Readers’ wildlife photos

August 3, 2023 • 8:15 am

Today we have a story and photo contribution about weevils by Athayde Tonhasca Júnior. Athayde’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

See no weevil, hear no weevil

As the story goes, J.B.S. Haldane (1892-1964), British/Indian geneticist, evolutionary biologist and mathematician, found himself in the company of a group of theologians. On being asked what one could learn about The Creator from studying his creation, the atheist Haldane is said to have answered ‘an inordinate fondness for beetles.’ Haldane may have said something like that, and indeed a Great Architect of the Universe would have had to be partial to the order Coleoptera. With nearly 400,000 known species, beetles lead the biodiversity table, making up about 25% of all known animal species. But if the Almighty Creator liked beetles, he was especially fond of weevils (superfamily Curculionoidea): there are over 97,000 described species, of which 76,761 are snout beetles (family Curculionidae) (Global Biodiversity Information Facility). But we know these figures are gross underestimates because in poorly studied areas, i.e., most of the world, the majority of weevil specimens collected are members of unknown species.

A circular tree of life for some described eukaryote groups (all organisms except bacteria and bacteria-like Archaea). Insects – in the left column – make up about 63% of the total [JAC: weevils are the black bar]. Vertebrates, together with other deuterostomes (animals for which the anus is formed before the mouth during embryonic development) are a mere ‘etcetera’ in the big scheme of life. Their biodiversity is comparable to weevils’ © Adam Dent, Wikimedia Commons:

 

Weevils are found practically everywhere, and almost all of them are plant eaters. They feed on plants from any terrestrial or freshwater habitats and on a range of tissues: roots, stems, phloem, fruits, flowers or seeds. Many species are among the most damaging pests of stored grain, field crops, orchards, ornamental plants and commercial forests. Weevils’ destructive potential can’t be overestimated. The boll weevil (Anthonomus grandis) wrecked the American cotton industry in the 1920s and 30s, then invaded South America in the 80s causing further mayhem. In the US, the Southern pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) is able to wipe out thousands of hectares of pine in less than two years, while grain weevils (Sitophilus spp.) can completely destroy rice, maize, wheat, oats, and many other products stored in silos around the world. You may have had your own experience with weevils infesting a bag of flour or a box of pasta in your pantry.

Rice weevils (S. oryzae), a pest of stored grains and cereal products. Some weevils don’t have the long snout characteristic of the group, and not all long-snouted beetles are weevils © CSIRO, Wikimedia Commons.

Considering weevils’ charge sheet, we would be tempted to dump the lot in the ‘creepy crawlers’ category. But that would be hasty and unjustified. Only a tiny minority of weevils are harmful, while the great majority contribute to the functioning of ecosystems. One way they do this is by pollinating a range of plants.

Cantharophily (from the Greek word kántharos for beetle), or pollination by beetles, is not well understood or researched, despite being one of the first pollinating systems in the evolutionary history of flowering plants. With time, bees, flies and moths became the main pollinators, but many plants, especially of ancient lineages such as magnolias (Magnoliaceae), retained cantharophily. Some custard apple-related plants (Annonaceae), arums (Araceae), palms (Arecaceae) and orchids (Orchidaceae) are also pollinated by beetles.

Most beetles don’t handle pollination skilfully and gently: they plough through flowers, gobbling down nectar, pollen or petals, defecating as they go, often spilling more pollen than they eat – that’s why they are called ‘mess and soil’ pollinators. During these raids, beetles become contaminated with pollen grains, which are deposited on the next plant they visit. Weevils, however, have a more intimate and nuanced rapport with their hosts. They lay their eggs on the flowers, where their larvae will grow and mature by feeding on pollen, ovules, or other floral parts. By hosting weevils during a significant portion of their lives, plants are almost guaranteed being pollinated for the price of a fraction of their reproductive parts.

This type of mutualistic relationship is known as brood-site pollination or nursery pollination and it has been reported dozens of times for different groups of insects, mostly in the tropics; the interactions between figs and wasps and between yuccas and moths are two of the better known examples. In the case of weevils, hundreds of species have coevolved brood-site associations with a range of plants, but mostly with palms (family Arecaceae).

