Category Archives: Science

Why Emphasizing the Exceptions Over the Rule is Dumb, Lacks Self-Awareness, and Gives False Hope

Thinking Mouse: Also, why do you use the Feynman example as a minimum? He’s an ultra exception?

Didn’t he get a Nobel? Well, if he did, he is interesting because I suppose that is a threshold effect. But bringing him up over and over to prove some point is dumb.

You must understand that Feynman scored the highest score ever on the Physics entry exam to his university. A number of his other tests in physics were completely off the charts. So Feynman was like a 190 IQ in Physics. Feynman was weak on verbal. People who have access to his notes have observed frequent spelling, punctuation and grammar errors.

So using the Feynman example that “any 125 IQ person can win a Nobel” is just stupid. Can a 125 IQ person win the Nobel Prize? Sure, maybe in Physics. But all you need is a 190 IQ when it comes to Physics. How many 125 IQ people have that? Zero? That’s what I thought.

And it gives false hope to a lot of people while de-emphasizing the importance of intelligence to others. To allow a 100 IQ person to go to university without telling them or at least knowing yourself that they will have to work very hard is irresponsible. To allow someone with an IQ below 115 to even entertain the possibility of getting a PhD or an MD is the height of irresponsibility. I mean it’s hard to tell people these things, but you can always let them go find out for themselves and learn the hard way. But giving people false hope is stupid, cruel, and a waste of time and resources.

The Greeks said, “To know thine own self is the rule.” One of the purposes of life is to know yourself or finally understand yourself, your strengths, your weaknesses, the whole nine yards. Not understanding yourself and always overestimating how good you are at this or that is ridiculous.

Most people I know do not know themselves well at all, even far into their 50’s. This is ridiculous. “I am good at this” or “I am not good at that,” takes a lot of bravery that most folks just don’t have. This is a problem because always overestimating what you can do leads to a lot of time and effort wasted on useless projects and further leads to a lot of frustration and depression when you inevitably fail.

11 Comments

Filed under Education, Higher Education, Intelligence, Philosophy, Psychology, Science

How IQ Limits You in School and Life

Rahul: Robert, there are professors with IQ’s in the 90’s out there. There are scientists too, and many other professions.

You are being very IQ deterministic. IQ does carry some merit, but it’s not the only thing. Also, intelligence can span from many different things. Intelligence is the ability to learn. People with Low IQ’s are very street smart, more so than high IQ folks. Musical intelligence exists too, many low IQ blacks are excellent rappers. Mechanical intelligence, not every high IQ fella can fix shit with their hands.

There’s this article on Grey Enlightenment on illusory superiority. It’s a phenomenal article.

Also, you can increase your IQ, it’s not fixed at all. Just because most people don’t increase it doesn’t mean that it’s impossible. Some people get pretty big gains too.

For a degree, you only need an average IQ.

For a masters too, only an average.

Even for a PhD, you only need average.

Hell, for the Nobel, you probably don’t need a monstrously high IQ either.

There are almost zero university professors with IQ’s in the 90’s. I dare you to show me one university professor with an IQ at that level. With an IQ in the 90’s, you will have a difficult time getting a BA, for Chrissake.

Show me one “scientist” anywhere with an IQ in the 90’s. One.

You don’t realize that IQ is intelligence. By attacking IQ, you attack the very concept of human intelligence itself.

Street smarts, musical and mechanical knowledge alone won’t get you through university or a job as a professor or scientist. As an aside, most very good musicians are quite intelligent. We think Blacks are stupid, but I have read interviews with great Black blues musicians who no one would ever think would be smart, and I was shocked at how smart they were. I read an interview with Miles Davis, and it almost knocked me on the floor. He’s at least as smart as I am.

I am always shocked at how smart auto mechanics are. They’re not book smart intellectuals, but I haven’t met a stupid mechanic yet, and I’ve met more than I can count. We think they are just stupid grease monkeys, and they don’t act all that smart, but those guys are wicked smart. I saw a chart once and I was shocked at how many auto mechanics had IQ’s of over 130. That will literally put you in the gifted program at school.

I met a man the other day whose job was fixing the slot machines in gambling houses. I was stunned at how smart he was. I could tell he was smart very fast just by looking at his eyes, listening to his speech and just seeing how sheer fast he was.

After age 18, IQ doesn’t go up much at all. Nor does it lower much either. IQ is even preserved in alcoholism, believe it or not. It can damage your brain, but IQ is typically preserved somehow.

