So, I have data on the lived experiences of 53 trans widows, ex-wives of suddenly crossdressing men. There were 19 sexual assaults by lingerie wearing dude on his wife before she escaped. Of those, 5 were rape. Only 1 was reported. The police just announced to her that they will not prosecute, despite physical evidence. An infant was present in the home when this happens. Do not suggest to a woman that she try to stay with a man who "identifies."
One can't reasonably say one "belongs to a particular category" unless one can pay the membership dues for it. For example, someone 35 years old can't say -- reasonably -- that they "identify as a teenager". Apart from a rather pretentious phrasing, they clearly don't meet the membership requirements -- i.e., being 13 to 19.
Likewise with transwoman saying they "identify as women" or, more egregiously, that they "identity as females". Generally speaking, and according to the standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. In which case, transwomen are either males, if they still have their nuts attached, or are sexless eunuchs if they don't. In neither case do they qualify as females.
But I'm not sure there's much point in asking Peter any questions here -- or even subscribing -- since he sure didn't respond to one I'd asked of Colin Wright in another thread:
Thank you, Gina and Peter, for hosting these AMAs! It is always a privilege and a pleasure. My question for Peter is:
Do you consider yourself to be a dialectical materialist?
Context:
I was researching the academic lineage of prominent Marxists of the 19th-20th century at academictree.org and recognized Ernst Mayr as a close relative on one of the branches.
Googling “Ernst Mayr Marxism”, I found that I was not the first one to wonder if Mayr was a Marxist. Mayr wrote an article titled Roots of Dialectical Materialism in which he recounts when Russian Marxist K. M. Zavadsky confused him for a Marxist, classifying Mayr’s writing as “pure dialectical materialism”. Confused by this, Mayr reads Marxist literature and realizes the principles of dialectical materialism are the same principles introduced to him in his youth as the principles of natural history. So, this has me thinking about the relationship between naturalism, dialectical materialism, and the seeds of schools of thought. Thanks again for all the NPA content!
“The so-called dialectical world view is by and large also the world view of the naturalists, as opposed to that of the physicalists. Naturalists have always been opposed to reductionism and to the other physicalist interpretations of the Cartesians. I would not be surprised to learn that Engels got this world view in part from reading the writings of Darwin and of other naturalists.” - Ernst Mayr
“It would seem legitimate to claim that dialectical materialism in its opposition to Cartesianism, reductionism, essentialism, and other aspects of physicalist thinking has not inhibited anywhere the advance of biological thought and where such inhibition is seemingly found, it is due to incorrect Marxist interpretations that are actually not part of the principles of dialectical materialism.” - Ernst Mayr
Thanks for the article on Mayr & dialectical materialism. Although I'll have to read it a bit closer and delve into the background as it seems the connections are a bit tenuous.
But certainly some merit in criticizing reductionism -- it isn't a panacea or any sort of a "philosopher's stone". You might have some interest in an article thereon by Stuart Kauffman, a major proponent of emergence:
It is my pleasure to share Mayr's article. Thanks for sharing Kauffman's article! I like his main argument regarding insufficient time and am surprised it is not raised more often. I can also see how he gets to his conclusions. I wonder though, if he would come to the same conclusions, if he didn't hold the conclusions axiomatically.
"The universe is in state of perpetual evolution. This, of course, had
been an axiom for every naturalist at least as far back as Darwin but as
a general thought going back to the age of Buffon." - Ernst Mayr. Roots of Dialectical Materialism
"Nothing is constant but change! All existence is a perpetual flux of "being and becoming!" That is the broad lesson of the evolution of the world." - Ernst Haeckel. “Wonders of life” (1904)
Q: When you do your street epistemology sessions in public places, do you just go ahead or is it necessary to register these events? Specifically in germany, but also in other countries? Thanks.
Peter, you've said your opposition to gender-affirming care for minors is rooted in the belief that they cannot consent to such procedures. If advancements in science and medicine opened the door for reversal of the effects of said procedures and hormone treatments, how would it change your reasoning on the issue, if at all?
Zealot worksters rely exclusively on personal attack in defense of the dogmas they espouse. Most people that go along with woke dogma do so to get along, not be excluded from their tribe. This is generally true of all religion, not just CRT, Gender, …
Regarding most people, not zealots, they will avoid exposure to ridicule as much or more than than the threat of exclusion. Woke dogma more than invites ridicule, it begs for it, too easy, suggesting a trap.
Why have opponents of woke dogma refrained from the super weapon, ridicule?
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of [gender identity]. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of [Judith Butler]." -- apologies to Thomas Jefferson ... 😉🙂
I would like to recommend a new book that just came out in England ‘When Kids Say They’re Trans”. Its print version will be available here in October, but Audio and Kindle formats are available now. I am hoping more people will read it.
So, I have data on the lived experiences of 53 trans widows, ex-wives of suddenly crossdressing men. There were 19 sexual assaults by lingerie wearing dude on his wife before she escaped. Of those, 5 were rape. Only 1 was reported. The police just announced to her that they will not prosecute, despite physical evidence. An infant was present in the home when this happens. Do not suggest to a woman that she try to stay with a man who "identifies."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZViL3sZeII&t=1s
Rather risible the whole phenomenon of "identify as". Particularly when one takes a close look at the definition thereof:
"identify as; phrasal verb
identify as something
to recognize or decide that you belong to a particular category"
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/identify-as
One can't reasonably say one "belongs to a particular category" unless one can pay the membership dues for it. For example, someone 35 years old can't say -- reasonably -- that they "identify as a teenager". Apart from a rather pretentious phrasing, they clearly don't meet the membership requirements -- i.e., being 13 to 19.
