stigma of having to admit to the people undertaking the surveys and exits polls that they were a xenophobic, sexist homophobe.

William Hill’s offer seems fair value, therefore, if you feel that the result will be close*.

But more importantly, when did every other bookmaker grow scruples and a social conscience?

Ah, when Twitter outrage mobs get to decide what is offensive or not. This is not necessarily a good development.

 

*this does not constitute financial advice, in fact, if you were to take any kind of financial advice from this website you are tacitly admitting that you are financially illiterate and should immediately provide your email address in the comments so that we may send you fantastic investment opportunities in new and wonderful crypto-currencies.

Dear Patriarchy, I demand a full and immediate refund

 

The patriarchy is everywhere and is pernicious, racist and responsible for a large number of societal ills including under-representation of women in senior positions in government and business.

Fair enough.

Can we have a quick chat about mathematics, particularly statistical distribution before we completely agree that the science is settled on this evil patriarchy conspiracy idea though, please?

The Italian engineer, Vilfredo Pareto (a man, of course), identified the statistical phenomenon which now carries his surname. You may also know this by the “80:20 rule”.

Whether or not it’s exactly true that 20% of a group of people own 80% of the wealth of the group (in the UK, this was found to be more like 30:70) or that the square root of a group of people are responsible for half of the productivity (Price’s Law), matters not. The important point is that, over time, a distribution concentrates to a small subset of the whole. This is observed in an incredibly-wide range of subjects from error rates on hard drives to the size of sand particles.

This would suggest that, with a helping hand from a male conspiracy, all the wealth, power, influence, high-profile jobs, etc. should quickly concentrate almost exclusively to men. Just a couple of generations should be enough to see this statistical reality at play.

Let’s say we started the conspiracy just after the end of World War II, we should definitely be seeing an almost entirely male-dominated society in several, if not all, western countries by now if there truly was a heavy, cheating male hand on the scales of society.

In fact, the opposite is clearly observable in almost every walk of life in western countries. As a very obvious example, the UK is currently governed by their 2nd female Prime Minister. Hardly a resounding victory for the British branch of the Patriarchy, is it?

Bill’s Opinion

If there is truly a conspiracy of patriarchy, it’s probably the most incompetent conspiracy in the history of mankind homo sapiens. How else can it be that, after multiple generations of living with the effects of this conspiracy, there are any women in positions of governmental power, running corporations, able to own property, freely-associate with other women, travel without a chaperone, express an opinion, etc.?

This patriarchy conspiracy is utter useless bollocks and I want my subscription refunded.

Please forward the cheque to my new address in Saudi Arabia. Now there’s a country that knows how to implement a patriarchy competently.

Someone probably needs to take the role of parent here

My 5 year old son has decided that he’s a girl and, rather than distracting him with a fidget spinner or teaching him how to ride a bike, I’m actively encouraging his fantasies.

This will end well, I’m sure.

Tangentially, I’ve often wondered about the thought process used by those who believe that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”. This explanation of homosexual attraction seems to be in denial of the evidence of, until recently, how godawful that life actually is with those who “choose” it being the victims of ostracism, exclusion, violence and, prior to the 1970s in most countries, jail.

It might be argued that the same observation can be applied to transgenderism.

However, there seems to be a glaring difference between the two situations; in the first example, a person has made an informed choice, post-puberty, to have have sexual relations with people of their same rather than the opposite gender. Until they have reached the age of consent, it actually doesn’t matter much what their sexual desires are or aren’t. Certainly there’s little chance of an irreversible or regrettable physical change being implemented on their body.

In the second example someone has decided that they were born in the wrong body. The current school of thought in the progressive circles of society, including 35 year old “queer” feminist Emma Salklid, is that this is enough proof to commence encouraging this world view and, potentially, seeking hormone treatment and surgery to better-align their physical appearance with their brain’s self-image.

