The new heretics

In G.K. Chesterton’s day, it was not necessary to qualify the word “Liberal” with “Classical.”

Culture and political designations have changed. Verities, by definition, have not.

Five score and seventeen years after it was published, this resonates. It requires a careful reading:

“Truths turn into dogmas the instant that they are disputed. Thus every man who utters a doubt defines a religion. And the scepticism of our time does not really destroy the beliefs, rather it creates them; gives them their limits and their plain and defiant shape. We who are Liberals once held Liberalism lightly as a truism. Now it has been disputed, and we hold it fiercely as a faith. We who believe in patriotism once thought patriotism to be reasonable, and thought little more about it. Now we know it to be unreasonable, and know it to be right. We who are Christians never knew the great philosophic common sense which inheres in that mystery until the anti-Christian writers pointed it out to us. The great march of mental destruction will go on. Everything will be denied. Everything will become a creed. It is a reasonable position to deny the stones in the street; it will be a religious dogma to assert them. It is a rational thesis that we are all in a dream; it will be a mystical sanity to say that we are all awake. Fires will be kindled to testify that two and two make four. Swords will be drawn to prove that leaves are green in summer. We shall be left defending, not only the incredible virtues and sanities of human life, but something more incredible still, this huge impossible universe which stares us in the face. We shall fight for visible prodigies as if they were invisible. We shall look on the impossible grass and the skies with a strange courage. We shall be of those who have seen and yet have believed.”

G.K. Chesterton, Heretics, 1905

It is indeed strange that by 2022 courage is required contend that 2+2 is 4. The idea has been declared racist and patriarchal. We’re told simple arithmetic is an artifact of white privilege.

One may speculate that the hue of the impossible grass has been excluded from Progressive contempt only because that color is ‘green.’ And/or because neither white nor asian heterosexual males have mentioned it lately.

As to strange courage… How can it require courage to oppose those who declare men to be women?

Why is courage needed to suggest government profligacy tends toward inflation?

From whence could courage be summoned to contest those who think human life begins only after a full 9 months gestation?

In what reality does the idea that self-defense is a natural right become a courageous position?

What’s even stranger… these ideas have public support. In ‘safe’ districts hoary politicians run on these these ideas. Their wannabe successors echo the themes. Many of them are elected in spite of it. In fact, because of it.

What we can conclude is that our practice of democracy has proved Tocqueville right, and Benjamin Franklin’s fears accurate.

The existential threat of the Perfumed Princes

Our President has lately been fear mongering about climate change as “a clear and present danger.” A “threat to national security.”

He wouldn’t recognize such a threat even if his handlers wrote it on his mentalprompter. And stamped it on his palm with a branding iron.

He seeks to invoke emergency powers to accomplish AOC’s Green New Deal. That ‘deal’ our Federal legislators will not countenance.

Joe Biden is valorizing higher energy costs (and the consequent disproportionate suffering from food and goods shortages, employment shrinkage, and lessened government ability to respond)… as a defense of democracy.

He is playing the race/transphobe/climate-catastrophe cards all at once.

‘Climate change’ is the magic intersectional trump card – it’s claimed to disproportionately affect people of color, the 51% of our people who are actually female, the shrinking proportion of our population who are children. A group the President has abused in person, over decades, with his sniffing fetish; and now generally via his promotion of puberty blockers.

An actual threat to national security posed by the President’s governance (and I use the term loosely) is the cadre of Perfumed Princes in the Pentagon

General Mark “Thoroughly Modern” Milley is the Patchouli poster child for those military CNN gig seeking, poseurs, wokies, stalwarts the President encourages to focus on proper pronoun usage, critical theory, and free transgender transition surgery for service members. If you missed the ‘member’ pun, assume it wasn’t intended.

Salon, a lefty rag, noticed the trend as long as long ago as 1999:
How the grunts are betrayed by the U.S. Army’s “perfumed princes”

Our ability to maintain a volunteer military has suffered since.

America’s woke Army is facing a recruiting nightmare

No one wants to join the military anymore

US Army Abandons Recruitment Goals, But Not Its Woke Policies

The Great American Military Rebrand

The Next Republican President Must Fix the Military First

Priorities: U.S. Military Base Is Hosting a Drag Show

West Point is going woke, alumnus warns

That is all.

