Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
I think it’s legal in several states to own servals (Leptailurus serval) , so long as they’re bred in captivity. (Their genes went into producing the “savannah cat” breed.) But owning wild felids isn’t recommended. Here’s a pet serval intimidating a housecat just by touching it lightly with its paw. Enlarge the video and turn the sound on to hear the low rumblings of the serval:
Every week in the Free Press Douglas Murray publishes thoughts on his favorite poems, and I have to say that he has good taste. This poem, “For I will consider my cat Jeoffry“, is a fragment of a larger poem, “Jubilate Agno” (“Rejoice in the lamb”) written by Christopher Smart (1722-1771), probably while he was confined in St. Luke’s Hospital for Lunatics in London. The data of the poem is unknown, and it wasn’t even published until 1939.
Still, in my view it remains the best poem about cats ever written, and although some of the “lunacy” might be evident, it hangs together as a great piece of work. I must have mentioned it, if not reproduced it, several times on this website. The second best poem about cats is, of course, Pangur Bán, a fragment written by a ninth-century Irish monk in his notebooks.
Here’s Murray on the poem (an extract from his article):
. . . at some point, his mind started to become lost to him. Dr. Johnson described his “poor friend” Kit Smart as showing “the disturbance of his mind, by falling upon his knees, and saying his prayers in the street, or in any other unusual place.” Johnson noted with characteristic clarity and charity that there was no reason why those who fall to their knees and pray in the street should be regarded as displaying any “greater madness” than those who do “not pray at all.” But the rules then, as now, were unclear and Smart found himself on the wrong side of them. Devout Christian piety was expected. But not that much.
So, in a deeply religious society, poor Kit Smart still ended up in the madhouse. And it was there that he created the work for which he is now best known.
That work is “Jubilate Agno” (or, translated from Latin, “Rejoice in the Lamb”), an ecstatic, long poem that claims all of nature is always and forever by its nature praising God. It adheres to a strange logic. For example, Smart decided that his Psalm-like verses must fall into two categories: sections in which every verse begins with the word Let and those that begin with For. The surviving manuscript throws up multiple textual and interpretational problems.
For these reasons, among many others, it took centuries for Smart’s work to reach outside the madhouse walls. Though he composed the poem in a mental asylum between 1759 and 1763, it was not published until 1939.
The visions contained in “Jubilate Agno” hover between the sublime and the absurd. Sometimes the poet is in a state of religious ecstasy—about which, who is to judge? At other times, he seems to be banging his head against a padded wall. Amid the exultation of all nature praising God, there are also occasional moments showing a knowledge of his situation that are almost too painful to read. At one point, Smart scribbles onto his densely packed pages: For in my nature I quested for beauty, but God, God hath sent me to sea for pearls.
And the bit about Jeoffry:
A few years ago, a young biographer, Oliver Soden, wrote a fanciful biography of Jeoffry: The Poet’s Cat. Nobody knows where Jeoffry came from or went to; Soden describes him in the asylum with Smart, keeping the poet company.
. . . .In the imaginary biography of Jeoffry, the cat has moved on after his master’s death, and has found a new home. Nobody knows who he is or what he has seen, but at the end, as he is quietly dying, his biographer writes, “All the while nobody knew that Jeoffry had once danced in the rain with Christopher Smart.” What an image. What an honor.
Read the Jeoffry bit of the poem; I require it of you, especially if you have a cat. It is not long but quite evocative.
Benjamin Britten wrote music for parts of Jubilate Agno, which he called “Rejoice in the Lamb”. Here’s the music about Jeoffrey, with the YouTube notes:
Miranda Colchester sings “For I will Consider my Cat Jeoffry” from “Rejoice in the Lamb” by Benjamin Britten. Ulf Norberg playing on an Allen organ in Hedvig Eleonora church, Stockholm, Sweden. Recorded and edited by Pär Fridberg.
Is this conclusion from a piece in Science really surprising? Tigers are complex animals, and anyone studying wild mammals quickly learns their varied quirks. Here’s the rational for this study of the “personalities” of Siberian tigers studied in zoos (that, of course, can change their behavior). There’s a link to the original paper:
In the first study investigating the dispositions of tigers in a semiwild setting, researchers surveyed the caretakers of nearly 250 Siberian tigers about the cats’ personality traits. The findings, published today in the Royal Society Open Science, suggests the psychological makeup of Siberian tigers may affect their hunting, mating, and even social standing among their peers.