There is a chance that imposing Emma’s political world view on a 3 year old boy (this was the age when he declared himself as a girl) might not be the best course of action in this case. In fact, there is a chance that it might be highly regretted by the child in later life. Perhaps there might come a time when a 20 year old highly-screwed up transgender boy/girl/zirl turns to their mother and asks the following questions;

Mum, please can you explain why the fuck you took the word of a 3 year old and started making decisions that can’t be reversed, such as dressing me in skirts, organising play dates with girls rather than playing war games with other boys, commencing hormone treatment which resulted in my genitals not developing normally and, in fact, making my penis so small that there wasn’t enough material to work with for the gender-reassignment surgery?

Also Mum, why would you be so accepting of a 3 year old’s statement about gender when all the studies show that the suicide rate for transgender people is equivalent to those desperate people in German or Soviet concentration camps AND that this rate doesn’t drop following surgery?

Mum, why the fuck couldn’t you have been a parent rather than a political activist?

Bill’s Opinion

3 year old children say lots of things that don’t make sense. If they are insistent that they are a dog, most parents don’t buy them a lead and kennel.

There seems to be a mental problem at play here which would benefit from intense psychiatric help before hormone treatment and surgery become an option…..

And the 5 year old son should probably see a psychiatrist too.

The left do nothing but project

Clementine Ford is the gift that keeps on giving. One wonders whether the words “cognitive dissonance” are in her vocabulary?

This week, the most important topic for her scrutiny is the disparity between the allocation of domestic duties and her observation that women have a greater level of internalised anxiety when visitors are in their house.

Not Clementine or any of her friends, you understand, but other, nameless people. Perhaps we could give them a name? Let’s call them Mr and Mrs Strawman.

Mr Strawman is clearly related to “all the men I slept with in my 20s” of whom, “not a single one of them ever apologised for the fact that they were clearly sleeping on sheets that had never been washed and definitely smelled like it”.

Of course, it could be that there were men out there on the singles scene who had clean sheets waiting on the bed when they brought a date home, and it was just some unfortunate coincidence that none of them invited Clementine back to sample them. Hmmm, correlation isn’t causation an’ all that, but it makes one think.

In the Ford household, much angst is expended on presenting a fully-equal division of labour, witness; “We each do our own laundry and often cook or organise our own dinner, both of which stop these jobs from being naturally assumed to be my responsibility”.

Let’s stop for a moment and unpack that statement; you do your own laundry and cook your own dinner?

That’s a very interesting choice of words, isn’t it? One imagines a scenario where Clementine is sifting through the laundry basket to ensure that only her dirty clothes make it into the washing machine and none of her partner’s are cleaned by mistake.

Similarly, does she tuck into a hearty plate of tofu surprise while the poor chap is stuck with instant noodles?

Bill’s Opinion

Clementine Ford is extremely lucky; she is paid to write lengthy Strawman articles where she projects her own insecurities onto general society and then lays the blame at the door of the “patriarchy”.

In the real world, most busy couples manage to find an equilibrium and division of labour that is appropriate to their respective levels of domestic and external activity and contribution which is less about being “gendered” and more about practicality.

Ignore the relationship between supply and demand at your peril

The Norway Football (soccer) Association has announced that the female and male national players will be paid the same.

Cricket Australia recently made a similar announcement.

This prompts some questions;

  1. Will the ticket prices be set at the same level?
  2. Will the governing bodies negotiate equality of payments and demand equal TV time from media organisations?
  3. Will the governing bodies demand equality of sponsorship rates; i.e. if Heineken wish to sponsor the male sport, they must sponsor the female version at the same rate?

If the answer to those questions is “no”, what does that tell us about the true level of equality between male and female Football and Cricket players?

Bill’s Opinion

Assuming the motivation behind this is a genuine desire for equality, rather than the usual modern disease of virtue signalling, it is inept and incompetent.

Intervening to equalise supply does not result in equalised demand.

It is highly likely that the ticket prices for the female Football and Cricket world cups in 20, 30, 40 years’ time will still sell for a fraction of the price of the male equivalent.

Because people value one higher than the other.

Simple solutions to complex situations

We should have equal opportunities.

We should have equal outcomes.

