The anti-Scientific Positions of the Left

gender-identity-science One thing the American Left likes to do is repeatedly excoriate the Right for being “anti-scientific” for their positions on things like evolution and global warming.  The problem is that the Left is just as unscientific, only about different topics … case in point are progressive views on gender, intersexual dynamics, and the human female biological clock.

Let me say first that, as a practicing PhD scientist, the Left is correct at least in that denying the validity of evolution is silly. The scientific evidence for that is solid, including both paleontological evidence (e.g. fossils) and genetic evidence. The Left is also correct in that denying the validity of climate change as it relates to the release of greenhouse gases and deforestation and melting glaciers is silly. One only has to look at our next-door neighbor Venus to see the effects. And long-term temporal climate data clearly shows a trend of rising global temperatures over the last century. One could perhaps argue over whether such climate change is man-made, but it is indisputable from the data that it is occurring.  It is also indisputable that human activities are releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases.

But Progressives on the Left pointing the finger at people on the Right about being unscientific are basically like the pot calling the kettle black.  A prime example of progressives’ equally deluded stances is their view on gender and gender identity.

Let me ask this question: if one accepts the validity of evolution, and acknowledges that humans are a sexually reproducing species, then what would be the evolutionary purpose for gender fluidity?  Would evolution not ween those gender fluid individuals out over time?  That is how natural selection works.  Evolution clearly needs, for a sexually reproducing species, two distinct biological genders … to the point that in mammals it created separate X and Y chromosomes for sex determination (with a few more complicated exceptions like platypuses).

The advantages of sexual reproduction (versus asexual) are anti-science-feminismrooted in recombination of parental chromosomes and the genetic variance it creates, allowing a species to be resilient to wide-ranging environmental changes. But sexual reproduction also comes at a two-fold cost, with slower reproduction rates and the loss of the guarantee that all individuals can reproduce (they have to search for a willing mate first to do so).  So given all of that, it doesn’t make sense for evolution to maintain 12 genders in humans, or gender fluid individuals … because the cost of sexual reproduction is already high enough.  Species that did so would quickly go extinct.

And of course this doesn’t even broach the issue that most transgender re-assignment surgeries are Male-to-Female (most estimates say somewhere around 70-75%), rather than 50:50, nor the relative rarity of gender dysphoria in human populations based on epidemiological studies (averaging roughly 0.03% across studies).  There are clearly social aspects to the push for gender fluidity that have no basis in biology.

To sum up, Progressives on the Left arguing for gender fluidity make about as much sense as people on the Right arguing we should teach creationism in schools. Both positions are equally anti-scientific. In fact, debating with Progressives about gender identity often feels strangely like debating with evangelicals about evolution …

Now, to be clear, I’m not arguing anyone should be mistreated … live and let live I say.  If Progressives want to create a social construct (in the form of fluid gender identity), and then try to convince other people to accept it, they can certainly do so. In that regard, it’s no different than religion.  The problem of course comes when people want to legislate their beliefs and force others to accept them. That would be equivalent to legislating religion … unfortunately that parallel is lost upon Progressives. Such attempts are a direct attack on the classical liberal principles Western society is built upon.

The above doesn’t even touch on other anti-scientific positions of the American Left, in particular their views on intersexual dynamics between men and women, and their denial of the existence of the female biological clock (or should we say “The Wall”).

gender-identity-science-confusionThe Progressive assault on masculinity in the West is a case in point here, attempts to redefine women as men, and co-opt masculine traits as some sort of ideal “feminine” traits. Despite the fact, as noted in the previous section, that evolution has clearly defined two separate biological genders, and created both the genetic and physiological infrastructure to maintain these two, with distinct physical and behavioral attributes. There is ample scientific evidence for the effects of testosterone on the human brain and its basis for differences in male/female behavior.

And so children growing up in the modern West are obviously confused when they get to adulthood and find – despite all the Progressive Left’s brainwashing about “gender being a social construct” and “feminized men in touch with their feelings being attractive” – that members of the opposite sex are NOT attracted to what they are told they should be … no, they are attracted to what millions of years of evolution has engrained them with. Any Red Pill man knows this intuitively.

Because that is how evolution works. And anyone who takes a scientific view of the world realizes the world doesn’t always work the way we think it should … it works the way it does. Or in other words: an Empirical view. Your feelings don’t matter, cupcake.

So no, lady, being bitchy and aggressive and “assertive” doesn’t make you attractive to most men.  Men in general are drawn to women who exhibit neotenous traits, across cultures (more on the scientific basis here). I realize there are exceptions, but remember: the exception to the rule does not invalidate the rule.