The work could help conservationists manage these endangered animals, says Ellen Williams, an ethologist at Harper Adams University who was not involved in the new study. With only about 500 Siberian tigers left in the wild, insights into how they interact with their environment are vital, she says.
Click to see the précis in Science:
An excerpt:
So when scientists led by Rosalind Arden, a cognitive researcher at the London School of Economics and Political Science, wanted to plumb the psyche of these fierce felines, they turned to 248 Siberian tigers living in two wildlife sanctuaries in northeastern China where groups of tigers roam in fenced-in swaths of forests or snowy grasslands. The team invited more than 50 feeders and veterinarians to fill out questionnaires with lists of 67 to 70 adjectives that described tiger personality traits for each cat in their care. These words ranged from “savage” and “imposing” to “dignified” and “friendly.” The researchers designed the questionnaires to mimic human personality tests.
In total, the caretakers completed more than 800 questionnaires, offering the researchers multiple personality surveys on each tiger. A battery of statistical analyses revealed whether particular adjectives clustered around certain tigers.
Two distinct personality types emerged that accounted for nearly 40% of the tigers’ behaviors. Tigers that scored higher on words such as confident, competitive, and ambitious fell under what the researchers labeled as the “majesty” mindset. Those that exhibited traits such as obedience, tolerance, and gentleness were grouped together under the “steadiness” mindset. Together, these two personalities explained 38% of the behavioral differences displayed by the tigers in the study.
According to Williams, the new findings resemble past data on both wild and domestic cats. She cites a review article that found the most common personality types across felines are sociable, dominant, and curious. “It would seem that ‘majesty’ aligns quite closely with a ‘dominant’ personality component,” she says, “and their ‘steadiness’ component aligns with components such as ‘calm.’”
These personality types seem to make a difference. Based on their weights and eating habits, the tigers with majesty mindsets were generally healthier than those with steadiness personalities. They also hunted more, mated more often, and had more breeding success. Tigers that scored higher on majesty traits also appeared to have a higher social status than tigers that scored higher in steadiness traits, according to their caretakers.
So it pays to be aggressive, which isn’t a surprise. However, as author Tamisea notes, this doesn’t hold true for all mammals. In chimps, our closest living relatives (along with bonobos), a reproductive advantage appears to accrue to those individuals
A live broadcast captured the moment a cat interrupted an imam’s nightly Ramadan prayer in Algeria, and the internet went crazy for it
.The clip was posted to Imam Walid Mehsas’ Facebook page on Tuesday, April 4. It shows a white cat with orange and black patches pop out from behind a wall next to the imam and meow up at him as he prays. The cat climbs onto a ledge that’s supporting a microphone for a better vantage point, then jumps down and paws and rubs at the imam’s legs to get his attention.
Today’s photos come from reader Teresa Vuoso, who sent a batch of pictures from Arizona. Teresa’s captions and narrative are indented, and you can click on the photos to enlarge them.
In late February, my father, brother, and I met in southeastern Arizona to visit the Chiricahua National Monument and Whitewater Draw Wildlife Area. The weather was unusually cold, and a light snow actually closed the road the road to the top of Chiricahuan. Still, beauty was in abundance. My brother, Mark McMillen, took some of these pictures and they are included with his consent. I have no background in photography, biology or any other “ology”. I am just a fan of Dr. Coyne since hearing him speak about Darwin on a cruise to Antarctica and who wants to help keep the readers’ wildlife photos coming.
JAC: Yes, please follow Teresa’s lead and send in those photos!
Big Balanced Rock at Chiricahua National Monument. It is 22′ in diameter, 25′ tall, and weighs about 1,000 tons. Mark and I hiked almost 8 miles roundtrip with an elevation gain of 1396′. We got to Big Balanced Rock just in time to watch a storm roll in complete with sleet, wind, and rain. Got drenched walking back down, but would do it again:
Our first sighting of Big BalancedRock:
We hiked a trail along huge rock formations such as these:
A portion of the trail:
On the way to Faraway Ranch (a dude ranch established in 1917), we saw these cute raccoon-like critters, Coatimundi/Coati (Nasua narica). They are native to South America, Mexico, and the southwest US.