Pupa (A), egg (B) and larvae (C-F) of weevils growing in different inflorescence parts of palms. Credits: A, F: J. Haran, B-E: B. de Medeiros © Haran et al., 2023:

One instance of weevil-palm mutualism has particular relevance for its ecological and economic implications: the pollination of African oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) by the African oil palm weevil (Elaeidobius kamerunicus). Male weevils feed on the palm’s flowers and pollen, while females oviposit in the flower structures, in which the larvae feed and develop. You can watch the weevils in action.

When oil palm growers around the world, but mostly in Indonesia and Malaysia (the leading producers and exporters of palm oil), began to import the pollinating weevil in 1981, the industry changed radically. The beetle adapted well to its new habitats and boosted African oil palm pollination, which resulted in sharp increases in production, revenue and applications; palm oil made its way into margarines, chocolates, baked products, cooking oils, soap, detergents, cosmetics – you name it. The “million dollar weevil” had been found (Robins, 2021).

A female African oil palm weevil, and weevils clustering on palm flowers © Ken Walker, Museum Victoria, CABI (L) and Susenoqurnia, Wikimedia Commons:

But as sociologist Robert K. Merton warned us, purposeful actions are bound to have multiple outcomes, some of them unanticipated. This law of unintended consequences (flippantly identified as Murphy’s Law) suited the case of the million dollar weevil to a T. Large-scale oil palm production resulted in massive deforestation that is destroying the habitats of large numbers of plant and animal species, and increased levels of erosion and pollution.

Fortunately, the introduced African oil palm weevil is an isolated case of ecological mishap. All other known examples of beetle brood-site pollination are mutualisms that help maintain biodiversity. Seres & Ramirez (1995) estimated that more than 45% of palms and herbs in some cloud forests are beetle‐pollinated, and Haran et al. (2023) have recorded at least 600 cases or suspected cases of palm-weevil interactions: the true number is likely to be much larger. We have the vaguest understanding of the pollinating services played by these weevils, but it mustn’t be something to sniff at considering that the number of Curculionidae species alone is almost four times bigger than the number of bee species (~20,000).

Palms and many other types of plant pollinated by weevils are sources of food, building materials, cosmetics and medicines; a good portion of those products are consumed locally or sold abroad, generating much needed income to developing countries. Not so bad for those maligned big-conked characters.

According to biblical sources, Noah’s ark had ~42,500 m3 of available space, the equivalent of 570 standard railroad stock cars. We can deduce that Noah’s ship was not a run-of-the-mill zoo because most species competing for a berth comprised parasites and weevils. Art by Simon de Myle, 1570. Wikimedia Commons:

Thursday: Hili dialogue

August 3, 2023 • 6:45 am

Welcome to Thursday, August 3 2023, and National Watermelon Day. About time, too!  Here’s a fine watermelon sculpture:

It’s also National IPA Day (the proliferation of overhopped beers, usually IPAs, is a schande), Clean Your Floors Day, Grab Some Nuts Day, and, in Niger, Independence Day, celebrates the independence of that country from France in 1960. Now, however, it’s all messed up by a military coup.

Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this by consulting the August 3 Wikipedia page.

Da Nooz:

*A NYT article describes all the twists and turns in the new Trump indictment, which represents an incursion into new legal territory. (See a similar article in the WaPo.). BTW, Trump will appear in court in Washington this morning, undoubtedly pleading “not guilty.”

Let’s have a poll!

[poll id=”36″]

But not since the framers emerged from Independence Hall on that clear, cool day in Philadelphia 236 years ago has any president who was voted out of office been accused of plotting to hold onto power in an elaborate scheme of deception and intimidation that would lead to violence in the halls of Congress.

What makes the indictment against Donald J. Trump on Tuesday so breathtaking is not that it is the first time a president has been charged with a crime or even the second. Mr. Trump already holds those records. But as serious as hush money and classified documents may be, this third indictment in four months gets to the heart of the matter, the issue that will define the future of American democracy.

