@Celestial-body-NOS's banner p

Celestial-body-NOS

Social Dominance Orientation is the root of all kinds of evil.

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC 

				
User ID: 290


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
Celestial-body-NOS


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
Social Dominance Orientation is the root of all kinds of evil.

				
				
				

				

					0 followers  

					follows 0 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 00:16:31 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 290


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					Year
					
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


So you think a male person can flip back and forth between being a woman and being a man, purely depending on what clothes he's wearing at any particular moment?




No, I believe that whether a person is a man or a woman depends on why you are asking, just as with the difference between a 'blegg' and a 'rube'.




A male person does not become a woman just because he's wearing a dress and makeup.




No, if she identifies as a woman, she is a woman for most purposes. Things which involve the genitals are, assuming she has not had the relevant chirurgery, one of the exceptions; medical concerns are another, in which biological sex must be broken down into multiple aspects, such as hormones, current anatomy, natal anatomy, and chromosomes. (cf. Neural Categories, E. Yudkowsky, February 2008; How An Algorithm Feels From Inside, ibid.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
In the context of genital care, yes (assuming your statistics are correct).


In contexts where their underwear stays on, no.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


We were talking about whether or not the anti-trans side was recasting the distinction raised by the pro-trans side. If the anti-trans side was the first to set the distinction, than it was the pro-trans side that was doing the recasting.




I'm referring to the distinction between 'gender' and 'sex', not the distinction between 'men' and 'women'.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I've heard the interpretations that they ate some dodgy grain.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
    

  1. 

    If I were to claim that I was entitled to know any other aspect of your medical chart, on the grounds that it is statistically correlated with propensity to commit assault, most everyone would agree that I was out of line. The pro-trans faction is attempting to apply this consistently; the anti-trans faction is the one claiming that genitals are somehow less of a personal matter and should follow a different set of rules making them more of a public interest.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    It is possible to, by observation, deduce someone's probable genital configuration, just as it is possible to deduce many other aspects of a person's medical history. However, this does not mean that one is entitled to know whether their deductions are correct, nor that they ought to be brought up in polite company.
    

    3. 

  3. 

    The statistical correlations between biological sex and violent crime are claimed by many with whom you are probably familiar to have parallels with race. (I am sceptical of these claims, but the following argument holds even in a parallel universe in which they hold.) If people act on their knowledge of those statistics, innocent people of certain races are subjected to lifelong humiliation and ill-use, until it blows up in everyone's face. Thus, we regard information derived from that source to be inadmissible.
    

    4. 





Because it makes a bunch of autogynephiles sad when they don't. Because this group of totalitarian, controlling narcissists cannot tolerate the slightest suggestion that anyone, even a complete stranger, is failing to "validate" them and their "identity" 100% of the time, even unconsciously. You are not only demanding that cisgender people yasslight trans people, but also that they gaslight themselves. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."




I, personally, am not making any demands regarding your, or anyone else's, beliefs regarding transgenderism. You deserve the ability to think what you want, and any attempt to deter you from doing so by imposing Consequences is an injustice. The same applies for arguing, in the general case, for your beliefs; I do not endorse any employer refusing to hire you because they read your Posts.


I am only asking that, when it comes to interactions with actual people, you not treat their genitals as relevant by default, and not bring up the matter any more than you would any other medical condition.


I realise that some people on the 'woke' left demand further concessions, and in that circumstance, even though I disagree with what you say, I support your right to say it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


Prior to to pro-trans proposition, everybody was using a sex-based distinction




And, like many other things 'everybody' was doing, some of us realised that it wasn't right.


(Many of the social movements of the post-WWII era are of this sort; someone realises that "Yes, we've always done it this way, but it's wrong. It's hurting people, and it needs to change." The Lottery, by Shirley Jackson, is an early example of this argument, being a reductio ad absurdum; see also Edgerton's Sick Societies.




Can't say I noticed the pro-trans side wanting to keep their genitals private.




I will concede that, in that case, they are justified in dividing by currently possessed genitals, i. e. the ones with which they are presented, and for this purpose, a trans-woman remains a man unless or until she has that part of her anatomy altered.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


everyone didn't immediately hand the reins of society over to them




It's not 'immediately handing the reins of society over to' someone to change a particular thing that is unjust.


The abolition of segregation wasn't 'handing the reins of society over' to the Civil Rights advocates. (Some of Ibram X. Kendi's asks might fall under that heading, but I don't think he would have made them if there hadn't been an above-lizardman-constant section of society trying to maintain Jim Crow.)


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
And the Southern States didn't agree that 'it isn't right' for plantation-mongers to own Black people.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


You frame this as though this was some novel innovation on the part of an "anti-trans faction", but in fact entitlement to know and act on the genital/gonad configuration of strangers has been a bog-standard feature of society for centuries, and arguably back to the beginning of recorded history.




And when the pro-trans faction were like, 'But this isn't right!', and sought to change it, the anti-trans faction objected to their cheese being moved.


This is far from a unique pattern in history.