Curious Coati trotted along with their bushy tails held high and then would stop to assess us:
Coatimundi:
We visited Whitewater Draw Wildlife Area on two occasions. The first was terribly cold and windy. While there we saw thousands of Sandhill Cranes, Snow Geese, American Coots, and Mallards.
Whitewater Draw is a very scenic, marshy area surrounded by mountains.
Whitewater Draw is the winter home of thousands of birds including flocks of Sandhill Cranes (Antigone canadensis) . They form flocks of more than 10,000 as they fly down from northern Canada every year at altitudes averaging 6,000-7,000 feet (Photo by Mark McMillen):
Here you can see the red skin on the crown of adults (Photo credit Mark McMillen):
We were fortunate enough to watch several flocks descend, circling from very high altitudes before landing. (Photo by Mark McMillen):
These birds fly out in the morning to forage in other fields and marshes before returning in the afternoon. (Photo credit Mark McMillen):
It’s a small world. Two groups of birdwatchers from Jamaica Bay, NYC (a favorite spot of mine) happened upon each other by sheer coincidence. I mentioned I was from New York also, whereupon I heard someone, whom I presume was not a New Yorker, say, “You can’t swing a dead bird without hitting a New Yorker.” 🙂:
I’m including this because I found it unique. A couple traveling from Switzerland brought their own camper.
Herman Goelitz Candy Company provided the Reagan White House with Jelly Belly® jelly beans for all eight years of Reagan’s presidency. In February 1981 Herman G. Rowland, the president of Herman Goelitz and a fourth-generation descendant of the company’s founders, received official Government authorization to develop a Jelly Belly® jelly bean jar with the Presidential Seal on it. These Presidential jars of Jelly Belly® beans, each in its own blue gift box, were given by Reagan to heads of state, diplomats, and many other White House guests.
President Reagan’s favorite Jelly Belly® flavor was licorice.
It’s also Earth Day and its related observance: International Mother Earth Day, celebrated in today’s Google Doodle (click on screenshot to go to where it points):
Finally, it’s (oy) In God We Trust Day (“On April 22, 1864, Congress passed an act allowing for “In God We Trust” to begin appearing on U.S. coins), and the National Day of Puppetry.
Readers are welcome to mark notable events, births, or deaths on this by consulting the April 22 Wikipedia page.
The Supreme Court said Friday evening that the abortion pill mifepristone would remain widely available for now, delaying the potential for an abrupt end to a drug that is used in more than half of abortions in the United States.
The order halted steps that had sought to curb the availability of mifepristone as an appeal moves forward: a ruling from a federal judge in Texas to suspend the drug from the market entirely and another from an appeals court to impose significant barriers on the pill, including blocking access by mail.
The unsigned, one-paragraph order, which came hours before restrictions were set to take effect, marked the second time in a year that the Supreme Court had considered a major effort to sharply curtail access to abortion. . .
In Friday’s order, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented.
. . .This is most likely not the final word from the justices. After the Fifth Circuit hears the appeal, the matter is likely to make its way back to the Supreme Court.
None of the justices appointed by President Donald J. Trump publicly dissented.
The court’s decision is, at least temporarily, a victory for the Biden administration.
This split is odd because it was Alito who originally allowed the pill’s distribution to go forward until midnight last night, and now it’s going forward for a while. But this case will wind up in the Supreme Court.
You can see the short formal decision and Alito’s longer dissent here.
What I wrote about this yesterday evening: It looks as if the U.S. Supreme Court is going to weigh in on whether a Texas judge’s blocking of the abortion pill mifepristone (on a national basis, apparently) can be continued. Justice Alito paused the ban at the request of the Biden administration, but that pause ended at midnight last night. This will not be a formal for-all-time ruling, but a temporary ruling. The court may take up the issue later, and it’s a biggie, for it will determine whether the judicial arm of government can rule on whether the FDA used proper science when approving a drug. Here are the some things the article says could happen:
At issue is the availability of mifepristone, part of a two-drug regimen that now accounts for more than half of the abortions in the United States. More than five million women have used mifepristone to terminate their pregnancies in the United States, and dozens of other countries have approved the drug for use.