Dominatricks

I remain mystified. How has NCAA women’s basketball avoided a tsunami of Males Pretending to be Females? That’s MPtbF, for short.

NCAA is an organization that moves tournaments and championship games out of states daring to impede the destruction of women’s sports by trans ‘women’. They are fully committed to this phantasmic policy. They have abandoned any defense against MPtbF who want to play basketball against females in NCAA sanctioned contests.

When will MPtbF start seeking some of the billion dollars in NCAA women’s basketball scholarships?

My puzzlement was not reduced by discovering that the first MPtbF to play women’s basketball in the NCAA won’t be the first, by a longshot, to play at a college. Mission College, Santa Clara, CA had a male playing for their women’s basketball team nearly a decade ago. Under the aegis of the California Community College Athletic Association.

He was 50, so his implied lack of speed and/or stamina could have accounted for his less than stellar first season.

In that 2012-2013 season he wasn’t very good. In 18 games Gabrielle Ludwig never started and averaged 5.9 points, 4.4 rebounds, and just under 11 minutes playing time. He got a lot better in his second season: In 26 games Ludwig started in 23 and averaged 18 points, 20 rebounds, and 28.5 minutes playing time. AndIn the 2013-2014 season Gabrielle was voted First Team All-Conference player…

In the 2013-2014 season not only did some female fail to make the team, another sat on the bench. To indulge Gabrielle Ludwig.

Here’s Ludwig compared to ‘her’ ‘peers’:

That physical difference above is not distorted by the perspective:

Alas, the time when you could get away with the sneer quotes around ‘woman’ is past:
50-year-old transsexual ‘woman’ makes college basketball debut

Central Valley Conference, Commissioner Logan McKechnie said, while Luwdig is tall, his state certification as a female is all that matters. “I don’t think, frankly, fairness enters into it,” he said.

Another commissioner, Dale Murray of the Coast Conference, believes Ludwig is evenly matched with his competitors and “just happens to be a bit taller than everyone else.”

Others question whether a player with Ludwig’s attributes belong in an all-female sport.

One of the people Ludwig faced off against in a recent game described his style as “real physical.”

Ya think? He’d be pretty physical just standing there if you were 5’5″ and 115 pounds.

He was 6’8″ and 220 pounds. A foot taller, and twice the weight of most of his opponents. If it was a typical 18 year old of any sex against a typical 12 year old of any sex, they’d call an administrators meeting to decry bullying and hire another diversity officer.

Fairness, indeed, isn’t a word you could employ. Nor ’embarrassment.’ Nor ‘shame.’ Narcissism? Sure.

There’s a sympathetic USA Today story that indicates Ludwig wanted to play because he loved competitive basketball. I don’t know about you but my definition of competitive includes a large dose of ‘fair’.

Playing against women, in front of spectators, was at least as important to him as a love of the game. He could have played in a pickup league.

I don’t care about Ludwig’s perception of his body, it’s his business. I do care that he, and the state of California, felt he had a right to play basketball against shorter, smaller, weaker opponents – by taking the place of another. He is not a woman physiologically, so his mental state was what was made to matter for his opponents, teammates, and CA taxpayers.

Check out Save Women’s Sports for the physiology point. No amount of testosterone deprivation or surgery could make Ludwig a woman.

hOOPS!

I don’t want to give anybody ideas here, but I am sorely puzzled by NCAA women’s basketball.

Last Sunday I surfed TV looking for a summary/highlights of the Michigan Wolverines pasting of the Iowa Hawkeyes in the ‘B1G’ men’s football (that sex qualifier may seem redundant, but I await the demand for a women’s football program under Title IX) conference championship game.

I settled on the Big Fourteen Ten network as a likely intelligence source on the assumption they’d be less likely, immediately post-football championship, to be screening reruns of women’s field hockey or some tour of the conference’s campus restaurants.

I was disappointed to find myself watching Michigan State vs Iowa women’s basketball. It was late in the game so I hung around to see if the men’s football news would appear when it was over.

I don’t know if women’s collegiate basketball is just Title IX messing with me, but “throws like a girl” has to take an insult back seat to “shoots like a girl.” I know women who are pretty good softball players, they could play on men’s teams without embarrassment.