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-11
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
But is that a circumstance of birth, or of them being carefully taught before they are six or seven or eight?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


I have a hard time envisioning a helpful "purpose" for which the answer to the question "what is a woman?" includes people with penises.




Any purpose that does not involve anyone interacting with said penes.




Big Yud put a lot of stock in the idea of definitions that "cleave reality at the joints"




Sometimes reality has multiple sets of joints, and at which ones we choose to cleave reality can be a function of our goals; e. g. the currently accepted definition of 'fish', excluding whales, cleaves reality at the joints of 'evolutionary relatedness', whereas older definitions which include whales cleave reality at a different set of joints, namely body shape and habitat.




An entity born with the organs associated with the production of large gametes.




So you would consider someone with XY chromosomes, who, due to some hormonal-response factor, developed ovaries instead of testicles, to be female?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


They haven't re-cast them as sex, they just disagreed with the goal of the pro-trans faction.




The re-casting was how they sought to thwart the goal of the pro-trans faction.


To the best of my understanding, the pro-trans faction proposed to divide sex from gender, such that all social distinctions would fall under the latter category, and the biological differences would be as private as any other medical history, HIPAA avant la lettre.


The anti-trans faction, believing themselves entitled to know, and act on the knowledge of, the genital/gonadal configurations of strangers, then started referring to 'sex' instead of 'gender', 'males' instead of 'men', and 'females' instead of 'women'; thus allowing them to make the assertion that other people's genitalia are any of their business without being seen to make said assertion, and avoid anyone asking why they are concerned with other people's anatomy.


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-20
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The trap is that they are hoping to get a soundbite that looks bad when taken out of context, which they can run endlessly in attack ads.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


It's also a bad analogy because nothing actually hinges on the question of whether or not a hot dog is a sandwich.




...until some arcane point of tax or tariff law depends on it (this was why the Supreme Court had to weigh in on whether a tomato is a fruit), and the Red Tribe and Blue Tribe converge on different answers.




among progressives the stock response to the question "what is a woman?" is a sputtering refusal to answer




Again, that might be different if progressives had read the Sequences.


Another possible response might be "With what purpose do you inquire?".




an adult human female




And what is a 'female'?


Even limiting ourselves to biological factors, there are at least five possible definitions.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


The central philosophical grounding of transgenderism is that gender is socially constructed (and correspondingly malleable) and thus separable from the biological notion of sex. The idea that a "woman" (gender) is not necessarily "female" (sex) may be arguable, but it is at least comprehensible. Forget expecting future Supreme Court justices to know what woman means--journalists don't even seem to know what female means. Or, more likely: they are part of the trans prospiracy to simply deny facts about biological human sex typing. The sex/gender distinction was drawn for political purposes, and now is being collapsed for those same political purposes.




Because the anti-transgender faction, in response to the distinction as initially drawn by the pro-trans faction, was to take social matters of 'gender' and re-cast them as matters of 'sex', thus attempting to undo the exact goal of the pro-trans side, namely that biological sex ought not determine anything in social situations.


That principle is downstream of a more general left-wing ethos, that it is unjust for people to be limited by the circumstances of their birth, and that where we have the ability to make people not thus limited, we ought to do so. From this axiom, one can derive many other left-coded beliefs, which are left as an exercise for the reader.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Give it time.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


What you don't normally get is the Blue Screen of Death when you ask someone to define their terms.




Because you aren't setting off Admiral Ackbar with a 'Gotcha!' question. (Is it possible that we were a little too hard on Sarah Palin?)




I'm yet to hear a good argument for doing so.




Because the particular sequence A Human's Guide to Words covers the precise meta-level issue at hand, that there is no True Definition of 'sandwich/planet/woman' floating in the aetherial realm.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


they are reliably stumped by the "what's a woman" question.




And thousands, perhaps millions, are reliably stumped by the "is a hotdog a sandwich" question, because most people still think of words as living in the Platonic Realm Of Forms rather than being pointers to fuzzy-edged categories. (I am once again asking you to Read the Sequences.)


				

				

						

							

								
    
									
									
									
									
  • 
										 
									
    • 
	
  • 
		
			
		
		-12
		
			
		

    • 


							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


we have actually outrun the carrying capacity of this planet




One, the carrying capacity of the planet is not a single number, but depends on the tech package. Palaeolithic hunter-gatherer, neolithic agrarian, mediaeval agrarian, Victorian-era industrial, and distant-future zero-point-energy-powered societies all produce different figures for the 'carrying capacity of the planet'.