The worst part of this is women literally believing they can still have babies when they are 40-years-old as if they are 20-years-old. About 1 in 7 women are infertile by age 35 (essentially triple the rate of a woman in her late twenties). not to mention the risk of birth defects and down’s syndrome skyrocket by the time you reach 40. Any pregnancy in a woman over the age of 35 is actually medically considered a geriatric pregnancy.  A lot of women in their 30’s also think they have plenty of time, but the average duration of courtship in the West is 2-3 years, if not longer in many cases. So for that 30-year-old woman, if you meet someone today it will take years to get to the point of being married and pregnant.

All that said, women shouldn’t have to have babies if they don’t want to. But it is equally problematic for the Progressive Left to be filling their heads with anti-scientific ideology and fairy tales that undermine their ability to do so if they choose. Misinformation is a very dangerous thing.

Which brings us back to our main point: There are just as many anti-scientific viewpoints on the Left as there are on the Right, they just come in different forms. It is critical for those of us who believe in the importance of science and scientific integrity to objectively hold both sides accountable when they attempt to spread anti-scientific viewpoints, particularly when they attempt to pass those myths off as “fact”.  And from a classical liberal standpoint, we must acknowledge that rational empirical thinking is necessary for individuals to make good decisions … indeed the entire premise of classical liberalism  and the Doctrine of Individualism rests in individuals having correct information upon which to base those decisions.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

How the Left lost to Trump: The Alienation of Whites

Spectators arrive for a rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Thursday, April 28, 2016 in Costa Mesa, Calif. (AP Photo/Chris Carlson)One of the interesting things about the recent US presidential election is that it is clear from the voting trends that the Left has alienated a lot of blue-collar white people, and a lot of these people ended up voting for Trump – including 57% of white women – in places like Michigan and Wisconsin (as filmmaker Michael Moore so eloquently pointed out before the election). Why did this happen?

It largely happened because the increasingly progressive Left, beyond ignoring the plight of middle and lower class working whites and their economic woes (e.g. unemployment in rural communities, foreclosure), has proceeded to sneer at these same white people, calling them names like racist and sexist and bigot for the last couple decades.

I come from such a rural area, and I can tell you many of these people have been hit hard by the economy over the last 20 years, regardless of the color of the skin. But not only due Progressives ignore these blue-collar whites, they sneer at them and call them names.

All while promoting issues like who gets to use whose bathroom … or the plight of gay people getting wedding cakes. Even though gay people where I live in Chicago mostly live in fancy condos over in Boystown. While those “privileged” blue collar whites in Appalachia and the Rust Belt struggle to find jobs, hold on to their run-down shack of a house, and put food on the table for their kids.  Take a road trip down to Appalachia, then call me up and tell me about their “privilege” from your fancy loft in Soho …

The fact of the matter is that politics is about building coalitions. And white people still make up 67% of the electorate and will continue to be a majority till at least 2050. Moreover, heterosexuals are 95% of the electorate. If your “coalition” only consists of black people and homosexuals and transgenders, then you’re going to have difficulties winning national elections in coming years. And increasingly the Democrats in the United States are becoming the anti-white and anti-heterosexual party.

trump-election-white-womenThe most interesting thing about post-election this year was watching my Facebook feed, and watching all my Progressive “liberal” friends respond by calling those same white people who voted for Trump racist and sexist and bigots. That is exactly what got you this spot, folks. Now legitimate issues like the environment are going to suffer because you are so worried about where people take a piss, and willing to call people names over it.

And your response is to double-down on that failing tactic? Oh, the irony …

The reality is that if the Left is going to revive itself in this country, it will need to shun its Progressive wing in much the same way that the Right shunned the Tea Party movement in recent years. Most Americans are moderates, NOT far right or far left folks.  A good start would be for the Left to drop the shaming language and stop calling those very people whose votes you need names.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Topple the Patriarchy

jill-soloway-topple-the-patriarchyAt this week’s Emmy Award Shows, the creator of the show Transparent, Jill Soloway went on a rant while giving an award acceptance speech, finally chanting “topple the patriarchy” near the end of it (video).

The ironic thing is that without the “patriarchy” and masculine men willing to fight for, defend, and die for our civilization, Jill would probably be DEAD.

You know what ISIS and other muslim countries do to homosexual and transgender people like Jill Soloway? They bind their hands behind their backs and throw them off rooftops to their deaths.  The only thing that stops them (and others like them) are men building up our civilization and fighting for our way of life.

dday-soldiersJill Soloway and those like her owe their lives and the freedom to live an “alternative” lifestyle to the very thing they decry – masculine men acting like men. It’s by their grace that they are protected. For if men stopped and walked away, how long would our way of life last? And do they think they could protect themselves when our legal mechanisms that extend from such patriarchal endeavors is replaced with pure violence and aggression?  Yet they choose to bite the hand that feeds them.