Federal judges have questioned steps the F.D.A. has taken to expand the drug’s distribution, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, imposed significant barriers to access last week, even as it said that it would allow the pill to remain on the market.
Its decision essentially turns back the clock to 2016, when the F.D.A. added a series of guidelines that eased access to the pill. The restrictions would include blocking patients from receiving the drug by mail.
Experts say removing the mail option would have significant consequences: Patients would have to take time off work, pay travel costs to get to a medical office and endure the stigma of going out in public to seek an abortion.
The case could also pave the way for all sorts of challenges to the F.D.A.’s approval of medications. Legal experts said medical providers anywhere in the country might be enabled to challenge government policy that might affect a patient, as did the anti-abortion medical coalition that filed the original lawsuit against the pill.
If the Supreme Court halts the nationwide distribution of mifepristone, there will be hell to pay, for now the court has arrogated unto itself the right to judge whether drugs were properly tested. Not to mention the outrage of women everywhere, especially in states where the use of the drug is perfectly legal. What will the court do? (I’m writing this on Friday afternoon.) I predict they’ll allow the drug to be distributed until the full court hears the full case. And then, well, anything goes.
*The Washington Post reports that Biden is in trouble with respect to appointing judges, and it’s seemingly the fault of Dianne Feinstein, the Democratic Senator from California. She’s out with shingles and other age-related conditions, and that leaves the Senate Judiciary Committee, which must approve all federal judges nominated by the President, one Democrat shy of a majority. The result: it’s a party-line deadlock and no judges can be approved.
But Senator Dianne Feinstein’s failing health has frozen the Senate Judiciary Committee, the group that must consider any judicial nominees before the full Senate votes on them. Feinstein, who’s 89 and has represented California since 1992, has been ill with shingles since February. She has also been struggling with her ability to hold conversations and the deterioration of her short term memory for more than a year. It is unclear when she will return to the Senate.
Biden and other Democrats had hoped for the appointment of judges — both to federal trial courts (known as District Courts) and to appeals courts (known as Circuit Courts) — to be a major accomplishment this year. That plan is now in doubt because Democrats do not have the votes to confirm judges without Feinstein.
Instead, about 20 Biden nominees are in limbo, and 9 percent of District Court and Circuit Court judgeships remain vacant. Among Biden’s unconfirmed nominees: Mónica Ramírez Almadani, a civil rights lawyer; Robert Kirsch, a former prosecutor who focused on white collar crime; and Kato Crews, an expert in labor law.
Look how far behind Biden’s fallen in appointing judges, and its all because of Feinstein’s absence. This is a graph from the paper:
There’s argument back and forth about whether Feinstein should resign (she’s been a very good Senator), and Nancy Pelosi even blames calls for Feinstein to step down on sexism. That’s not fair, though. Feinstein will never again be at the top of her game, and her keeping her job is hurting the liberal cause in a big way. She needs to go with great thanks from us. What will happen now? The paper says this is the result if Feinstein resigns:
“In that case, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California, a Democrat, would replace her, and he has pledged to name a Black woman to fill the seat.”
A friend who sent me the link was incensed by that statement, saying that Newsom should appoint the most qualified candidate, whatever their ethnicity. If a black woman is among the most qualified candidates, they argued, then you could exercise a form of affirmative action and appoint a minority candidate. My friend replied:
However, Gavin will make sure this will not be the case – other candidates need not apply. This is racism in its purest form. Just replace “black” with “white” and we would have an insurrection in CA.
What do you think? Should the governor pre-specify the sex and ethnicity of his choice before he’s even vetted the candidates? And should Feinstein resign? (I think that’s a no-brainer.)
*Over at The Free Press, Nellie Bowles wrote her patented snarky review of the week’s news, this time called “TGIF: That’s all, Folx!” It’s mainly for this feature that I keep on subscribing. As usual, I’ll give three of the many stories she features (indented words, as always, are hers):
→ Portland loses its REI: The do-good outdoor recreation chain, the one and only REI, the store where I buy most of my clothes (whoever says they don’t carry black tie clothes isn’t trying hard enough), is closing its big downtown Portland location, citing crime and theft. The company said that the store “had its highest number of break-ins and thefts in two decades, despite actions to provide extra security.” From the local coverage: “The company said its theft problem came to a head last November, when a car crashed through the glass front doors of REI’s Pearl District store on Black Friday. It was the store’s third break-in in a week.” Thieves driving a car into and through the side of the store to get access to those sweet REI goods was the third incident of the week. (As someone who appreciates water-wicking material more than most of my blood relatives, I get it!)