Show me one person who got an over 15 IQ gain in adulthood. I would even like to see someone who got 15 points. I’ve heard it’s possible, but I’ve never known anyone who did that.

An average IQ of 100 will not get you a BA. You will struggle a lot, and you will simply not be able to understand a lot of the material. Many 100 IQ people will drop out of the university. You need a minimum 105 IQ to get a BA. You need a 110 IQ to get one relatively easily.

I definitely don’t see how you easily get an MA with an average IQ. I have known people who seemed to do it, but they were schoolteachers getting more or less bullshit Education MA’s, the easiest MA’s out there. And this woman that I knew had to have her attorney mother write most of her papers for her, otherwise she would never have passed.

I was in a Master’s program and there didn’t seem to be a lot of average IQ folks in there. Some of them were smarter than I was, or at least they were better at the material. For a Master’s, you will ever struggle at a 105-107 IQ. You won’t understand a lot of the material, and you will have a high likelihood of dropout, assuming you can even get in anyway, as you have to pass the GRE, and it is hard to pass the GRE with average intelligence. I would want a 115 IQ to get a Master’s degree, and even then it will be hard.

You need a minimum 115 IQ to get a PhD, and even then, you will not understand a lot of the material and you will have a high tendency to flunk out. You want a 125 IQ to get a PhD. If you have an IQ below 115, in all likelihood you will simply not be able to get a PhD unless you have an extremely lopsided IQ.

Most Nobel Prize winners have IQ’s of over 145. They’ve been studied.

18 Comments

Filed under Alcohol, Blacks, Depressants, Education, Higher Education, Intelligence, Intoxicants, Labor, Music, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Science

All the Ways That IQ Is Relevant to Society

Intelligent Mouse: By “relevant for society” i meant relevant for economics. IQ can matter for many reasons, like for example just being interested in any form of scientific rigor in understand behavior could make it relevant to an individual as the person would seek for all (or at least most) alternatives in models.

But lets investigate some of the potencial usage of intelligence meassurments and see how IQ tests meassure up.

Measuring potential school performance:

Some small amount of years in school will already give the teachers or parents ample information about their prospects, but also traits that make IQ more productive in synthesis:
https://books.google.se/books?id=SCyEAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=Layzer+(1973:+238)&source=bl&ots=9Rf9sy0Jd6&sig=WjWMXZsLTGLGy7SS7JSZQ9RLmNE&hl=sv&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjl0q7t78fdAhUQpIsKHXb7AFsQ6AEwAXoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=Layzer%20(1973%3A%20238)&f=false

Job performance:

Well, IQ correlates around 0.3 with job performance, but the measurement is subjective so it might capture some things that correlate with social-class and therefore IQ.

Eugenics:

Pleitropy and polygenic structures makes eugenics by swapping SNPs impractical. Breeding programs can only do so much without further molecular biology knowledge. Twin studies seem kinda ridiculous:

Twin Studies, Adoption Studies, and Fallacious Reasoning

And i also agree with:

Behavior Genetics and the Fallacy of Nature vs Nurture

and (which is what GWAS interested behavioral geneticists like Steven Hsu agree on):

Height and IQ Genes

making eugenics very hard. If we already knew the mechanisms behind

Testing mental health:

This is actually the best use of IQ, as decreasing IQ is indicative of loss in brain stuff.

Criterion validity and correlation:

I also think that IQ´s criterion validity lies on shaky grounds when its founded on correlations that are only tested in narrow environments, essentially just creating the same correlation again and again without testing the methodological validity by testing the correlation appropriately. to test correlation appropriately would find anomalies in the pure environmentalist approach (or any level of conviction to environmental explanations) or finding causal IQ relationships (which Environmentalists have done).

I’m not really an IQ denier though, i think there probably is an range of IQ that any given person can inhabit, but the fact of individuals sticking around the mean makes it hard to know who could be where, especially in such large and genetically similar groups like economic classes and races. Some people are obviously extreme, but as previously stated, we don’t need IQ tests to know that.

And whats to say that smart people have high IQ? IQ is contingent on G, but all of my criticisms on IQ are pretty much equally (for better or worse) valid against G.

I see no use in IQ if not for future developments. Its an unfinished project at best.

 

I do not think that people realize what they are criticizing when they attack IQ. For IQ is simply the best measure we have for measuring intelligence in human beings. No better test has ever been devised. So when you criticize IQ as a concept, you are actually criticizing human intelligence itself. Do you IQ critics who say IQ is not that important really want to say that human intelligence is not important for human beings? Because that is exactly what you are saying.