It is like watching a teenager bitch and moan about her father’s curfew and rules. With no appreciation that those things go hand in hand with the safety and security his home provides.  Money doesn’t grow on trees … and neither does freedom.

iraq-soldiers2  Inside Iraq

This example underscores how many progressives in the West (including transgenders and homosexuals) are the very definition of Privilege they rail against.  They live in a world free of consequences, and disdain the very things that give them the freedom to live as they do.

Indeed, I would posit the true definition of “privilege” is living in an environment where your actions are no longer correlated with your outcomes.  Rather than the Liberal ideal of personal industriousness leading to success or failure, the Progressive slant is that people should be able to do whatever they want and the amorphous “state” will take care of the consequences. Yet that state only exists so long as there are men willing to defend it, and to pay for it. Indeed, men pay most of the taxes in any society while women accrue most of the benefits, i.e. the Gender Tax Gap.


Now I don’t necessarily have any beef with people who are homosexual or whatever, but I would say this: maybe their gay pride parades – rather than be some celebration of hedonism – be better served as a celebration of the men and women who die fighting to protect the freedoms that let homosexuals and transgenders live as they do within our free society? Just a thought.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Hillary Clinton and the Sexism Platform

Hillary_Clinton_SexismQuestion: Why is it sexist for men to not vote for Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman … yet it is not sexist for women to vote for Hillary Clinton just because she has a vagina?

The reality is that they are both the same thing.

Of course, that never stopped the media from blatant cases of double-think otherwise. Over at PBS Newshour, correspondent Daniel Bush argues that only if white men refuse to vote for Clinton is it sexism … even while arguing in the exact same article that people should vote for Clinton just because she has a vagina. The irony of using a sexist position to criticize others’ supposed sexism is beyond Mr. Bush, apparently.

This sort of stuff is all over the media right now, and indeed Facebook and Twitter as well.  Even if many people (like myself) don’t want to vote for Hillary because we think she is untrustworthy or conniving or has bad policy positions … none of that matters, refusing to vote for Hillary is an act of sexism. Because – wait for it – you should vote for someone based on what is between their legs. And that, my friends, is the very definition of sexism.

Women_for_Hillary_SexismWhether it be schadenfreude or just plain obliviousness, we have reached a point where being blatantly sexist (but in socially acceptable ways) to criticize someone else for being sexist is now part of the mainstream.  The irony is palpable.

Now, if you read this blog on a regular basis at all, you know I’m not big on using the various -isms as shaming language, it’s mostly a tactic for stifling legitimate debate and/or certain ideas. But the mere fact that the Progressives and SJWs are engaging in the exact behavior they claim to despise (e.g. “Sexism”) should tell you something.

Make no mistake, Hillary herself is playing on this current paradigm. Pulling out the Woman Card when needed to rebuke any man (whether that be Bernie Sanders or Trump or anyone else) who tries to criticize her. Her team is even pumping out the #ImWithHer hashtag. And I predict that will only continue, if not increase, during the general election this fall.

In short, Hillary’s is a sexist platform … built on the idea that we should judge someone based purely on their biological sex. People who vote for Hillary purely because she is a woman are, by definition, sexist. It is not a revocation of sexism, but the embrace of it.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Feminism: Meaningless Words create Meaningless Ideals

Hitler_Socialist_SandersOne of the interesting things about dating a lot of women is that you very quickly come to realize the amount of verbal-sorcery and word-salad that comes out of many women’s mouths. They often don’t mean what they say, or the things they say are simply a reflection of how they feel at the moment.  Later they will tell you the exact opposite.

The problem is that they use a lot of words and phrases that lack a clear meaning – love, happiness, OMG LOL totes, etc. – you get the idea.

When the words we use have no grounded meaning, when they can be defined as anything by anyone, then we are no longer talking about a tangible thing or fact. Rather, we are talking about feelings.

In parallel, and perhaps not surprisingly, the words used by Feminists and Progressives and SJWs are much the same – common good, patriarchy, social welfare, equality – when we use these words we say nothing at all. We are not communicating meaningful ideas … we are simply expressing our feelings. Or what I like to call “Feels before Reals” …

Even reformed Feminists realize this. It becomes even more blatant when they redefine words with obvious meaning, like “violence”, in ways that render those words meaningless.

Public policy or serious discussion cannot be based on feelings … any more than I base my actions in the dating world on a woman’s feeling words. They are ephemeral and prone to change. They are a reflection of reality, but not reality itself.