At the core of the United States of America v. Donald J. Trump is no less than the viability of the system constructed during that summer in Philadelphia. Can a sitting president spread lies about an election and try to employ the authority of the government to overturn the will of the voters without consequence? The question would have been unimaginable just a few years ago, but the Trump case raises the kind of specter more familiar in countries with histories of coups and juntas and dictators.

In effect, Jack Smith, the special counsel who brought the case, charged Mr. Trump with one of the most sensational frauds in the history of the United States, one “fueled by lies” and animated by the basest of motives, the thirst for power. In a 45-page, four-count indictment, Mr. Smith dispensed with the notion that Mr. Trump believed his claims of election fraud. “The defendant knew that they were false,” it said, and made them anyway to “create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and erode public faith in the administration of the election.”

. . .Despite prognostications to the contrary, the last two indictments succeeded only in enhancing his appeal among Republicans in the contest for the party nomination to challenge President Biden next year.

In a court of law, however, the challenge for Mr. Trump will be different, especially with a jury selected from residents of Washington, a predominantly Democratic city where he won just 5 percent of the vote in 2020. Mr. Trump’s strategy may be to try to delay a trial until after the 2024 election and hope that he wins so that he can short-circuit the prosecution or even try to pardon himself.

The most essential facts of the case, after all, are not in dispute, nor did he deny any of the assertions made in the indictment on Tuesday.

Pardoning himself, of course, opens up a whole new legal can of worms, and I’m not sure whether he can short circuit the prosecution, save claiming that he can’t do his duties if he’s on trial.  If he gets elected, the rabbit hole gets even deeper. I was ashamed of America when he won his first term but now that he’s

*Jennifer Rubin at the WaPo answers a number of questions you might have about the new indictment, including, “Can we get Trump off the ballot?” Here are a few Q&A’s:

Will Trump’s co-conspirators be charged?
Guest

It is altogether appropriate that Trump stand alone for the conspiracies that led to Jan 6. The historic, serious nature of the crime is emphasized with Trump being the only defendant. But what of the co-conspirators? They should be held accountable, too. They can be charged separately, but when is it likely to happen?

Jennifer Rubin
Jennifer Rubin
If a state attempts to do so, he would no doubt sue, and the case would likely eventually reach the Supreme Court. If he were first convicted on federal charges, there might be a better argument to invoke the 14th Amendment, although Trump was not charged with sedition. I think it’s unlikely he’ll be taken off the ballot this way. Maybe Republicans should finally put country over Trump and not vote for him? If not, the rest of the country surely must prevent a catastrophe for democracy.

******

How could it possibly be legal for Trump to pardon himself?
Danella

That would clearly puts him above the law. Why do so many people continually suggest this is a possibility? I’d like to see it legally answered before the election.

Jennifer Rubin

I find the concept ludicrous. The pardon power comes from English common law, which allowed the sovereign extended mercy to others. In short, the president is not a king, and he is not his own subject. If the president could pardon himself, Nixon certainly would have. Moreover, if the president could pardon himself, there would be no need for a debate about whether a sitting president can be indicted. The Framers did not conceive of the presidency as a ticket to go on a crime spree without accountability.

*It’s astounding how Republican voters and politicians can justify all the indictments falling on Trump, and continue to support him. This lunacy is described in a WSJ article, “Indict, rally, repeat: reactions to latest Trump charges follow similar script.”

The new charges divided the GOP field running against Trump for the 2024 nomination, while triggering key Republicans on Capitol Hill to rally to the former president’s side. Among voters, the latest legal action appears likely to energize Trump’s most ardent supporters and exacerbate national divisions as the presidential race heats up.

. . .“Unlike the previous indictments, this could be a real political liability for the former president,” said Republican consultant Alex Conant, who led communications for Sen. Marco Rubio’s 2016 presidential campaign and served as a spokesman in the second Bush White House. “But only if his Republican challengers actually try to exploit it.”

That wasn’t the initial approach taken by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump’s closest current challenger for the nomination. “I will end the weaponization of government, replace the FBI director, and ensure a single standard of justice for all Americans,” he said in a tweet that made no mention of Trump or his actions after the 2020 election.