I understand that antifa doesn’t believe in private property and that Portland is their capital. But guys, all you wear are cargo pants and hiking boots. How is this going to work? Who will provide your balaclavas and headlamps?
Meanwhile, the brand-new Shake Shack downtown was met with a Portland Hello: a broken window. It goes without saying that this week it was revealed that staff at Portland’s city-funded drug treatment center were doing drugs with the addicts.
→ I like this guy: I don’t know anything about his politics and, no, I do not care to google. I barely want to know his name (Jeff Jackson, Democrat from North Carolina). But I like this message, which I think is true and a good reminder (reader, do not send me some arrest record from the time he killed kittens; let me have one nice thing):
→ Good news on campus: I love campus news. I love it because what starts on campus comes to run all our lives a few years later. It’s like a sneak peek into Thanksgiving in three years. And I love it because it’s funny. It’s funny that the word folks, which was already gender-neutral, had to be changed to folx, to be more gender-neutral. It’s funny that for every sophomore on any given campus, there are five sex educators and three mental health counselors. This week, though, we have some good news. First, Harvard got a free speech group, a special Council on Academic Freedom formed among the faculty. I’m not sure what they’ll do exactly, like day-to-day, but I’m happy for them. And across the country, over at Stanford University, a pro-partying slate won control of the student government, calling themselves the “Fun Strikes Back” movement.
“Folx”! UNBELIEVABLE!
*And in another Substack column, Andrew Sullivan writes about the transgender woman Tik Tok star who sold Budweiser: “The Strange Minstrelsy of Dylan Mulvaney“. Minstrelsy? Yes, for Sullivan thinks that’s what Mulvaney is doing: acting the role of a female in stereotypical ways, and it’s all just a big shtick. Is he right? Who knows; he could be! But it’s certainly a lucrative shtick:
Dylan has brand partnerships with Anheuser-Busch, Nike, Crest, Instacart, Ulta Beauty, Kate Spade and many more. And here is what Dylan means by “becoming a girl” in his/her own words. Trigger warning for feminists:
Day One of being a girl and I’ve already cried three times, I wrote a scathing email that I did not send, I ordered dresses online that I couldn’t afford, and then, uh, when someone asked me how I was, I said I’m fine — when I wasn’t fine [applies lip gloss]. How’d I do, ladies? Good? Girl power!
If you think this has to be a joke, a parody making fun of sexist ideas about women, you’re not the only one. (Trans YouTuber Blaire White also assumed it was a spoof at first, and her video on Dylan’s “womanface” is well worth a watch.)
. . . But is Dylan genuinely trans? We’re not supposed to ask, of course. In our post-modern world, everyone is who they say they are — even if Dylan has an impressive bulge in a bikini. (One of her a cappella songs is titled “Normalize the Bulge!” for women with big dick energy. Go on, I dare you: watch the vid.) More to the point, she’s walking the walk, is on estrogen and underwent “facial feminization surgery.” There’s no evidence she is a fake as such. But has Dylan always felt some deep, destabilizing disjuncture between the sex in her head and in his body and is now trying to alleviate it?
. . .There is, in fact, a perfect word to describe Dylan Mulvaney. She isn’t trans or queer or subversive so much as a minstrel. She’s performing a deeply misogynistic version of a Disney princess for an audience that is uncomfortable with actual transgender people whose appearance is not monetizable and whose lives are more than gay parodies of blonde ditzes. But minstrelsy has always been lucrative — and I don’t fault Dylan for seeing an opening here, and succeeding beyond what must have been his/her wildest dreams.
What I worry about is what happens to Dylan as this buzz eventually wears off. She’s only 26, and has a lifetime to live after her 12 months of TikTok fame. The future may not be as pretty as she currently is.