Two, it is far from certain that humanity will be forever limited to the surface of a single planet.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, general knowledge can contribute to a rejection of the null hypothesis. That is why, while for the time being, I do not believe that there is a difference in genetically-determined intelligence between races, I am not claiming that as a sanity-complete proposition. If Omega-the-super-intelligent-computer-with-a-100.00%-track-record-of-being-right were to conclude that such intelligence differences exist, I would conclude that Nature is a racist arsehole and support transhumanism more vigorously, but I would not be compelled to re-evaluate everything I thought I knew the way I would if Ωtsicwa100ptrobr were to state that China does not exist or that the Napoleonic Era didn't happen.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Summary of content in link:


    

  • The linear no-threshold model of radiation is not an accurate model of biology, as cells have DNA repair mechanisms; thus dose profile is as relevant as total dose. Long-term exposures adding up to high totals show little-to-no additional cancer risk if less than one millisievert is received per day. (There were over 2,000 'radium girls'; about 100 of them developed cancers, all of whom were exposed to >1mSv/d, and most of whom received >20mSv/d.)
    • 

  • More has been spent than is prudent on reducing very small daily radiation exposures.
    • 

  • The requirement that no opportunity be forgone to reduce radiation exposure, even if from 0.0004 millisievert/day to 0.000395 millisievert/day, combined with the structure of nuclear regulations (e. g., requiring a half-built plant, fully compliant with regulations at beginning of construction, to be torn out and restarted to comply with new standards), has driven up the cost of nuclear energy, and made the cost of building nuclear reactors unpredictable.
    • 



				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


in goods that are extremely inelastic (land)




Land may be inelastic, but the inelasticity of housing is a choice.




They used to think we'd never have energy too cheap to meter, and actually we don't have energy too cheap to meter




Also a choice; see the writings of Jack Devanney. (Summary will be posted below.)




And please explain why your preferred policies have failed so badly in the UK.




Artificial constraints such as 'the elites and middle managers must not be stopped in their monkey-dominance games', 'land-owners must never see their assets not gain in value', 'advances in nuclear technology must not be used to make cheaper energy if they can instead reduce already minimal radiation exposure by epsilon', &c., &c.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 26, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


“The poor will always be with you” is not a moral statement, it’s just a fact. We cannot, long-term, take care of everybody that we might like to. And no politics, no ideology however well-meaning can make it otherwise.




--Corvos, 2026




The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.




--Paul Ehrlich, 1968




The abolishment of pain in surgery is a chimera. It is absurd to go on seeking it... Knife and pain are two words in surgery that must forever be associated in the consciousness of the patient.




--Alfred Velpeau, 1839


Same schist cheems mindset, different day century....


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of February 9, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


a tiny fortress of blue beset on all sides by an encroaching jungle of red




I've heard that described as 'a blueberry in tomato soup'.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of January 12, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


And the paramilitary organisations that ended up becoming Israel were trying to kill Palestinians before Israel even existed.




And Palestinian Arabs were killing Jews even earlier. Haganah was founded following the 1920 Nebi Musa riots; Irgun was founded in 1931, two years after the Hebron massacre; Lehi wasn't founded until 1940!


(Also, re your previous comment, the 'Stern Gang' and 'Lehi' were the same organisation; listing both of them is redundant.)




and the Jews lasted for quite a while without [a sovereign state of their own].




...up until the post-WWI imposition of widespread migration controls. If the United States had let in the passengers on the MS St Louis, and those following in their footsteps, the impetus for a Jewish-majority state would have been greatly diminished.




I don't think it'd be that bad if they went wandering for another thousand years




In that case, I'll be happy to see you at the open-borders-for-every-country-including-Israel/Palestine/combination-thereof protest marches!




given what they've done with the state that they actually got.




The actions of Benjamin Netanyahu, many of which I do not condone, nevertheless are not something for which future-Anne-Frank-times-six-million bears any culpability. It is her, and her 5,995,000 innocent compatriots, about whom I am concerned.




given the actions of Israel itself, I don't think they can be trusted to have a sovereign state of their own




...actions which only occurred because people were trying to kill them. Mordechai didn't just attack Haman for no reason.




I don't think they can be trusted to have a sovereign state of their own




And given the events of the MS St Louis, the Nations can't be trusted without such a state!




but I don't think anyone should have nuclear power (see my comments in other threads - it isn't a viable energy source




In a sovereign Jewish state, that would be up to its citizens; however, I'm sure many of those citizens would agree with your position on that particular issue.




No problems with them setting up a nice big solar/wind farm though!




In that case, for 'NRC' substitute 'EPA' and for 'potential radioactive releases' substitute 'disruption of endangered desert fauna by solar panels and birds by wind turbines'.




they can live in a multicultural and multi-ethnic society like the rest of the world.




I believe that that is a laudable long-term goal, and hope that is achieved someday; however, I doubt that all the necessary pre-conditions have been established, or that it would be appropriate, given the events of the II quarter of the XX century, for such to be imposed on the Jewish people from without.


A world with many multi-cultural multi-ethnic societies with no immigration controls, in which ethno-nationalism and restriction of immigration had long and continuously been outside the Overton Window, would, I suspect, find the people of Israel much more amenable to a one-state solution.




and given that most of the [J]ews I meet in person(at anti-zionist protests) don't fall into this category I'm not going to be persuaded that this is arguing for their ethnic cleansing.




Unfortunately, many people do not make such distinctions.