Businessman Vivek Ramaswamy repeated his pledge that if he is elected and the former president is convicted, he would pardon Trump.

. . . Most of Trump’s challengers have been reluctant to directly attack him because he enjoys solid support with roughly a third of GOP primary voters. That means contenders have to find a way to try to knock him from the lead without alienating his supporters amid a large field that is splitting the anti-Trump vote.

. . .Democrats in Congress praised the indictment. “It’s about damn time Trump joins the thousands of domestic terrorists charged for participating in the January 6th insurrection,” Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D., Calif.) said.

Republicans called the case a partisan sham. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) alluded to the indictment as a diversion from President Biden’s current problems with his scandal-plagued son, Hunter.

“Everyone in America could see what was going to come next: DOJ’s attempt to distract from the news and attack the front-runner for the Republican nomination,” McCarthy said.

So it goes. Both parties are going to have trouble with Republican support for Trump, but in different ways. Democrats, on the side of the angels with this one, nevertheless have to worry that the indictments could improve Trump’s chances for reelection. Republicans, or at least the candidates, have to walk that fine line between calling attention to Trump’s crimes and alienating his supporters. I’d like to see the approval ratings in a month

*Robert Bowers, 50, who killed 11 Jews worshiping at Pittsburgh’s Tree of Life Synagogue in 2018, was convicted earlier, but yesterday got the death penalty from the jury, a recommendation that the judge cannot overturn.

The jury’s decision, which is binding on the judge, was announced Wednesday in the same federal courtroom where the jurors in June convicted the gunman, Robert Bowers, 50, of carrying out the massacre during sabbath services nearly five years ago. The judge will formally impose the sentence at a hearing on Thursday morning, when families of some victims are expected to address the court.

Since I oppose state-sanctioned killing, and am opposed to all capital punishment, I think this next rabbi is sensible:

Rabbi Jon Perlman of the New Light congregation, who was leading services on the morning of the attack and lost three members of his congregation, said in an op-ed published on Wednesday that he did not believe executing Bowers “would bring either justice or peace.” Writing in The Forward, a Jewish newspaper, the rabbi said: “Revenge will not bring our slain loved ones back to life. And seeking it may even hurt ourselves and extend our sadness.”

This was a federal sentence, which means the execution should be carried out in Terre Haute, Indiana, but there are also state charges pending. Is there any sense in having another trial, though? Yes, because this one could be overturned on appeal.

After a jury determined on Wednesday that Robert Bowers, the gunman who killed 11 worshipers at a Pittsburgh synagogue, should face the death penalty, loud sobbing could be heard in a hallway of the courthouse and several relatives of victims of the shooting could be seen crying as they walked out of the courtroom.

Since the attack in 2018, there has been no consensus among victims’ family members and the members of three congregations at the synagogue about whether the government should seek the death penalty for Mr. Bowers.

. . .The election in 2020 of Joe Biden, who had pledged to end the federal death penalty, prompted speculation that prosecutors would reverse the decision to seek death for Mr. Bowers. But despite offers from Mr. Bowers’s lawyers to have him plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence without possibility of release, the government stuck to its plan.

. . . The decision in the Pittsburgh case, prosecutors said in a motion in April, was based not only on the factors that make a crime eligible for the death penalty under the law — like the substantial planning that went into the attack, or the particular vulnerability of older adults and intellectually disabled victims — but also on other considerations.

If Biden is serious about ending the death penalty, he has the power to commute the federal sentence to life without parole. Will he do it? If he doesn’t, I’ll lose a lot of respect for the man. A promise is a promise!

*And let’s have some biology. A new report in Nature, as reported by the AP, describes the fossil remains of an ancient whale that may have been the heaviest animal that ever lived.

There could be a new contender for heaviest animal to ever live. While today’s blue whale has long held the title, scientists have dug up fossils from an ancient giant that could tip the scales.

Researchers described the new species — named Perucetus colossus, or “the colossal whale from Peru” — in the journal Nature on Wednesday. Each vertebra weighs over 220 pounds (100 kilograms) and its ribs measure nearly 5 feet (1.4 meters) long.

“It’s just exciting to see such a giant animal that’s so different from anything we know,” said Hans Thewissen, a paleontologist at Northeast Ohio Medical University who had no role in the research.

The bones were first discovered more than a decade ago by Mario Urbina from the University of San Marcos’ Natural History Museum in Lima. An international team spent years digging them out from the side of a steep, rocky slope in the Ica desert, a region in Peru that was once underwater and is known for its rich marine fossils. The results: 13 vertebrae from the whale’s backbone, four ribs and a hip bone.

. . .The massive fossils, which are 39 million years old, “are unlike anything I’ve ever seen,” said study author Alberto Collareta, a paleontologist at Italy’s University of Pisa.

After the excavations, the researchers used 3D scanners to study the surface of the bones and drilled into them to peek inside. They used the huge — but incomplete — skeleton to estimate the whale’s size and weight, using modern marine mammals for comparison, said study author Eli Amson, a paleontologist at the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart, Germany.

They calculated that the ancient giant weighed somewhere between 94 and 375 tons (85 and 340 metric tons). The biggest blue whales found have been within that range — at around 200 tons (180 metric tons).

Its body stretched to around 66 feet (20 meters) long. Blue whales can be longer — with some growing to more than 100 feet (30 meters) in length.

This means the newly discovered whale was “possibly the heaviest animal ever,” Collareta said, but “it was most likely not the longest animal ever.”

In contrast, the massive Brontosaurus is a flyweight, clocking in at a mere 34 tons.  Here’s its size compared to a human and then its position on the scale of vertebrate weight. Look how big it is compared to an elephant! (Figures from paper.)

 

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, the cats have taken over the Staff Bed:

Hili: Aren’t you asleep as well?
Szaron: Yes, but I’m pretending to be asleep.
In Polish:
Hili: Czy też nie śpisz?
Szaron: Też, ale udaję, że śpię.

********************

From Paula:

From Merilee (click to enlarge):

From BuzzFeed, and every word is true! All Chicago residents feel queasy when they see an uninformed tourist put ketchup on their dog.

From Masih, an Iranian actress arrested for doffing her hijab, and then sexually abused in prison:

 

From Bryan: Dawkins and Helen Joyce discuss the difference between politely using pronouns and believing in a genuine sex transformation:

From Malcolm, a glass harp:

 

From Barry; look at Astaire go at age 70!

From the Auschwitz Memorial, a rare woman rabbi who died in the camp at 42:

Tweets from Dr. Cobb. These “gladiator crabs” may be on the road to speciation.

Ancient Ignatz!

A later version:

And a wonderful duckling rehab video from Dodoland!

Going to the Galápagos and then Israel

August 2, 2023 • 1:00 pm

I’m long overdue for some traveling, and so here are my next two trips.

Galápagos:  I’m lecturing for a University of Chicago Alumni group tour on a Lindblad cruise of the famous archipelago. I’ll be gone from August 11 through August 20 (a quickie). I’ll be giving two big lectures and perhaps two audience-participation discussions.

Israel: This has always been on my bucket list, so I’m going for a few weeks. I’m leaving here September 2 and will return Sept. 23.

In both cases, please don’t send wildlife photos (or many email items in general), as I’m not sure how much internet access I’ll have, and stuff may get lost. Posting on this website will certainly be much more sporadic. I will do my best.

HOWEVER, if there are any readers in Israel who would like to say “hi”, I’ll be there for about three weeks. The first ten days I’ll be in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, often (but not always) with friends, and after that will travel around the country to see more sights.  Email me if you want to share some hummus or falafel!

Why can’t you be transracial?

August 2, 2023 • 11:30 am

A while back there was some discussion about whether people could claim that they were members of a race/ethnicity other than the one they were born into. The paradigmatic example was Rachel Dolezal, a white woman in Spokane, Washington who claimed to be black, and altered her appearance to match her claims. She worked her way up to the presidency of the local NAACP before she was outed by her family and the press. She was thereby fired from the NAACP, and hugely demonized for pretending she was black. It became clear that “transracialism” was not something one could do, in huge contrast with claiming one is transgender, which is not only largely accepted but lauded.