One of these two statements represents a desire to help others, the other is fascism.

An Australian university study has found what everyone who has ever met and interacted with other humans already knew; personality, cognitive skills and conscientiousness are more of a factor in career success than gender.

Their conclusion; invest in training to improve women’s skills and personalities, for example in being extroverted.

Facetiously, are they suggesting we try to make women more like men?

Perhaps the differences between male and female characters have served us well as a species?

The Chesterton quote seems relevant here, often summarised as; ” Don’t ever take a fence down until you know why it was put up”. The original quotation is as follows;

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

Obviously, gender-wide generalisations are just that; generalised. A man can be a natural carer just as a woman can be an extroverted powerful leader. It’s just that statistics show trends.

Should we accept those trends and legislate against or even knowingly inhibit the outliers following their chosen career path? Of course not, that would be fascism.

Should we inhibit people who fall into the trend to enable more outliers to be successful? Again, fascism.

There is an Australian government website here which hectors us to consider the inequality across the not so lucky country.

This infographic is quite amusing;

Western Australia has a shocking statistic there, doesn’t it?

Well, it does if you fail to consider the high wages paid to mine workers. It turns out that when it comes to equality, many women vote with their feet and actively choose not to work in dangerous environments, 45 degree heat and spending weeks away from home in the remote north of the state.

95% of Australian workplace fatalities are male. See if you can find that data point in the official statistics here.

The Finance and Insurance Services gap does look somewhat damning, however. It would be interesting to see a more detailed view of the data; is it skewed by 10 incredibly-well paid men at the top of the main institutions, perhaps?

Bill’s Opinion

There’s probably thousands of reasons why there’s a pay gap between men and women.

In order of materiality though, “sexism” is likely to be far lower down the list than;

– freely-made life choices

– suitability of personality type

– attitudes to physical danger

Question the data, question the agenda behind the data.

“Significant drain”

The postal vote survey on same sex marriage is causing a significant drain on the LGBTIQ community, apparently.

Let’s just unpack that statement, shall we?

Firstly, definitions.

LBGTIQ apparently stands for;

L = Lesbian

B = Bisexual

G = Gay

T = Transgender

I = Intersex

Q = Questioning

So, the vote survey is only directly relevant to 2 of those groups then; lesbians and gays. As an aside, one wonders whether it might save significant ink and keyboard wear and tear for intersectionalists if they were to refer to lesbians and gays as homosexuals and use an H instead. But we digress.

Transgender people will be unlikely to be bothered about same sex marriage until they’ve completed the medical procedures and then, presumably, decided they are attracted to members of the gender they’ve transitioned to.

Similarly, intersex people will have fewer concerns too.

“Questioning” people are presumably still on a journey of discovery so may or may not arrive at the conclusion that they wish to marry someone of the same sex. Hopefully, this questioning is using a robust methodology such as Socrates’.

So, just the lesbians and gays then.

Why does the journalist write about the LBGTIQ “group” as if they were an amorphous lumpen mass with exactly the same desires, concerns and needs?

Lastly, what is a “significant spike”? The only numbers we’re offered are from the Reachout website service; they claim 1.5 million unique visitors a year and a 20% increase since August. So about 800 more a day then, (presumably not independently verified).

Given that Reachout are currently running an advertising campaign in favour of same sex marriage and this is their website’s landing page, perhaps there’s an alternative explanation behind the increase in traffic?

Bill’s Opinion

To suggest that there is a single common opinion held by people falling into the manufactured categories of LBGTIQ is a red herring (“furphy” in Australian vernacular).

There is an agenda behind the users of theses acronyms; to shut down debate on the issues by suggesting that there is a much large demographic with a single common opinion than there actually is.

The author of the article could have spent his/her/zhe’s 400 words arguing the pros and cons of same sex marriage instead. It speaks volumes that Adam Gartrell chose not to.

G’day sport

We’ve previously explored the issue of transgenderism and whether it is cruel or kind to agree with a mental delusion that one is “born in the wrong body” absent any compelling physical or scientific evidence.

