“Misgendering” is an artificial and nonsensical concept

December 16, 2024

“Misgender” is an artificially created word but it is a nonsense word (a la Edward Lear) which has been assigned a meaning which I shall show is unreal. It has been created to fit the woke fantasies and is an unnecessary word. “To misgender” (verb) means to assign a gender to someone (male or female) which does not match the desired gender of that someone. This is impossible in practice. Suppose person A perceives person B to be male and refers to person B as male. Person B – irrespective of whether actually male or female – wishes to be perceived as female and screams to high heaven that “she” is being “misgendered”. Person A has no interest or use for the word. Person B – if truly female – feels no great insult. Only if person B is actually a male, but who desires to be perceived as female (or vice versa), does that person take umbrage. Yet it is person B who is responsible and therefore liable for how he/she is perceived by others. The fault lies always with person B.

The artificial concept of “misgendering” is nonsensical because it rests on the utterly mistaken fantasy that a person may choose which gender to be. There is a tiny fraction of people (0.02%) who are born with physical aberrations which makes their gender truly ambiguous. There are a few (perhaps 1% of births) where mental aberrations lead to people genuinely believing they ought to be the other gender than they are. There are still others who are brain washed into believing likewise and some who pretend to that belief to get attention.

We need to start with identity.

I take the identity of a “thing” to be that which distinguishes that thing from every other thing in our universe.

The identity of any “thing” in our universe is then given by any unique combination of parameters that can distinguish it from all other things. These parameters can vary depending on the nature of the thing:

  • Physical Things:
    • Atomic Level: Spatial and temporal coordinates, quantum state, and isotopic composition.
    • Macroscopic Objects: Spatial and temporal coordinates, mass, shape, chemical composition, and other physical properties.
  • Concepts and Abstractions:
    • Concepts: Definition, authorship, relationship to other concepts, and cultural context.
    • Abstract Objects: Mathematical properties, logical axioms, and formal definitions.
  • Living Things:
    • Biological Parameters: Genetic code, species, developmental stage, and physiological state.
    • Spatial and Temporal Parameters: Location and time of existence.

A human’s DNA is pretty well frozen at or soon after conception. Chromosomes and gender are fixed then – forever. A human’s unique identity in the universe is also determined at this time – forever. That unique identity persists, in fact, even after death. The probability of a particular human DNA sequence having ever existed or ever appearing again is vanishingly small.

The human genome contains approximately 3 billion base pairs. Each base pair can be one of four nucleotides: adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), or guanine (G). The likelihood of two individuals having identical DNA is extremely small, with estimates around 1 in 10^480000. This is an incredibly small number, essentially zero. Even considering the entire history of humanity and potential future generations, the chance of another person having the exact same DNA sequence as you is practically zero.

Humans often use other descriptors (name, physical attributes, occupation, ….) as part of their identity but these are just descriptors, adjectives, and not unique identifying parameters. Professions or occupations such as a lawyer or a doctor are descriptions and not strictly about identity. A descriptor may sometimes also be convenient as a supporting identifier, but is never sufficient on its own for identity. Descriptors may change during a person’s life or only apply for a short time. In the case of humans such descriptors are redundant for identity because something much more immutable is available in the form of a DNA sequence. What is absolutely clear is that an individual human cannot choose or change identity. They can certainly change and develop and gain descriptors during their lifetimes. They can change their skills and their jobs and their hair style and their weight and their appearance. They can even pretend to be other than they are. They cannot, though, change sex and they cannot change gender. They cannot choose their identity. They are who they are and not who they wish to be. They cannot ever change the DNA sequence they are born with. They may undergo all manner of treatment or therapy or surgery but their DNA remains unchanged.

It has become fashionable in the current age of woke hysteria to claim to be a victim of “misgendering”. (These are among the most cringe-inducing claims possible). It is a very artificial and awkward word and is a part of modern wokery. It is a verb based on the noun “gender”. But “misgendering” claims are all nonsense claims. When somebody is not perceived to be the gender they claim to be, it is always their own fault and their own responsibility. How one is perceived is not the responsibility of the perceiver but of the perceived. The remedy for an “erroneous” perception lies with the perceived not with the perceiver. There are indeed a few people who are genuinely transgender. They are clearly suffering from a mental condition in believing they are a different gender. They need medical and psychological support. But they are not usually the ones screeching about being misgendering victims. The majority of the self-proclaimed victims of “misgendering” are delusional or brainwashed. They are those who imagine and/or claim to be transgender in a desperate quest for attention. The worst of these attention-seekers are usually the ones who also whine loudest about being victims of “misgendering”.

Victims of “misgendering” have only themselves to blame for being perceived to be the gender they do not wish to be perceived as. Pretending to be the gender that you are not, does not help. You cannot impose your delusions about yourself to be the perceptions of others.