My first reaction was to believe Dolezal’s claim that she did feel she was black, and so why was she demonized in contrast to a natal woman who claims that she really is a man trapped in a woman’s body? There doesn’t seem to be a fundamental philosophical or moral difference between transracialism and transgenderism so long as the claimant expresses honest feelings. Sure, you can make up reasons why slight differences would render the former unacceptable, but they’re just made-up reasons to somehow defend the sanctity of race. To see the lengths people will go to demonize transracialism, read some of the arguments in the NBC News article below.

The philosophical similarity of transgenderism and transracialism was thoroughly discussed by philosopher Rebecca Tuvel in the journal Hypatia in a 2017 article called “In Defense of Transracialism,” (see my take here), and Tuvel was instantly demonized, with the journal’s editor apologizing on Facebook and petitions circulating calling for the article’s retraction. This is all because, in a philosophical analysis, Tuvel didn’t find a substantive difference between transsexualism and transracialism. Here’s her abstract and a footnote:

 

(Note Tuvel’s footnote when you read the critiques of transracialism in the article below.)

And yes, I agree with Tuvel. If society deems it okay to assume the trappings of a sex other than your natal sex, then they should also accept one who assumes the trappings of a race different from their natal race, so long as the transracial persona comes from honest motivations. After all, both gender and race are said to be social constructs (they aren’t, but it’s irrelevant)(, so why is it okay to change gender but not change race? The only reason I see is that “race” is seen as somehow sacrosanct, even though, like sex, it’s something you’re born with (both natal sex and race actually have biological realities). Race is such a touchy and divisive topic these days that it’s apparently regarded as something that an individual cannot change, even if, like Dolezal, you’re transitioning from a “privileged” race to a “minoritized one.”  And this is often the direction in which it goes.

This controversy is the subject of this NBC News article. Click to read:


The upshot is that many people are now trying to assume a new race—most of them young women, and most of them trying to become East Asian.  This is often done by some numinous method called “subliminals,” whereby you can change your appearance by listening to audio files. That’s hokum, of course, but let’s ignore that and look at the arguments against people who feel they’re Asian and want others to accept them as such. Or against those who want to change their natal race to anything at all. NBC News doesn’t quote a single person in the article who says that this change is okay. Quotes from the article are indented:

Practitioners of what they call “race change to another,” or RCTA, purport to be able to manifest physical changes in their appearance and even their genetics to become a different race. They tune in to subliminal videos that claim can give them an “East Asian appearance” or “Korean DNA.”

But experts underscore that it is simply impossible to change your race.

“It’s just belief,” said Jamie Cohen, an assistant professor of cultural and media studies at Queens College, City University of New York. “It doesn’t ever really work, because it’s not doing anything, but they have convinced themselves that it works because there’s other people who have convinced themselves, as well.”

Well, maybe you’re not changing your genetics to correspond with the ethnic groups we call “races”, but neither are transgender (sometimes called “transsexual”) people changing their gametes. It’s changing your persona, and you can do that with race as easily as you can with gender. Cohen’s argument is simply incoherent, because both transgenderism and transsexualism are “just belief”!

Here’s another argument:

Experts agree race is not genetic. But they contend that even though race is a cultural construct, it is impossible to change your race because of the systemic inequalities inherent to being born into a certain race.

David Freund, a historian of race and politics and an associate professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, corroborates the idea that a “biological race” does not exist. What we know today as “race” is a combination of inherited characteristics and cultural traditions passed down through generations, he said.

In addition, Freund said, the modern concept of race is inseparable from the systemic racial hierarchy hundreds of years in the making. Simply put, changing races is not possible, because “biological races” themselves are not real.

Freund added that the idea of changing one’s race operates differently depending on a person’s racial background and that white people who seek to “transition” to other races can often sidestep the harms of racism.

First of all, as Luana and I show in our Skeptical Inquirer article, race (even in its crudest classification) does have a polygenic basis: races and ethnicities conform very well to cluster analysis based on many genes. And of course sex devolves to a activated genes that set off a pathway resulting in whether you have the equipment to make sperm or eggs. Biology is key in forming both one’s natal ethnicity and natal sex.  So if you can change one because you’re uncomfortable, why can’t you change the other? (By “change”, of course, I mean “change the claim of what you are”, not change the reality of your biological sex and race.)

So Freund is wrong about that.  But what about the sex hierarchy of women’s inferiority that was also hundreds of years in the making? Again, though, I don’t see the relevance of a “hierarchy” argument, especially because most people who want to change their race are going from white to a “person of color”—the direction of accruing more bigotry. (Apparently black people “passing for white” because of their light skin is not so bad, except in the Jim Crow South that adhered to the “one drop” rule.)

Another critic:

Kevin Nadal, a professor of psychology at City University of New York, said: “There is a privilege in being able to change your race or to say that you’re changing your race. There are many people who would be unable to ever change their race. Particularly, Black people in this country would be unable to say all of a sudden ‘I’m white’ and be treated with the same privileges that white people have.”

Again the argument doesn’t make sense. People who want to change their race, like Dolezal, meet with huge opposition.  While there are indeed transphobes, the general tenor of liberal thought is to accept someone’s claim that their self-identified gender differs from their natal gender.  Again, why does race differ? Sure, it’s hard for a black person to claim that they’re white if their pigmentation and other traits are obviously black, but that’s also the case for many natal men who claim that their identity is that of a women but still look like men.  In both cases one can accept the change of persona while still recognizing the natal origins of someone. (To be polite, though, one should address someone as they wish to be addressed and identified—except in cases like sports and prisons, where natal sex should be recognized.)

One more:

Tiq Milan, a Black transgender activist and writer, said it is a disservice to transgender people to compare the two. Race historically emerged as a social construct to establish a racial hierarchy with the white race at the top, whereas variances in gender identity have existed for thousands of years, he said.

“When it comes to who we are as racialized people, it is how we present to the world, but it’s also how people treat you,” Milan said. “It’s not just putting on the hair and the makeup and talking and walking [in] a kind of way. That is fetishizing, and it’s objectifying, and it reduces the beautiful and complicated cultures of people of color.”

First, I don’t think race was “constructed” to establish a hierarchy; as far as I know, race wasn’t used by the ancient Romans or Egyptians to rank ethnicities, and at any rate Egyptians aren’t white.  Of course recognition of different types of both ethnicity and gender have existed for thousands of years. But that seems irrelevant too, as does the “beautiful and complicated cultures of people of color” (is this an implication that people of no color have inferior cultures?).  All that matters to me is that people can claim either a gender or an ethnicity different from their natal condition, and if there are good reasons for this, and it’s not a hoax but a real feeling, why should race and sex differ?

It goes on, but not one person was asked to defend transracialism. (Why didn’t they call Rebecca Tuvel?)

In the end, my view is that if you’re going to go along with people’s claims that they’re of a different natal gender than their natal sex, then there’s no reason not to do the same with race or ethnicity. It may be harder for race if natal race is obvious, but it’s often hard for transgender people too, like accepting the claim of a natal man with a mustache and penis that he’s of female gender.

Now in neither case do we have to accept the reality of claims like “I’m a woman” from a natal man or “I’m an East Asian” from a natal white person. But I think it’s entirely possible to identify with a race other than your natal race, and we should treat those who do so the same as we do transgender folks.

The only difference I can see is that there are racial set-asides, as in affirmative action, and it seems unfair to say you’re black when you were born white just to take advantage of these. But such set-asides are disappearing, and really shouldn’t exist at all. And remember that there are female set-asides as well, and those also seem unfair. Most of us think that a transgender woman should not be able to compete on female athletic teams.

Perhaps the readers can find a relevant philosophical difference for treating transracialism different from transsexualism.  I don’t fully understand why they’re treated differently, nor do the explanations above clarify things for me. It seems to pivot on the centrality of race in public discourse, but even that isn’t very helpful since biological sex and trangenderism are also hot topics these days.