You realize IQ correlates very well with all sorts of things, right?

Percentage of country that are college grads. % of college grads rises with rising IQ.

Grades in college, SAT. Good correlation between college grades, SAT scores and IQ.

Wealth of society. As IQ rises, societies tend to become more wealthy. As IQ falls to a low level, you can end up with extreme poverty, a lot of crime and chaos, rampant disease, and sometimes even a failed state.

State of the infrastructure of society. Infrastructure of society improves as IQ rises. People and society are more likely to maintain things. When IQ falls to a low level, people often do not know how to fix broken infrastructure and there is a tendency to jerry rig or do temporary quick and dirty fixes to problems that last for a bit but then fail again.

Civilizational level of society. As IQ rises, societies appear more civilized. As it drops to a low level, countries can appear downright barbarous.

Crime rate of society: As IQ rises, the nation’s crime rate falls.

Whether or not you will go to jail or prison and how long: As IQ falls,  you are more likely to be imprisoned and for longer.

Whether you will go on welfare programs. As IQ falls, welfare use increases.

Whether you will get an advanced degree. As IQ rises, advanced degrees become more common.

Income (up to a certain level). Income rises in tandem with IQ up to 125-130, after which it falls

Accident rate. As IQ falls, people get into many more accidents, some fatal. Includes car crashes, recreational accidents, accidents at home, etc.

Hospitalization rates. As IQ rises, people are hospitalized less often.

Rates of alcoholism and serious drug abuse. As IQ rises, rates of drug and alcohol abuse fall.

The environment you create for your children. As IQ rises, parents create better environments for their children.

Stability for chaotic nature of your surroundings. Even if you look at it on a neighborhood level, as IQ rises, the neighborhood becomes calmer, sometimes nearly to the point of being boring. Yet only three miles away, a large group of apartment complexes housing many low wage workers has a lot of noise, a general chaotic atmosphere, frequent police calls, a lot of yelling and screaming coming from homes, more frequent and more chaotic parties, more violence, more residential crime, and more drug and alcohol abuse.

Domestic violence rates. Domestic violence falls precipitously as IQ rises. Men at the highest IQ levels seldom beat their wives. As IQ falls down to a low level, domestic violence becomes commonplace to the point where most men are beating their wives.

17 Comments

Filed under Accidents, Alcohol, Biology, Corrections, Crime, Culture, Depressants, Economics, Education, Eugenics, Genetics, Health, Higher Education, Illness, Intelligence, Intoxicants, Law enforcement, Psychology, Science, Social Problems, Sociology

Alt Left: Identity Politics is Based on Postmodernist Obscurantism

All modern Identity Politics movements, including feminism, are infected with postmodernism, hence the answer to a lot of questions is,

“There is no answer to that question…There’s no way to determine that…That’s not a question that can be answered by science…That’s not a matter that science can investigate…”

All IP groups are like this. All the important questions can never be answered, there are no truths because exceptions prove that truths don’t exist, there are no facts, there are no statistics to be measured and all statistics to be gathered are to be questioned on the grounds of false data, etc.

1 Comment

Filed under Left, Philosophy, Politics, Science

Alt Left: How Many Men Are Gay, Bisexual and Straight, and How Common is Homosexual Behavior in Men?

It’s been a longstanding shibboleth in the gay community that all men are basically bisexual and with straight guys, all you need to do is seduce them into their natural tendency. First of all, the common myth that everyone is bisexual, attributed to Freud, is just not true.

The best study I found, of medical students in Australia, found that 62% of men are completely straight, with the remaining 38% having some degree of bisexual attraction. If nothing else, this rather shocking figure should serve to normalize the notion of many straight men having at least some homosexual attraction. 40% is a lot of people. It’s almost half.

However, most of that 38% were made up of straight men with maximal attraction towards women and only minor or incidental attraction towards men. On a scale of 0-100, with 100-0 being completely straight and 0-100 being completely gay, most of that 38% were made up of 90-10 and 80-20 men. A very large number of these men will go their whole lives and never act on  their minor homosexual attraction. As long as they are extremely turned on by women, there’s no need to feed your curiosity about gay sex.

Once you get to 70-30’s and 60-40’s, you are starting to get into more of your true bisexuals. But even these men are straight leaning. I would imagine quite a few of those men have at least tried gay sex. 50-50’s or true bisexuals are very rare in both men and women, constituting only 1% for each gender. The longstanding old wisdom about bisexuals, that I even learned from my own mother (born in 1932), was that most bisexuals tended to lean one way or the other, often strongly.