In his book Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek pointed out the problem socialists and other collectivists (which the Progressives and Feminists largely fall into) suffer because of their use of meaningless words.  In their drive for greater “equality”, the policies they pursue often ironically create greater inequality. Because they abandon classical Liberal principles that create a self-correcting marketplace of freedoms that derive from competition, and replace that with central planning “committees” that decide what is important and who should get what.

Political freedom derives from economic freedom. Without economic freedom, without the resources to support yourself and your loved ones, none of us are free. And such economic freedom demands competition to fuel it. Or rather, the opportunity to compete.

In its stead, the Progressives and Feminists would dictate your opportunities, and impose gender and race-based quotas. They would strip your economic freedom. All in the name of meaningless words like “common good” and “social justice”. All in the name of ephemeral ideas that serve no one, but hurt everyone. Lest we forget, even the Nazis were originally the National Socialist party …

The first sign that someone has no idea what they are talking about is their use of meaningless words. Remember that.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 11 Comments

The Politics of Fragility

A couple weeks ago, author Michelle Goldberg wrote an excellent article for Slate about how conservatives uncomfortable over the Transgender bathroom issue are co-opting Left-wing rhetoric to push back … for instance releasing a video of female rape and sexual abuse victims describing how men in bathrooms, trans or not, is an instant “trigger” for re-traumatization.

political-correctnessIt’s an irony that even conservatives are now employing “victim mentality” tactics typically used by SJWs and Feminists against them … and in the process highlighting the contradictions of Feminism and Progressivism. To quote Goldberg:

Those contradictions, however, are real. There’s no coherent ideology in which traumatized students have the right to be shielded from material that upsets them—be it Ovid, 9½ Weeks, or the sentiments of Laura Kipnis—but not from undressing in the presence of people with different genitalia. If we’ve decided that people have the right not to feel unsafe—as opposed to the right not to be unsafe—then what’s the standard for refusing that right to conservative sexual abuse victims? Is it simply that we don’t believe them when they describe the way their trauma manifests?

Which underscores the very inherent instability of a strategy relying on the Politics of Fragility … when weakness becomes a corrupted form of strength, then we all suffer for it. Moreover, when our public policy is based more on feelings than logic, then we as a society become paralyzed in making tough decisions, being accountable for our own mistakes, or willingly changing course when needed.

The whole Transgender issue highlights the problem of basing your political platform on such an approach, as Feminists and Progressives and SJWs have done:

Some radical feminists believe that these contradictions should make people on the left reconsider their commitment to trans rights. Certainly, creepy men can and probably will take advantage of trans-friendly bathroom laws to try to prey on women. Shortly after Washington state allowed trans people to use bathrooms and changing rooms that correspond with their gender identity, a man barged into the women’s locker room at a local pool, announcing, “The law has changed, and I have the right to be here”

The point NOT being whether there is any merit to the risk of sexual assault due to allowing Transgender individuals bathroom access opposite their biological sex. That is debatable. Rather, the point here is that the language being used circumvents our ability to make sound policy decisions. It stifles rather than engages rational debate.

In short, it highlights how the tactics of Feminists/Progressives/SJWs undermine our Western Liberal principles.  Particularly from a Classical Liberal perspective.  In other words, Progressives are NOT liberals.

Another glaring example of the above is Oklahoma’s move last week to pass a bill that requires students in schools to use the bathroom of their assigned biological sex at birth, unless special accommodations are needed for their sincerely held religious beliefs.  Clever, really.

You see, right-wing conservatives are now arguing that people should be able to violate legal or societal norms based on their beliefs. Maybe it’s that they believe in a Christian God … or maybe it’s that they believe they are a woman trapped in a man’s body. There is no way to prove the validity of either belief. So if transgenders can use whatever bathroom they want, why shouldn’t, say, Christians be able to refuse to cater gay weddings or pay for birth control?  It would be hypocritical to argue otherwise.

The whole transgender issue is problematic for Progressives on the far left … because it exposes the weaknesses of adopting the Politics of Fragility as a platform.

politics-of-fragilityIt was interesting to see even President Obama criticize Political Correctness and the fragility of many college students to ideas they disagree with at a commencement speech at Rutgers a couple weeks ago, even though some of the President’s other comments were clearly criticisms aimed at Trump. Nonetheless they highlight the fact that even among mainstream Democrats like Obama, there is some understanding beginning to surface that Progressives and their Politics of Fragility are a real risk to Liberalism and Western Democratic principles.

You can’t simultaneously seek to stifle debate while maintaining that you are merely pushing for more “freedom” … because eventually those same tactics will be turned against you.

Share: Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someone
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments