The Royal Society was founded in 1660 and stands as probably the most august academy of sciences in the West. Of course, by science we do not simply mean test tubes and geiger counters, but all manner of knowledge claims subject to rigorous interrogation and that hold our esteem as such.
But ICYMI, and since I think we've discussed Emma Hilton's rather "unscientific" definitions for the sexes, you might note in the following that she has apparently deleted her rather questionable tweet thereon:
Oh yes, 2023 has seen a fair few deletions of that sort. I think 2024 will be the year of revision to some extent. Maybe they'll start listening, but I doubt it. Speak to the the gallery, not the opposition. That's my motto.
"The dislocations experienced around gender identity ideology have revealed the great threat couched in abnegation of the scientific disposition."
Amen to that. Will probably have further comments later, but you might have some interest in this recent comment of mine which underlines your points there and elsewhere:
Quote:
"... for residents who identify as men or women."
So some bearded, dick-swinging dude who "self-identifies" as a woman can now use the ladies loos? What a pretentious and quite antiscientific phrase:
Someone "recognizing or deciding that they belong to a particular category" when they clearly don't is prima facie evidence of perpetrating a fraud or of rank insanity. Rather depressing that many governmental institutions are endorsing and promoting both.
Some serious pathologies that come in under the rubric of transgenderism. Fascinating but with some serious social consequences as your Nullis in Verba post underlines.
ICYMI, though can't say I've more than skimmed the book:
Joanna Williams', "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology:
👍🙂 Been thinking of reading more of it, and maybe doing a review if I can find the time and energy.
But I'd used it as a point of reference in my post on "Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology" -- Britain's, New Zealand's, and, I'm sad to say, Canada's own:
Link therein to a Google Docs PDF of what I'd submitted to Canada's department objecting to their "call for consultation" on the topic. Hard not to get the impression that "gender" -- as, at best, some sort of "system" for quantifying sexually dimorphic personality types -- is only marginally better than phrenology and astrology.
Profoundly depressing -- and quite infuriating -- that many if not most of our Statistics Departments are peddling such antiscientific claptrap. The "abnegation of the scientific disposition", indeed.
IMHO science turned left, on its way to become the religion of scientism, when Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, et al insisted on dogmatic acceptance ofthe falsehood that human intelligence is not inherited.
I suppose that I could identify as a Royal Bengal Tiger, but the water buffalo would still laugh at me.
🙂 Reality and Illusion. Being X versus "Identifying-as" X:
https://medium.com/@steersmann/reality-and-illusion-being-vs-identifying-as-77f9618b17c7
But ICYMI, and since I think we've discussed Emma Hilton's rather "unscientific" definitions for the sexes, you might note in the following that she has apparently deleted her rather questionable tweet thereon:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/the-spergy-letter-project
Oh yes, 2023 has seen a fair few deletions of that sort. I think 2024 will be the year of revision to some extent. Maybe they'll start listening, but I doubt it. Speak to the the gallery, not the opposition. That's my motto.
Indeed, though Substack was "supposed to be" less susceptible to that.
But reminds me of Charles MacKay:
"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/289693-men-it-has-been-well-said-think-in-herds-it
"The dislocations experienced around gender identity ideology have revealed the great threat couched in abnegation of the scientific disposition."
Amen to that. Will probably have further comments later, but you might have some interest in this recent comment of mine which underlines your points there and elsewhere:
Quote:
"... for residents who identify as men or women."
So some bearded, dick-swinging dude who "self-identifies" as a woman can now use the ladies loos? What a pretentious and quite antiscientific phrase:
https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/identify-as
Someone "recognizing or deciding that they belong to a particular category" when they clearly don't is prima facie evidence of perpetrating a fraud or of rank insanity. Rather depressing that many governmental institutions are endorsing and promoting both.
Unquote
Link for background:
https://firsttoilthenthegrave.substack.com/p/contra-deboer-on-transgender-issues/comment/47234373
"recognizing or deciding that they belong to a particular category"
Fence-sitting. Sneaky gits.
Some serious pathologies that come in under the rubric of transgenderism. Fascinating but with some serious social consequences as your Nullis in Verba post underlines.
ICYMI, though can't say I've more than skimmed the book:
Joanna Williams', "The Corrosive Impact of Transgender Ideology:
https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/2454-A-The-Corrosive-Impact-of-TI-ppi-110-WEB.pdf
I know it well :)
👍🙂 Been thinking of reading more of it, and maybe doing a review if I can find the time and energy.
But I'd used it as a point of reference in my post on "Statistics Departments Corrupted by Gender Ideology" -- Britain's, New Zealand's, and, I'm sad to say, Canada's own:
https://humanuseofhumanbeings.substack.com/p/statistics-departments-corrupted
Link therein to a Google Docs PDF of what I'd submitted to Canada's department objecting to their "call for consultation" on the topic. Hard not to get the impression that "gender" -- as, at best, some sort of "system" for quantifying sexually dimorphic personality types -- is only marginally better than phrenology and astrology.
Profoundly depressing -- and quite infuriating -- that many if not most of our Statistics Departments are peddling such antiscientific claptrap. The "abnegation of the scientific disposition", indeed.
IMHO science turned left, on its way to become the religion of scientism, when Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, et al insisted on dogmatic acceptance ofthe falsehood that human intelligence is not inherited.