Anyway, of all men who have some attraction to other men, 80% of them lean straight. So 80% of “bisexual” men (in attraction anyway) lean straight. Which is quite an interesting figure.

But it makes sense when you realize that 93% of all men are maximally attracted to women. Heterosexuality or maximal attraction to females is nearly the norm in almost all human males. Only 7% of men are maximally attracted to men, and only 2% of all men are gay. So strong attraction to other males only effects a tiny number of men, barely more than 5%. Gay men or even gay-leaning bisexual men are extreme outliers among human males.

6% of men are either gay or gay-learning bisexuals, which is interesting as this figure is higher than what most surveys come up with.

But there is a good argument that a lot of people lie in phone or face to face surveys. In particular, many lie about homosexual attraction or behavior, and it is very common to lie about hard drug use. So there’s typically a lot more hard drug use or homosexual/bisexual behavior or even identity than the typical survey finds.

How do we know this? Because of one study which was done completely blind. Subjects were in a closed room with a computer entering answers. They were assured that they each would only be given a number and no one doing the study would know what any subject entered. So subjects felt that this was a completely anonymous survey.

Subjects were young college-aged men in Ontario, Canada. The results were very interesting.

A whopping 13% of these men had had gay sex in the past six months, even though most of that 13% identified as straight or straight-leaning. That was considered current homosexual activity. So an incredible 13% of these young men were currently having gay sex. That is a very high figure for current homosexual behavior in men, one of the highest I have ever seen. This implies that there might be a Hell of a lot more gay sex going on than we think, and most of the hidden gay sex involves straight or straight-leaning men, and possibly most of those engaging in this hidden sex are very young men, with rates presumably dropping as men age.

And the rates of heroin and PCP use were also quite high. ~4% had used heroin and ~3% had used PCP. These figures were 3-4 higher than the typically found figures of 1%.

Anyway, no, all men are not bisexual, the difference between a straight man and a gay is not a six-pack of beer, etc. This is all just wishful thinking and solipsism on their part. The gay men are acting like solipsistic women. They are very attracted to men, so therefore all other men must also be attracted to men too. Solipsism is a problem with boundaries where the boundaries between the self and say half the population dissolve. People like this just can’t believe that anyone would think differently from themselves.

1 Comment

Filed under Australia, Canada, Dissociative Anesthetics, Dope, Gender Studies, Heroin, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Intoxicants, Left, Man World, Narcotics, North America, PCP, Psychology, Regional, Science, Sex

Alt Left: An SJW Calumny Against Milo Yiannopoulus

Now hear me out. I absolutely despise Milo Yiannopoulus, the reactionary Alt Right troll and hero of sticking it to the SJW’s. But he does a lot more than skewer leftwing airheads.

He’s also a reactionary on everything else, and if you have been reading this blog long enough, you know that we are basically liberals to Leftists on most issues aside from the Cultural Left Freakshow, about which we are to the right of but not all the way to Republican social conservatives, who we consider to be rightwing Puritan crazies.

So with the Alt Left here, as with the Alt Left on so many things, it’s idiots to the right of me, idiots to the left of me. We would never want to be members of any club that would let us in, but no one would let us in anyway. Instead, everybody hates us. To be Alt Left is to be in the center of a circular firing squad. But it also means to be correct. The Alt Left is based on facts, truth, and science – Enlightenment values if you will. It’s not only the Right that hates science and truth, it’s the Cultural Left too. They’re just as bad as Republicans, as most Identity Politics movements proceed from fact-free theories and assumptions.

Anyway, Milo is a stinking filthy rich member of the ruling class, and he’s depraved, degenerate, and decadent like so many of them. Morals? Milo doesn’t have any. He jokes about taking huge Black cocks up his ass. His Alt Right “conservative” audience roars with approval. Since when is interracial homosexual sodomy the favorite meal of…reactionaries…?!

None of it makes sense unless you understand the decadence of the ruling class. The ruling class takes power on campaigns of religion and morality, which they sell to the masses. Morals are for the poor, and they go on and on about how immoral the poor are. Why, if they would only go to church more, they would get rich!

But you know pesky things like morals are only for those Little People. The aristocrats are of course exempt from morals in the realm of sex, drugs, and…just about anything, just like they’ve always been. So it is only in this context of chastity for the poor, interracial gay gangbangs for the rich that this confounding Milo can be understood.