For a sarcastic take on the NBC article, read the Not The Bee piece below (click to read, h/t Luana):

Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal discuss the “dueling articles” of Dawkins and Rose

August 2, 2023 • 10:00 am

I could listen only to the free 17-minute beginning of Katie Herzog and Jesse Singal’s podcast episode, “But really, what IS a woman?”, as I don’t subscribe (I would, but I now subscribe to more sites than I can keep up with). At any rate, if you click below you can hear the 17-minute take for free, and then, if you want to subscribe and hear the whole thing, go here.

They introduce the controversy about “what is a woman” discussed by Richard Dawkins and Jacqueline Rose (see here for my link and the link to Dawkins’s and Rose’s pieces), and then go into the mistakes made when one violates the standard gamete-based definition of biological sex—mistakes famously promulgated by Anne Fausto-Sterling and repeated to this day by gender activists (though Fausto-Sterling’s calculation has long since been corrected by others). No, people, the frequency of intersexes is not 2%, they are not as common as people with red hair, they do not represent “other sexes” and thereby violate the sex binary, and, most important, people with intersex conditions are not the same thing as transgender people.

One plaint: Herzog mentions me and says that I “blog like it’s 2003,” which I gather means more than once a day, but what’s wrong with that? And what’s with the 2003?

That aside, the first 17 minutes of discussion is good, and if the podcasters loved me—since they do read this “blog”—they might give me free access. I know they’re reading this website (not a “blog”)!

Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ sunk costs

August 2, 2023 • 9:00 am

Today’s Jesus and Mo strip, called “written”, came with the email note, “In for a penny. . . ”  And, as usual, the Divine Duo instantiate exactly what the barmaid is accusing them of.

Speaking of the “sunk cost fallacy,” we discussed it recently with respect to the New Zealand government’s continued funding of Māori projects investigating a phenomenon proven to be wrong a long time ago (the phases of the Moon supposedly affect plant growth and physiology).

Readers’ wildlife photos

August 2, 2023 • 8:15 am

Today’s photos come from Doug Hayes of Richmond, Virginia, and are called “Back to the swamp.” Doug’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them.

Two trips to the Chamberlayne Swamp. The Bird Nerds are pretty excited about the hatching of four babies by a pair of green herons. On the first trip, the little herons were almost two weeks old. The most recent shots were taken eight days later. They should be ready to leave the nest in another week or so.

Bird Nerds Assemble! A few of the regulars gathered at the edge of the swamp for a morning of birding. The green heron nest is about 100 feet from this spot:

A belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) – one of my “bucket list” birds as these little guys are very fast and skittish around people and it takes a lot of luck to get a good shot of a kingfisher. This female landed about 50 feet from where we were photographing some anhingas and decided to hang around for a while, preening and drying off:

Even though she was aware of us, this kingfisher just went about her business:

A blue heron (Ardea herodias), a Great egret (Ardea alba) and an anhinga (Anhinga anhinga) walk into a bar…  The anhinga had been on that branch for some time, then the egret decided it was a nice preening spot. A bit later, a heron joined in:

Four baby green herons (Butorides virescens). The nest is only about 100 feet from the edge of the swamp. The babies were not quite two weeks old in this picture. One of the babies is quite a bit smaller than the other three. One of the Nerds said that the runt hatched several days after the others. One of the crew is quite a bit bigger than the rest and is very
aggressive at feeding time, pushing his siblings aside to get fed:

Mom returns and the feeding frenzy begins:

The joys of motherhood:

Babies fed, mom heads off to find more food:

The big guy keeping watch for mom’s return:

What a difference a week makes! The big guy and his siblings have outgrown the nest and are almost as big as mom. Most of the fuzzy down is gone, replaced by nearly adult feathers and coloration. The big guy is always on the watch for mom, making sure he is first in the chow line:

And the rest of the gang. The “runt” (top center) is still noticeably smaller than the others but is doing well. They spend all their time climbing around the branches of the tree where the nest is located:

Feeding time. As usual, the big guy goes first:

Fish for breakfast!:

Mom takes a breather before heading out in search of food for the gang:

Camera info:  Sony A7RV body, Clear View Digital Zoom, Sony 200-600 zoom lens + 1.4X teleconverter, Ifootage Cobra 2 monopod, Neewer gimbal tripod head.