The reality is that only you can “misgender” yourself.


A return to family values is an existential necessity

December 5, 2024

The declining global fertility rate has many causes but the backdrop which enables medicine and contraception and family planning and abortion and government policy to have the effects they do, is the decline in the importance of the family. It is the side-lining of “family values” which is manifested now in so many women not wishing to have children. Not having children has been seen as a kind of emancipation. But, as Japan and many other countries are now finding it is also why the loneliness of the aged (men and women) is increasing so rapidly. Over half of all Japanese women now living, it is said, will never experience having children. The number of men so afflicted is harder to estimate but is thought to be a little higher. The period in China when the one child policy was enforced is also having its impact as families have been discouraged. Loneliness with age is the new normal.

The over-population problem is effectively over. However, the species needs a birth rate of 2.1 children per woman to maintain a stable population. A population implosion has now started and is gaining speed. The cold hand of demographics means that to change current trends will take many generations. Within the next 50 years – and this is inevitable – every country in the world will have a birth rate below the replenishment level and will have a declining population. Parts of Europe have been mitigating the loss of births by immigration but even immigrant fertility rates drop within two generations to the country average.

A return to giving a higher value to “family values” is an existential necessity. Probably we have about 100 years or so to avoid a catastrophic population collapse. 

Replenishment level is 2.1

Woke rebranding – Disney/Jaguar mishmash

December 4, 2024

It has become a freaky world.

There seems to be a new “go woke, go broke” story every day. The Jaguar and Disney stories are like phlegm which persists forever.

Jaguar touts “copy nothing” but copies Rolls Royce among others. There were pink Ferraris long before that. The shape is similar to some old Chevys. As an old friend who is a Jaguar fanatic put it “It’s just embarrassing”. It is not going to help Tata Motors or the Tata brand very much either.

Disney has just gone mad. A Snow White who is not white. A spoilt brat actress who is not very fair and who is more hateful than the evil queen. Zegler is a real liability for Disney with very few saving graces. And dwarves who are not dwarves!!!


Does Jaguar’s rebrand target a new customer base?

November 27, 2024

Jaguar – will no longer, apparently, represent the silent, lithe, sleek, powerful predator that the cat species panthera onca is. (60 years ago the E-type was my forever dream car – even against the DB-5. Then I grew up).

The new woke rebranding apparently has different target customers in mind.

Note that the target is the older men or women who attract younger men!

Enough Jaguar wokery now.

Time to move on.


Jaguar wokery explained

November 25, 2024

Adrian Mardell is the CEO of JLR and has received woke awards before.

He is looking for a new award it seems.

Jaguar -sh(e)/it

BE NOTHING!

Seems rather insecure.

Is he so worried that he may be taken for a she/her or an it?

Morse would not be amused.

Jaguar has long been associated with the likes of Inspector Morse (as played by John Thaw, above) - rarely seen without his iconic Mk2


Jaguar’s woke rebranding fiasco

November 23, 2024

Woke debacle Jaguar versus Volvo

This is what a Jaguar ought to be


Science cannot reach the places where gods are conceived

November 19, 2024

This post is as an addendum to an earlier post:

Atheism (old or new) lacks “oomph”


The domain of science

There are many questions that science cannot even address, let alone, answer. The process we call “science” starts with many fundamental assumptions (existence and causality for example). Clearly the needs of what we take to be logic require that any field of thought (science in this case) can not penetrate or address its own founding assumptions. It would seem that space, time, matter, energy, life and consciousness are also such assumptions. The scientific method, while incredibly powerful, is inherently limited by its foundational assumptions. Questions like the existence of reality itself, the nature of consciousness, or the ultimate origin of the universe are beyond the scope of scientific inquiry. There are other areas that science cannot directly address:

  • The laws of logic: While science relies on logic to draw conclusions, it cannot prove the validity of logic itself.
  • The uniformity of nature: The assumption that natural laws are consistent across space and time is fundamental to scientific investigation, but it cannot be proven.
  • The objectivity of observation: Science assumes that observations can be made objectively, but human perception and interpretation can introduce biases. All human observations are ultimately subjective.
  • The existence of an external world: While we experience the world as real, the nature of reality itself is a philosophical question that science cannot definitively answer.

Mysteries and unanswerable questions lead to the invention of gods and supernatural beings by humans.  Initially they are just labels for the answers to the unanswerable questions. (Of course they are later imbued with human characteristics, supernatural powers, families and expanded regions of influence).  The process we call science, though, does not (can not) address the unanswerable questions. Setting science and the gods in opposition is incorrect in logic and in reason. Claiming that “science denies gods” or that “gods are unscientific” are statements that are invalid. Science seeks to explain the natural world through empirical evidence and falsifiable hypotheses. Science simply operates within its own framework, and it doesn’t have the tools to prove or disprove the existence of supernatural beings. Religion addresses questions of meaning, purpose, and the supernatural, which often lie beyond the domain of scientific inquiry.  