Of course Milo has a right to be a degenerate homosexual.

As noted earlier, SJW’s harangue us straight men endlessly daring to look at JB’s, but gay men get to bang all the boy JB’s they want because gay men are good in SJW theory, and straight men are evil.

But somehow the SJW’s violate their own rules when it comes to Milo. Now if Milo was just an ordinary leftwing gay man, no one would care what he said or did. But Milo did the unthinkable. He decided to be a typical degenerate gay man while adopting ultra-rightwing politics. It was the latter that pointed the bulls eye on his head for SJW’s. So rightwing gays are in a class similar to straight men – evil males who must be demonized.

Hence the constant “Milo is a pedophile” claim from the SJW Left.

But what’s behind this serious allegation? Is Milo just an ordinary pedestrian chicken hawk like so many gay men? Nope. He’s not even that bad! Under SJW parlance, Milo was actually a victim of gay child molesters or pedophiles. So SJW’s are calling the kid who got molested by pedophiles a pedophile for daring to get molested! Outrageous or what?

The truth is a bit more complex. Milo stated flippantly that as a precocious male Lolita or Lolito of 13, he was already deep into gay sex and drug party culture. Of course, this culture is full of underage teenage boys. They’re everywhere at parties like that, and the older men pass them around callously like candy.

Milo said he was a regular at these degenerate sex and drug gay parties on fancy boats owned by gay men. There was plenty of sex with older men on offer for the budding Milo, and I guess he decided that the stovepipes were to his liking. In other words, Milo said that as a young teen of 13, he used to go to gay drug and sex parties full of older men, he had a lot of hot sex with  older men, and worse of all for SJW’s, he dared to actually like the experience.

Now victims of statutory rape or kids who get molested are not allowed to enjoy the experience, although many if not most of the teens love it. Even some of the little kids enjoy it. If they do enjoy it, the feminist line is that these poor kids or especially teens are deluded. Their enjoyment is not real. It’s fake. It’s fake because somehow they have been brainwashed into getting off on it. They actually hate it but they only think they like it because as minors they are too immature and stupid to figure out if they enjoy something or not!

This is the source of a lot of confusion for them because it was wrong, but it felt so good, and this mixes them up a lot. This is part of the reason that so many molested kids go on the years-long Therapy Express. But no one ever talks about this. No one talks about how some of the kids and most of the teens liked or even loved the experience. To do so brands one a pedophile by proxy simply by promoting a “pedo argument.” Except the pedo argument here happens to be true.

So, Milo isn’t a pedophile and he’s never been one. Instead Milo is being called a pedophile for what SJW’s would call getting molested or being a victim of sexual assault and breaking the rules by saying he liked it instead of falling apart like a baby.

So why is Milo a pedophile? Because he was a molestation victim who enjoyed getting molested. Even if that is true, how on Earth does that make someone, anyone, a pedophile?

Milo’s a slug but I believe in fairness and giving everyone their due. Next time you hear BS about Milo being a pedophile, you might want to, just maybe, think twice before believing that accusation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Philosophy, Political Science, Politics, Republicans, Science, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, US Politics

Alt Left: Why the Endless Feminist Screeching about Male Violence Against Women Is Wrong

I recently clicked on a Youtube video that talked about the wave of violence against women in South Africa. Women down there were organizing demonstrations against the murders of women, and feminists around the globe were agitating about the number of murders of women by men in that country.

Then I did a bit of research. Sure, the numbers of murdered women (almost all by men no doubt) was quite high at least by Western standards. But I did some mucking around with statistics and came up with something very interesting.

88% of all people murdered in South Africa are their fellow males. Only 12% of male murders in that country are females.

So according to feminists, we are supposed to ignore that men get the most horrific brunt of male violence in South Africa and instead focus on the women who are murdered in vastly smaller numbers. Furthermore, the feminist critique of male murders of women is that they are all motivated by misogyny and that men specifically single out women due to their sex alone for violence and murder.

Men kill women for all sorts of reasons. I’m sure misogyny is one of them. But a lot of other times misogyny is not a factor. Maybe a man is mad at a particular woman. Maybe he’s a psychopath who doesn’t care about the gender of his victims.

And if men go out of their way to specifically target women for no reason other than their sex, why are the numbers of murdered women so low compared to the murdered men? If anything, men are massively deselecting women for homicide compared to their population, and they are deliberately selecting men for murder to a huge degree. So men aren’t singling out women at all for murder down there. They’re singling out men for murder. But that doesn’t fit the feminist theory,  so that fact is elided.