Likewise with transwoman saying they "identify as women" or, more egregiously, that they "identity as females". Generally speaking, and according to the standard biological definitions, to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types, those with neither being sexless. In which case, transwomen are either males, if they still have their nuts attached, or are sexless eunuchs if they don't. In neither case do they qualify as females.
But I'm not sure there's much point in asking Peter any questions here -- or even subscribing -- since he sure didn't respond to one I'd asked of Colin Wright in another thread:
https://boghossian.substack.com/p/the-science-and-pseudoscience-of/comment/40366739
Thank you, Gina and Peter, for hosting these AMAs! It is always a privilege and a pleasure. My question for Peter is:
Do you consider yourself to be a dialectical materialist?
Context:
I was researching the academic lineage of prominent Marxists of the 19th-20th century at academictree.org and recognized Ernst Mayr as a close relative on one of the branches.
A diagram of the academic family tree: https://ibb.co/PgD0s1G
Googling “Ernst Mayr Marxism”, I found that I was not the first one to wonder if Mayr was a Marxist. Mayr wrote an article titled Roots of Dialectical Materialism in which he recounts when Russian Marxist K. M. Zavadsky confused him for a Marxist, classifying Mayr’s writing as “pure dialectical materialism”. Confused by this, Mayr reads Marxist literature and realizes the principles of dialectical materialism are the same principles introduced to him in his youth as the principles of natural history. So, this has me thinking about the relationship between naturalism, dialectical materialism, and the seeds of schools of thought. Thanks again for all the NPA content!
“The so-called dialectical world view is by and large also the world view of the naturalists, as opposed to that of the physicalists. Naturalists have always been opposed to reductionism and to the other physicalist interpretations of the Cartesians. I would not be surprised to learn that Engels got this world view in part from reading the writings of Darwin and of other naturalists.” - Ernst Mayr
“It would seem legitimate to claim that dialectical materialism in its opposition to Cartesianism, reductionism, essentialism, and other aspects of physicalist thinking has not inhibited anywhere the advance of biological thought and where such inhibition is seemingly found, it is due to incorrect Marxist interpretations that are actually not part of the principles of dialectical materialism.” - Ernst Mayr
Roots of Dialectical Materialism by Ernst Mayr
http://ihst.ru/projects/sohist/books/naperelome/1/12-18.pdf
Thanks for the article on Mayr & dialectical materialism. Although I'll have to read it a bit closer and delve into the background as it seems the connections are a bit tenuous.
But certainly some merit in criticizing reductionism -- it isn't a panacea or any sort of a "philosopher's stone". You might have some interest in an article thereon by Stuart Kauffman, a major proponent of emergence:
https://aeon.co/ideas/why-science-needs-to-break-the-spell-of-reductive-materialism
It is my pleasure to share Mayr's article. Thanks for sharing Kauffman's article! I like his main argument regarding insufficient time and am surprised it is not raised more often. I can also see how he gets to his conclusions. I wonder though, if he would come to the same conclusions, if he didn't hold the conclusions axiomatically.
"The universe is in state of perpetual evolution. This, of course, had
been an axiom for every naturalist at least as far back as Darwin but as
a general thought going back to the age of Buffon." - Ernst Mayr. Roots of Dialectical Materialism
"Nothing is constant but change! All existence is a perpetual flux of "being and becoming!" That is the broad lesson of the evolution of the world." - Ernst Haeckel. “Wonders of life” (1904)
Q: When you do your street epistemology sessions in public places, do you just go ahead or is it necessary to register these events? Specifically in germany, but also in other countries? Thanks.
What is the strangest Chinese food you have tried or looking forward to try?
Peter, you've said your opposition to gender-affirming care for minors is rooted in the belief that they cannot consent to such procedures. If advancements in science and medicine opened the door for reversal of the effects of said procedures and hormone treatments, how would it change your reasoning on the issue, if at all?
Zealot worksters rely exclusively on personal attack in defense of the dogmas they espouse. Most people that go along with woke dogma do so to get along, not be excluded from their tribe. This is generally true of all religion, not just CRT, Gender, …
Regarding most people, not zealots, they will avoid exposure to ridicule as much or more than than the threat of exclusion. Woke dogma more than invites ridicule, it begs for it, too easy, suggesting a trap.
Why have opponents of woke dogma refrained from the super weapon, ridicule?
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of [gender identity]. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of [Judith Butler]." -- apologies to Thomas Jefferson ... 😉🙂
https://quotefancy.com/quote/918147/Thomas-Jefferson-Ridicule-is-the-only-weapon-which-can-be-used-against-unintelligible
Peter,
I would like to recommend a new book that just came out in England ‘When Kids Say They’re Trans”. Its print version will be available here in October, but Audio and Kindle formats are available now. I am hoping more people will read it.
What are some of your favorite fiction books?