Consider then, the case of Hannah Mouncey, who is hoping to be the first transgender player in the Women’s Australian Rules Football League (AFLW).

For readers not familiar with Australian Rules Football, it needs to be explained that it’s a contact sport with similarities to Rugby and Gaelic Football. The tackles are big hits; height and physical strength are a significant contributing factor to success. One cannot play this game without being able to deliver, and also tolerate taking, a solid bodyslam.

So, if your daughter played this sport, how keen would you be for her to be lining up in a match against Hannah next weekend?

No, that’s not a picture of a young Lars Ulrich, drummer from Metal-licker, that’s the potentially latest AFLW player, “Hannah”.

To prove the point that she’s a lady, here she is in in a classic little black dress channeling her inner Holly Golightly.

The AFLW rules require that, to be qualified as female, Hannah needs to prove that she has less than 10 nanomoles of testosterone per litre in her bloodstream. Hannah is confident that she can pass this test.

Bill’s Opinion

This will be a fascinating case to follow especially as the AFLW has recently had significant commercial success, attracting large crowds of up to 51,000.

Whether or not the spectators continue to follow the women’s version of the sport if a bricklayer in drag is allowed to beat up women will be an excellent bellwether of the success or failure of the intersectionality narrative of the Cultural Marxists.

Do you really want to hurt me?

With IDAHOBIT day being only a week behind us, we thought it worth exploring some related issues which we feel might not be receiving a full examination in the traditional media. The hypothesis below is an assumed distillation of a range of received wisdom positions which are presented regularly in the media discussion of the subject. Hopefully we’ve not fallen too far into the strawman trap by presenting this as the discussion point.

Hypothesis: Transphobia (Wiki: “a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward transgender or transsexual people”) is a form of irrational prejudice based on the incorrect assumption that gender is binary and acceptance of transgender or transsexual people is one of the best forms of support they can be offered.

The modern discussion of the subjects of gender identity and sexuality pivots significantly around definitions, much angst is expended on many sides of the discussion about what we mean when we talk of male, female, other proposed genders and various sexual preferences. Indeed, in some discussions, even the use of the noun; preferences comes with some baggage, with its inferred assumption that individuals have complete free will in deciding who to find attractive.

It’s unlikely that the problem of definitions is going to be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction in the following exploration, so we’ll probably have to accept that and try to continue regardless.

How many human genders exist?

The first definition clarification to be made here is to break the link between gender and sexuality; who you are and who you find sexually attractive/what you desire to do with them are clearly not the same thing, as evidenced by many high-profile celebrity relationships that don’t fit the traditional model of a square-jawed, broad-shouldered alpha male coupled with a slightly subservient female (q.v. Bernie Ecclestone). If we accept that gender and sexuality require discrete definitions, we can continue to look at the definition of gender.

Physiologically, there are a range of versions of the arrangement of sex organs and, again, the Wikipedia page on this hints at the minefield of definitions and nouns in contention to describe these conditions. Depending on the version of definitions you choose, these conditions may account for between 0.018 to 1.7% of human births. Based on those statistics, physical differences from the “standard” male or female sex organs are rare, but not so rare for for us to never interact in everyday life with someone with one of the conditions. However, unless you meet them in a sauna or being intersex is like being gluten intolerant (“Q. How do you know if someone is gluten intolerant? A. They’ll tell you within 30 seconds of meeting you”), perhaps you’d never know.

Another group of individuals “identify” with a different gender to the one their physical sex organs might suggest. In most cases, there is little evidence to suggest that this identification is also reflected physically. The Williams Institute estimate that, in the USA, this accounts for around 0.3% of the population.

What is “gender”?

Of course, despite the statements about physical and mental differences, we still haven’t defined “gender”.

It seems the bifurcation of opinion here is that gender is either defined by the physical properties the person received at birth or whatever they later decide they prefer. Either gender is fixed by physical properties or is “fluid” based on the conclusion of a internal mental process. Only one, not both positions can be true.