In science, if your theory doesn’t match the facts, this means that your theory is wrong, so it’s back to the drawing board.

However, when the facts on the ground don’t match the feminist theory, feminists, like ideologues everywhere, decide that the theory is just fine and the problem is that the facts are wrong. Instead of redoing the theory, they decide that they need to redo the facts to make them fit the theory because feminists believe that theory trumps facts and evidence.

You women think you got it bad in terms of male violence against you, try being a guy! You ladies are getting off easy.

Hint: it’s even worse.

9 Comments

Filed under Africa, Crime, Death, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Man World, Regional, Science, South Africa, Women

Alt Left: The Transgender and Transtrender War

Recently the 12% of trans people who are actually pure transsexuals with severe gender dysphoria from an early age have weighed in on the TERF versus Transgender debate. This group takes a very different stance from the 88% of transgender people who are autogynephiles, crossdressers, and transvestites. It is this larger group of most heterosexual male transgender or transwomen who are driving this debate. They also seem to be the ones making the most noise and threatening and assaulting the TERF’s.

The 12%, however, take a very different stance towards TERF’s. These are the real transsexuals, assuming there is such a thing. The transsexuals are much more sympathetic to the concerns of the TERF’s and many of them argue that they, the transsexuals, possibly should stay out of women’s spaces.

The transsexuals realize that they do indeed have a medical/psychological condition, which is a fact. They tend to be much more science-minded than the other group, which is just another Cultural Left Identity Politics that plays fast and loose with facts and truth like they all do. These transsexuals often have very early onset of gender dysphoria, sometimes as early as age two.

And transsexual brains are in fact different. Transsexuals are not women in men’s bodies, but their brains are female- shifted, that is, their brains are more feminine than the typical male brain. Transsexual brains are about halfway between a male brain and a female brain. The autogynephiles on the other hand have brains that look like a normal man’s brain in the areas in which men’s and women’s brains differ. In other words, the autogynephiles are not men in women’s bodies either, and they do not even have female-shifted brains. Instead they have a normal male brain with some differences. Their brains are different in 4-5 areas that are the same in men and women. So there are two types of transgender people that can even be differentiated on brain scan.

There is a war brewing between people who consider themselves real transsexuals or transgender people and others who this former group derides as fakes or pretenders.

This war is being called Transgenders versus Transtrenders. The autogynephiles are seen as faddists by the transsexuals, and the transtrenders often don’t even have gender dysphoria, although for decades they have been lying and saying that they did, driving clinicians crazy in the process.

The transtrenders also hate the word transsexual, apparently because it implies a medical condition, and they say they are fine. The transtrenders are much more anti-scientific than the transsexuals. In fact, the word transsexual is now apparently a transphobic slur! You might see a lot more psychopathology in the transtrenders too, as they are basically faking it. I have heard people say that 95% of transgender people are transtrenders, and only 5% of them are the real deal. I’m not sure how accurate that is. It’s interesting that the real transgenders are a lot more sympathetic to women than the fakers who are often called misogynists by feminists, but then feminists call 95% of men misogynists, so that might not mean anything.

Leave a comment

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Feminism, Gender Studies, Mental Illness, Neuroscience, Psychology, Psychopathology, Sane Pro-Woman, Science, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Alt Left: TERF Theory on Transgenderism: Is It Rational?

Radical feminist theory poses a serious challenge to to transgender ideology. It is for their critical stance on transgenderism that the Trans Community has taken to calling these women TERF’s or Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists. There has been a long-term war, now escalating very rapidly, pitting the Trans Lobby and their SJW Third Wave Intersectional Sex-Positive Feminist allies and Second Wave Radical Feminist TERF’s. This has now escalated into threats and assaults against TERF’s by transwomen. It is an interesting debate but as it is taking place on the fringes of the Cultural Left, most folks have never heard of it.

It actually takes the side of reason, rationality, and common sense, which is strange feminist theories are almost never based on truth or facts. However, I would argue that it does not challenge transgender ideology on very good grounds. In other words, they come up with the right answer to the question, but my beef is in the theory they used to arrive at the right answer and not the answer itself.

Radical feminist theory says that transgender people are simply mentally ill people with gender dysphoria for some variety of reasons. Transwomen are just men in drag or men who think they are women. Transwomen are not women and they should not be allowed in women’s spaces.

This is all more or less correct, but as I said, my beef is how they arrived at the answer and not the answer itself.