None of the women playing basketball for Michigan State or Iowa could spell ‘jockstrap.’ This paucity of talent seemed unlikely to be concentrated in these two presumedly elite teams, so I went straight to the most elite women’s basketball source. Was WNBA talent any better? This video (5 min), admittedly cherry-picked WNBA lowlights, suggests not so much. But it was like watching MSU/IU.

I was led down a rabbit hole of research, since I haven’t watched a pro basketball game featuring either sex in twenty years.

There are ~144 WNBA players (~450 in the NBA), and the top 10% or so of WNBA players are conceivably good enough for limited play in the NBA. This small number explains the collegiate women’s basketball ineptitude. Females, on average, just aren’t very good at basketball. I sympathize. Neither am I.

For example of a player, here’s Elena Delle Donne, a 6’5″, 187 pound power forward and perennial WNBA star. An NBA equivalent might be Kevin Durant (6′ 10″ 240 lbs).

Comparing the NBA and WNBA is not apples to oranges, these are both apples. However, it’s like a Granny Smith vs. a Golden Delicious. The NBA, for example, has a smaller ball to hoop ratio, shorter shot clock, longer 3-point range, a longer game time, longer season, and longer play-offs. I digress. Back to the actual point of this post.

We know why males pretending to be females are not playing women’s football.

But, I asked myself, why aren’t MPtbF playing women’s basketball? The impact would be huge. I can’t figure out why there is no trans assault on NCAA women’s basketball.

Third rate males could change, read ‘destroy overnight’, female basketball. Where are they? MPtbF are ruining track and field, weight lifting, rugby, Mixed Martial Arts, and swimming for female athletes. Why aren’t they eliminating females from women’s basketball competition?

Can it be that women’s basketball is protected somehow by our Universities?

Well, not because it’s a cash cow. NCAA men’s 2019 basketball revenuewas $933,000,000 vs. women’s $266,000. Women’s revenue does not rise to the level of a rounding error. Still, scholarships for each are a billion dollars. There is an approximate total of 4300 scholarships offered in Division I Basketball for Men. There are 5025 scholarships available across women’s Division I basketball. There’s money on the table for MPtbF.

Maybe because basketball is popular enough to have a higher embarrassment profile? Watching men play basketball against women on national television would create much more negative publicity than swim meets of which very few are even aware.

But why would that stop them, and how would they get away with stopping it?

Can there be some aspect of the sport so repellant to MPtbF as to prevent even one from suing over their exclusion?

Anybody have a suggestion? I got nothin’.

A note to feminists on de-platforming

Perhaps you’ve spent your career arguing for the protection of women from rape, domestic assault, and female genital mutilation. Perhaps you’ve fought to make women’s shelters safe, sex-segregated spaces. I salute you.

Perhaps you were even a speaker at the conference discussing single-sex spaces put on by Woman’s Place UK in Portsmouth, where trans activist protestors waved signs ranging from the benign (“Trans Lives Matter!”), to the acidulous (“Suck My D*ck, You Transphobic C*nts!”). That is, ranging from an attempt to hijack mundane BLM sentiment to a rapist’s summary of why trans activism is not merely incoherent, but deeply misogynist. They want to cancel your entire sex.

This de-platforming ritual was conducted by men pretending to be women for… well, probably for reasons in addition to being able to parade around naked in women’s shower rooms – but that is one of the main outcomes of their passion.

I am all-in on your side in this particular struggle. There are two sexes. Go TERFS!

However.

Perhaps you have uncritically reinforced the hoax of increased violence against women during the Superbowl, perhaps you have recited the utter fallacy that the “rule of thumb” referred to English law allowing men to beat their wives with a stick no greater in diameter than the thumb, perhaps you refuse to acknowledge the gaping holes in the claim that women are paid 73% (or whatever it is today) of what men are paid, perhaps you say “Hands up! Don’t shoot!,” in response to anyone questioning BLM/CRT. That means you celebrate ‘misinformation’, practice fake historical revisionism, push equality of outcome, and then combine all of those things to score political points and quash anyone who disgarees. These ideas come from somewhere close to home for you. The trannies are just taking the next logically absurd step.

Perhaps you now have more insight into where promoting such unexamined tribalism leads. And it isn’t protection of women.