Gods can only be imagined, conceived of and invented in those domains where science cannot reach.


It is my contention that while philosophers (thinkers) may have formulated the mysteries which then could only be “solved” by the invention of a god, that it was politically motivated groups (possibly the earliest priests) who used such gods to create religions as a social control tool. So it seems probable that the invention of gods preceded the invention of religions (though gods are not always needed by religions). The invention of gods likely stemmed from a combination of factors:

  1. Humans abhor the unknown: Humans, ever since they became human, have sought explanations for all they couldn’t understand. Gods were labels for the answers to the unanswerable. They provided answers to the impossible questions like “Why does the sun rise?”, “Why does it rain?” or “Where do we go after death?”
  2. Social Control: Gods and their supernatural powers were used to justify and establish social norms and laws. Disobeying divine rules could lead to just punishment, both in this life and the afterlife.
  3. Creating a social “we”: Shared beliefs in gods fostered a sense of unity and belonging within communities. Rituals and ceremonies centered around gods strengthened social bonds.
  4. As a means of explaining and withstanding loss and suffering: Gods or purported sins against the gods could justify and explain misfortune and suffering as divine tests or punishments.  They provided a sense of purpose and meaning.
  5. As a crutch giving hope and comfort: Gods were used as a vehicle of hope for a better future, both in this life and the afterlife. They provided comfort and solace in times of hardship.

In essence, gods served as a powerful tool for explaining the unexplainable, maintaining social order, creating communities and providing psychological comfort.

It is not implausible that it was early thinkers, or shamans, who pondered existential questions and proposed supernatural explanations. However, it is likely that creating religious institutions, was a political exercise with political objectives. The leaders probably acquired status as priests, and they structured beliefs and narratives into formal or organized religions and used them primarily for social control.

While some might argue that the spiritual benefits of religion are merely a byproduct or a marketing strategy, there is no doubt that many religions offer genuine solace, meaning, and purpose. Religion may have originated as a tool for social control, but it has evolved into something much more complex over time. The origin and evolution of gods and religions requires much more space than I have here. But the key point for this post is that gods were invented because explanations for the great mysteries were sought and could not be found.


Different domains

Ultimately science and gods operate in separate domains. Science operates in the constrained world of what can be observed empirically and where foundational assumptions apply. The invention of gods is always in response to some question or mystery that science cannot address.  Of course, imbuing gods – who are merely labels for the unanswerable – with human or superhuman characteristics is nothing but literary (fictional) license. The problem often arises in that such fictions are taken literally. Others interpret scientific findings as weapons to challenge or deny certain religious beliefs. But strictly they live on different planes in different worlds. The bottom line is that science cannot tread in the places where its unanswerable questions led to the invention of the gods. And the gods cannot exist in the domains where science is constrained to hold sway.


10 facts (reasons) why the Democrats lost

November 12, 2024
  1. Legal immigrants dislike illegals.

  2. Girls are not safe with men in girls changing rooms.

  3. You are who you are, not who you think you are.

  4. Making things is what grows an economy.

  5. Small businesses grow jobs.

  6. Being Latino/Asian/Black does not necessarily mean being stupid and woke.

  7. Democrats cause inflation.

  8. Democrats cause high taxes.

  9. Democrats prolong wars.

  10. The NYT is irrelevant.


Numbers tell the tale – Democrats probably faked millions of voters in 2020

November 10, 2024

The 2020 Presidential election had some 20 million more voters than the total for 2024. All the mainstream media claim that the shortfall is due to votes still being counted. 20 million is almost 13% of the total electorate. At this stage of counting, that 13% are yet to be counted and all the states have been called, strains credulity. It is just nonsense. 15 million of the missing 20 million are Democratic votes and 5 million are Republican. Of course turnout does not have to be the same from one election to the next. But not to this extent.

In 2020 I estimated that the Democrats had generated about 3 million ineligible voters without ID who voted, and that tipped the election. It now seems to me that the number of fake Democratic votes probably exceeded 5 million in 2020. (I find the opposition to voters having to prove their eligibility to vote by showing identification incontrovertible proof of skullduggery being planned).

This bar-chart is from the New York Times which, these days, is trying very hard to be a woke, left-wing rag. (I am beginning to question paying their subscription).

The winning margin declared for Trump in 2024 was around 2.6%. If there were that many votes (13%) left to be counted the results could not have been called.

I think the case of the 2020 election having been stolen is pretty well proven.

QED.


No real surprise – Trump won (wokery lost)!

November 8, 2024

I am sitting in Europe and watched the US elections with interest and fascination. I am considerably right of centre in my opinions but not, I think, closed to reasonable opinions from any quarter. I do though have great contempt for the modern “freaky woke” movements who complicate simple matters for the sake of complicating them, merely to create nonsense jobs for pretend sociologists.