What theory did radfems use to arrive at this answer? Simple. Radical feminists absolutely hate men.

Anyway, TERF dislike of transgender men or transwomen who they insist on calling TIM’s (Transsexual-Identified Males) is based simply on radfem hatred of men. Transwomen are simply the hated men now dressing in drag and pretending to be or insisting that they are women and demanding access to women’s spaces.

TERF’s hate the idea that men are claiming to be women, as TERF’s quite logically say that only they and and other born females are real women. A real woman is born with and has an XX chromosome, female genitalia and female reproductive organs. Any human born with an XY chromosome and male genitalia is a male, plain and simple. And a male can’t turn into a female or vice versa, at least with present technology.

An incredibly high percentage of radical feminists are lesbians, usually lesbian feminists, which means that they are straight women who chose to be lesbians out of extreme hatred for men as a feminist political act. Most lesbians hate men quite a bit as it is, but when you combine a lesbian with a radical feminist, you get quite a potent mix of shrill man hatred.

The problem is that the nonheterosexual coalition which started out as gays and lesbians, then included bisexuals to be GLB’s,  has now expanded to included transsexuals, so the coalition is now called GLBT.

Recently queers (a term which has no meaning whatsoever other than nonheterosexual) has been idiotically added to this alphabet soup.

Some add an I for Intersex people, once again mixing gender expression (Intersex and Transsexuals) with sexual orientation (GLBQ).

There is also a movement now to add on an A for Asexuals.

God knows what they will come up with next. Pretty soon this acronym is going to be harder to pronounce than an Icelandic placename. A lot of people are exasperated by this ever-expanding list of nonheterosexual and non-cisgender orientation and identity soup and often add on ABC or WTF, so you end up with things like GLBTIQABCWTF.

Now there is quite a bit of friction between a lot of lesbians, many of whom are also radical feminists, and the transgender folks. Lesbians have been denied the right to march is Gay Pride parades and fights have broken out between lesbians and transgender people at these events. Quite a few leftwing outlets are banning TERF speakers from speaking at their venues or removing TERF books from their bookshelves. Many lesbians have been attacking the whole idea of

TERF’s logically argue that since transwomen are really men, they should not be allowed in women’s bathrooms, homeless and abused shelter’s, and prisons. Indeed, transwomen have already committed crimes against women in women’s prisons and bathrooms, so the fear is not unfounded.

In addition, many transwomen, especially the autogynophiliacs, were heterosexual men before they transitioned. They were attracted to women when they were men and now that they are transwomen, they are still attracted to women. So transwomen go from being heterosexual men to being female lesbians in a sense. A lot of these lesbian transwomen are doing a lot of yelling because most lesbians won’t give them the time of day, much less have sex with them.

This is especially true since many transwomen are pre-ops who have not had the operation to remove their genitals, so they still have male genitalia. What lesbian wants to have sex with a man with a penis and testicles who dresses up like a woman? Lesbians like women, not men in dresses. These lesbian transwomen have been calling real lesbians “transphobic” for refusing to date them. This predictably has a lot of lesbians, especially the radical feminist ones, up in arms.

As you can see, TERF’s both lesbian and straight have a lot of quite good reasons to be anywhere from dubious to outraged by transwomen.

Further, 88% of transwomen are not even real transsexuals. The real transsexuals with early onset gender dysphoria and different brains are a mere 12% of transwomen. I have a lot of compassion for these “real” transsexuals.

The rest, I am sorry, are just sexual perverts of one sort or another. 88% of transwomen are crossdressers, transvestites, and autogynophiliacs. These are also a lot of the ones that are committing sex crimes because they have paraphilias. Most don’t realize that paraphiliacs typically have more than one paraphilia; in fact, they can have several. It seems there are perverts and non-perverts, you are either one or the other,  and if you are a pervert, you tend to be polymorphously perverse instead of limiting yourself to one perversion..

People with paraphilias can definitely commit sex crimes ranging from harmless but annoying flashers all the way to serial killers and necrophiliacs. Most serial killers are sexual sadists, and sexual sadism is a paraphilia. I doubt if the real transsexuals are the ones who are committing these sex crimes or threatening the TERF’s. The real transsexuals seem calmer and more rational and believe it or not, they actually believe deeply in science and science is on their side somewhat.

The problem is that radical feminist theory on transgenderism completely collapses when it comes to transmen or female transsexuals. The reason it falls apart is because the theory has a poor basis – it is based simply on a hatred of men per se and does not try to make a coherent argument against transsexualism as a whole.