Losing the TERF War

THE WAR ON STANDARDS, WOKE U.S. ARMY EDITION

The U.S. Army apparently has decided to gender-norm scores on the test it administers for combat fitness… women will be judged based on how they perform in relation to other women.

This radical change is a response to the unsurprising fact that women are failing the Army’s combat fitness test to a disproportionate extent. The test in question evaluates soldiers in six events: dead lifts, a two-mile run, push-ups, a shuttle run, a medicine ball throw and leg tucks, in which soldiers must hang from a bar and bring their knees to their elbows. About 54 percent of women and 7 percent of men failed the test last year.

Wait a minute. If trans women ARE women, every soldier is potentially a woman. But biological females can’t compete on the same physical fitness curve as biological males?

The NCAA could not be reached for comment.

A league of their own?

You know those very annoying CAPTCHAs – nine blurry images arranged in a 3×3 square that ask you to click on all the fire hydrants, or buses, or crosswalks, etc., etc. – to prove you’re “not a robot”?

CAPTCHA is a lame acronym, iteratively cross-dressed into: “Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart.”

Well, today I’m giving you the first look at the “Other Club Turing test to Unautomatedly separate the Guys from the Gals,” or OCTUGG. TOC doesn’t employ a team of highly paid acronym inventors.

OCTUGG has only 4 choices instead of 9, and hi-res images so the yellow fire hydrant isn’t camouflaged by the school bus in the background. You might think it’s simpler and clearer than CAPTCHA.

We’ll see. Your job is is to think about which images below you’d click given the instruction: “Click on all the males.”

The correct answer is click all of them.

Upper left to lower right, they are Laurel Hubbard, Hanna Mouncey, Kataluna Enriquez, and Fallon Fox. All transwomen. Three of them claim to be female athletes. Three of them are narcissistic bullies. One is a paler, slimmer rendition of RuPaul.

Laurel Hubbard is a Kiwi weight lifter, who set womens’ world records – keeping an XX chromosome female off the medals podium. Hanna Mouncey is an Aussie rugby player (6’2″/220) who has significantly injured more than a few women. Kataluna Enriquez is a Nevada beauty pageant winner (Miss Silver State), about to compete for Miss Nevada. And Fallon Fox is an American MMA fighter who broke an XX chromosome opponent’s eye socket in a fight even Liz Warren would not have called fair.

So. It’s not as easy to identify who should be allowed to play on your collegiate women’s sports teams as the South Dakota legislature assumed.

I mean, Miss Silver State isn’t going to be recruited to the wrestling team even by some woke athletic director. If they had a female wrestling team. Only the males capable of crushing females would be of interest. Fleeting interest, once all the marginal males figure out they can be stars in strength and speed competition with females.

Let them compete, I say. With each other. Out and proud, right?

Emphasis mine in the following. Parker citation link omitted. The science is settled in the case of human sexual dimorphism. There are two sexes. The scientific definition of this is that human:

[f]emale gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we define females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972), and the same definition applies to the female and male functions in hermaphrodites.

There is a longer discussion of this here: Gamete competition, gamete limitation, and the evolution of the two sexes

Why are there girls and why are there boys? We review theoretical work which suggests that divergence into just two sexes is an almost inevitable consequence of sexual reproduction in complex multicellular organisms, and is likely to be driven largely by gamete competition. In this context we prefer to use the term gamete competition instead of sperm competition, as sperm only exist after the sexes have already diverged (Lessells et al., 2009). To see this, we must be clear about how the two sexes are defined in a broad sense: males are those individuals that produce the smaller gametes (e.g. sperm), while females are defined as those that produce the larger gametes (e.g. Parker et al., 1972; Bell, 1982; Lessells et al., 2009; Togashi and Cox, 2011). Of course, in many species a whole suite of secondary sexual traits exists, but the fundamental definition is rooted in this difference in gametes, and the question of the origin of the two sexes is then equal to the question of why do gametes come in two different sizes.

The secondary sexual characteristics, of course, are where we get into errors like those of the South Dakota legislature. It isn’t always obvious who is male and who is female. They might as well have tried to set height and weight limits, akin to the strictures we place on youth sport by banding the competitors in age groups.

Or they could try a routine genetic test. No more intrusive than vaccine passports.