I have little respect for BLM when black lives don’t matter much to other blacks in the US. (Blacks kill more blacks than any other group. Black women terminate more of their own potential children than any other ethnic group in the US. Black mothers, more than any other group, are single parents). In the spectrum of all people there are a few people who are born with some physical or mental aberrations. Among these there are a very few whose gender is physically ambiguous (intersex). Modern medicine, in some cases, can mitigate some of the problems. There are also a few who though being physically, unambiguously, either male or female do develop a belief over their growth years of being of the opposite gender. They are termed transgender and clearly suffer from some mental aberration. They do not form some new gender. There are just two genders with aberrations. It is no more complicated than that. Identity is not complicated either. It is determined at conception when an individual’s DNA is pretty well set in stone. It needs no more than that. A man pretending to be a woman or vice versa remains pretense and does not cause any change to identity. You are what you are and not what you might have liked to be.

I am not directly affected by the outcome of US elections though the world, whether it likes it or not, is indirectly impacted by who is President there. The Presidential debate in June settled the matter for me. It was a disaster for Biden.

But then he stayed in the race and only stepped down in favour of Kamala Harris at the end of July. Though this gave her a rather short time to campaign the fundamental problem was that she provided no real choice and was the wrong candidate for the Democrats. The perceptions of a sick and infectious Democratic party were much more widespread than liberal bigots like to acknowledge. She came from California – where all the sickness and wokeness came from. Where men were allowed into girls changing rooms and pedophiles into boys changing rooms. Where it was a badge of honour to be a freak. Where having the right to kill your own was considered an achievement. Where it was a point of pride to have terminated a fetus of your own as a matter of convenience.

She didn’t stand much of a chance. A flawed candidate and a doomed campaign. She was not sure of her own identity. Black first, Indian second. She was stuck between the devil and a hard place. She could not, in conscience, distance herself from Biden’s failures. And if she had she would have been a traitor.

BBC

The Harris campaign had hoped to reassemble the voting base that powered Biden’s 2020 victory, winning over the core Democratic constituencies of black, Latino and young voters as well as making further gains with college-educated suburban voters. But she underperformed with these key voting blocs. She lost 13 points with Latino voters, two points with black voters, and six points with voters under 30, according to exit polls, which may change as votes are counted, but are considered representative of trends. …

While women largely threw their support behind Harris over Trump, the vice-president’s lead did not exceed the margins that her campaign had hoped her historic candidacy would turn out. And she was unable to deliver on her ambitions of winning over suburban Republican women, losing 53% of white women. ….. In the first presidential election since the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion, Democrats had hoped her focus on the fight for reproductive rights would deliver a decisive victory. While some 54% of female voters cast their ballots for Harris, it fell short of the 57% who backed Biden in 2020, according to exit poll data. …….

In the final stretch, however, Harris made a tactical decision to again highlight the dangers of a second Trump presidency, calling the president a “fascist” and campaigning with disaffected Republicans fed up with his rhetoric. After Trump’s former White House Chief of Staff, John Kelly, told the New York Times that Trump spoke approvingly about Adolf Hitler, Harris delivered remarks outside her official residence describing the president as “unhinged and unstable”. “Kamala Harris lost this election when she pivoted to focus almost exclusively on attacking Donald Trump,” veteran Republican pollster Frank Luntz said ……

The perception here is that most of the legal cases against Trump were brought by Democratic prosecutors on a witch hunt. I suspect they actually helped the resolve of his die-hard supporters and even engendered the “Trump as victim” meme. Trump’s undoubted vulgarity has been largely discounted by the US electorate. Trump as misogynist does not quite wash. He certainly has no time or patience with feminism without femininity. His view of women is that of a playboy – not that of a misogynist.

I was not surprised at the result. Certainly, in my opinion, the direction for the US and for the world is better off with Trump than with Kamala Harris. I think the Democrats need to ask themselves how it can be that the Presidency, the Senate and maybe even the House will all be Red in spite of Trump. They are so blinkered by the freaky woke that they are missing the real issues.

With Trump I am expecting some more protectionism and a little less globalism. That is a good thing. A little more bilateralism and a little less multinationalism. That is not a bad thing either. I expect small businesses to fuel growth much more than large global companies. This will trickle down to other countries as well. I hope that the parasitic part of academia in the US shrinks by purging itself of all the nonsense sociology departments and students.  I look forward to the US reverting to common sense and walking back some of the freaky wokery that has been indulged in. I am expecting that the Russian/Ukraine war will come to an end in 2025 – somehow. The terms may not be to the EU’s liking but it will end. The fighting will come to a stop in Gaza as well and Netanyahu will step down.

I am now looking for a bunch of Hollywood stars to relocate to houses on the Mediterranean coast. Not that they matter.