Radfem theory on transsexuals absolutely collapses with the complete and utter silence about transmen or female transsexuals. These are women who think they are men. There are quite a bit fewer transmen than transwomen for some reason. If transwomen are irrational and crazy, so are transmen, but radfem trans theory does not critique the rationality or mental fitness of transmen. In addition, the focus on violent and criminal transwomen, while good in theory, collapses once again as transmen are ignored. But transmen can be violent too, just like transwomen. Women who transition to men are more likely to become criminals than if they had stayed women, possibly a hormonal effect of testosterone.

I get all the radfem venom and rage against transwomen. It’s not hard to figure out. But why let transmen off the hook?

Why do radfems let transmen off the hook? Because they’re women! Well, that’s a logical theory! So radfems let transmen off the hook because they are women and women cannot be criticized by they bash transwomen to Kingdom Come because they’re men! Look, I am quite sure that radfem transsexual theory suits the emotion needs of radical feminists, but where’s the science? Where’s the science for the radfem theory that transmen are a-ok and transwomen are Satan’s children?

Oh wait. I forget. We are talking about feminists here, and feminists simply don’t do science. In fact, feminists now openly state that truth, logic, and science – (The very Enlightenment itself!) are permanently tainted because they are derived from men’s thinking and are the product of patriarchy. Anything that comes from men is junk and needs to be tossed. Feminists have a new epistemology: There is a “women’s way of knowledge” which apparently transcends science, facts, and truth, rendering all of them unreliable. They’ve taken the postmodern ball and the length of the field with it. In fact they didn’t even stop in the endzone. They kept running after the touchdown and now they are halfway across town.

The funny thing is that transmen are not really the friends of radical feminists or of women in general for that matter. I mean these are women who have decided that being a woman is so disgusting and horrible that they want to turn into men. That’s some powerful self-hatred they have going on there. Transmen call their vaginas “front holes.” Are radical feminists on board with vaginas being called “front holes?” Transmen also say that men can now have vaginas, ovaries, uteruses, etc. In fact, transmen even insist that men can now get pregnant! Are radfems cool with the notion that their hated dudes can have vaginas too just like ladies?

Radical feminist theory on transgenderism is just fine as long as it sticks to transwomen. It is based on facts, truth, and science. Of course radfems only choose facts, truth, and science when it allies well with their ideology, but I do commend them for using Enlightenment tools of knowledge at all.

But when it gets to transmen, radfem transgender theory shipwrecks on the shore. According to radical feminists, trannies are groovy and cool as long as they are lady trannies, but dude trannies are incarnations of the Devil Himself.

And this is…a scientific doctrine?

1 Comment

Filed under Crime, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Mental Illness, Necrophilia, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Radical Feminists, Science, Serial Killers, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Alt Left: How Many People Are Transgender, and Is the Rate Increasing?

Eric Blair: Speaking of gender, I am not very familiar with non-binary gender stuff..how did we even get from two genders to 70?

Thanks for the comment, George, and thanks for stopping by the blog. All this time I thought you were dead!

That’s a damn good question. My position is that once you let people act as crazy as they want to, you open the door, and there’s no limit to how crazy people will act. Which is how you end up with 70 genders.

The trans madness has been exploding. The figure cited in the 1960’s and 1970’s was 1/30,000. Presumably almost all of these were the more pure biological transsexuals with gender dysphoria from a very early age, sometimes as young as two. However, a recent survey of Generation Z showed that 2% labeled themselves transgender, and another 11% labeled themselves nonbinary. So you can see that the rate of this stuff has gone through the roof.

You would not expect a genetic or biological condition to go from 1/30,000 to 1/50 in a few short decades (someone do the math for me please). Genetic or even biological change does not happen that fast. Obviously this is a sociological phenomenon no doubt being driven by quite a bit of faddism. Even trans advocates admit that 88% of transgender people are not transsexuals. Only 12% are the relatively pure biological transsexuals with gender dysphoria from a very early age. The other 88% are people with paraphilias, all or almost all men. The paraphilias encompass autogynephilia, crossdressing, and transvestism. The latter are mostly heterosexual and the former are mostly homosexual.

Indeed, when we get to the point where 2-3% of people are gay and another 2% are transgender, we are definitely getting into a pretty weird world here in the Current Year. It’s long past 1984 already and we are into a whole new dystopia of sexual bizarreness.

1 Comment

Filed under Biology, Gender Studies, Genetics, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Psychology, Psychopathology, Science, Sex, Weirdness