For the 98% of us who have no physical or mental ambiguity or opposition to our what our physical sex organs suggest should be our gender, this might seem like an uninteresting if nuanced question. However, given that 2% of the population of, say, the USA equates to 6.5 million people, it’s important to a significant population.

What are the consequences of accepting the “mental decision equals gender” position?

The original hypothesis above suggests that universal acceptance of the personally-stated gender of an individual is one of the best methods of support the other 99.7% of us can offer to the 0.3%. This might take the form of using particular pronouns to describe them, accepting their use of the public toilet of their choice, allowing them to compete in sports events in the gender category they prefer, or not making disparaging comments about their appearance, etc.

At an individual level, this may act as a salve to the internal conflict between the physical and mental view of their gender. How effective a salve might that be though, if you have penis, a protruding jaw, large shoulders and the daily requirement to shave away a beard, yet every time you look in the mirror and tell yourself that you are female, the very confronting physical evidence suggests the opposite?

Suicide attempt rates for those who don’t identify as the gender suggested by their physiology are staggering – up to 40% in some studies, compared to 0.1% in the population as a whole. In fact, the only group in history we can find that have similar documented rates of suicide or attempted suicide were those subjected to the evil brutality in Nazi and Soviet concentration camps, yet the research suggests that even these desperate groups had suicide rates of “only” 25%.

Hopefully nobody reading this ever feels so hopeless that taking their life is a real option and there’s limited mileage to compare levels of despair and desperation but…. is it really possible that discrimination in a western democracy with all the attendant freedoms and protections under the rule of law is worse than being subjected to the horrors of Belsen or a Soviet era Siberian gulag?

Perhaps it is. If so, there’s likely to be some real life control experiments we can compare against. African Americans in the southern states in the Jim Crow era, Christians in modern day Middle East, women living under the Taliban in Afghanistan, for example. We can find no research which suggests an epidemic of suicide or attempted suicide even close to that of the 0.3% who identify as a gender counter to their physiological state. This strongly suggests that something in addition to just discrimination is the main cause of their suffering.

In fact, there’s research which suggests that the suicide and attempted suicide rates hardly drop, if at all, for those people who have gender reassignment surgery. Peace is clearly not found at the end of a scalpel.

Thought experiment; switch “transgender” for “anorexia”.

Using a slightly-modified version of the original hypothesis;

Anorexiaphobia (Wiki: “a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward anorexic people”) is a form of irrational prejudice based on the incorrect assumption that eating is necessary and acceptance of anorexic people is one of the best forms of support they can be offered.

That’s a crazy idea, isn’t it? We’re clearly not being kind to someone suffering from the, often fatal but certainly destructive, eating disorder anorexia. In fact, by not attempting to help the person with the condition come to terms with the problem and at least prevent them from further physically harming themselves we are probably being morally deficient in our duty as family, friends, neighbours.

Is the mental position that you are of a different gender to that suggested by your physiology so very different from the mental position that you are overweight despite the physical evidence to the contrary?

Taking the thought experiment to an extreme, what would be an appropriate response if this evening your loved one told you that they “identify” with a different species, say, an eagle, and they intend to act on this very real feeling of body dismorphia by building an eyrie at the top of the nearest mountain to live on? Most likely, you’d plead with them to seek help from a mental health professional and consider some type of intervention to physically protect them.

Bill’s Opinion

In the absence of physical evidence of irregular sex organs, it’s possible that someone who identifies with a sex not suggested by their physiology is suffering from a form of mental illness. Agreeing with this internal dichotomy and supporting or encouraging their transition through surgery is unlikely to improve their internal conflict and, in fact, the evidence suggests that they will be no happier following the gender reassignment procedures, just irreversibly physically different. Making a regrettable tattoo seem very mild by comparison.

If there’s even a slight possibility that we are not helping people with this problem by just agreeing with them, the conclusion must be that we’re missing the opportunity to help them in more tangible and effective ways. Therefore the moral case is the opposite of much of the proposed hypothesis; we should have sympathy and support these people but be brave enough call out that their delusions are harmful.