*This is pretty horrible: the Russians, who deny HIV-infected prisoners effective treatment in jail, offer them good antiviral drugs if they agree to leave prison and fight against Ukraine. Since 20% of Russian prisoners are reported to be HIV-positive, this is a Hobson’s choice: a slow death from AIDS or a quick one from a bullet. But I’d do the fighting, because at least then you have a chance to live—assuming the Russians keep their promise about the antivirals.
It was a recruiting pitch that worked for many Russian prisoners.
About 20 percent of recruits in Russian prisoner units are H.I.V. positive, Ukrainian authorities estimate based on infection rates in captured soldiers. Serving on the front lines seemed less risky than staying in prison, the detainees said in interviews with The New York Times.
“Conditions were very harsh” in Russian prison, said Timur, 37, an H.I.V.-positive Russian soldier interviewed at a detention site in the city of Dnipro in central Ukraine, and identified only by a first name, worried that he would face retaliation if he returned to Russia in a prisoner swap.
After he was sentenced to 10 years for drug dealing, the doctors in the Russian prison changed the anti-viral medication he had been taking to control H.I.V. to types he feared were not effective, Timur said.
He said he did not think he could survive a decade in Russian prison with H.I.V. In December, he agreed to serve six months in the Wagner mercenary group in exchange for a pardon and supplies of anti-viral medications.
Timur had no military experience and was provided two weeks of training before deployment to the front, he said. He was issued a Kalashnikov rifle, 120 bullets, an armored vest and a helmet for the assault. Before sending the soldiers forward, he said, commanders “repeated many times, ‘if you try to leave this field, we will shoot you.’”
Soldiers in his platoon, he said, were sent on a risky assault, waves of soldiers with little chance of survival sent into battle on the outskirts of the eastern city of Bakhmut. Most were killed on their first day of combat. Timur was captured.
The Russians are that desperate for bodies on the front line. The paper also reports that captured Russian soldiers who were former prisoners also had tuberculosis and hepatitis C.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Szaron are talking serious business:
A Dan Piraro cartoon sent by reader Merilee. I mention this attraction in an upcoming book review (stay tuned):
Novel uses for Marshmallow Peeps™, one of my favorite confections:
From Masih, mothers whose children were killed by the Iranian theocracy. The white scarves symbolize the desire for freedom:
These are some Iranian mothers whose children have been killed by the Islamic Republic. They are standing together and taking off their black scarves to send a message of unity and continuation of their children's fight. Like the mothers of Argentina who alerted the world to… pic.twitter.com/guAmFX4lEk
From gravelinspector. The Brits, god love ’em, are tracking individual cuckoos migrating from Africa to Blighty. There’s a race on. For more, see here.
🗺️ #BTOCuckoos update: Joe has joined JAC in Eurpoe!
One of these birds could be back in the UK very soon, but which will it be? Stay tuned for further updates & follow the Cuckoos' #migration journeys here 👉 https://t.co/ETMj5Hx3qG
From the Auschwitz Memorial: a 16-year-old girl gassed upon arrival:
22 April 1926 | A French Jewish girl, Charlotte Zlotnicki, was born in Paris.
She arrived at #Auschwitz on 26 August 1942 in a transport of 1,000 Jews deported from Drancy. She was among 908 people murdered in gas chambers after the selection. pic.twitter.com/9dHCDkb92M
Well, the Northern Cardinal is not found exclusively in Canada, either:
I'm on a Canadian Q&A website which has somehow confused Roman Catholic cardinals with the small Canadian bird called the Northern Cardinal. It's getting pretty confusing pic.twitter.com/fFo0FLVJWW
— Andrew Hunter Murray (@andrewhunterm) April 5, 2023
One of the most ridiculous and offensive instances of cancellation I’ve seen has been that involving J. K. Rowling. Attacked by unhinged trans activists as a “transphobe”, Rowling responded eloquently, rationally, and calmly, and the attacks have simply made the activists look bad. Like many of us, Rowling is not a “transphobe,” nor feels that trans people should be denied their “rights”—so long as those don’t include the confected “right” to be a biological male invading all women’s spaces (and vice versa).
Rowling is empathic but also a staunch advocate of women’s rights, and her “transphobia” consists of nothing more than the reasonable view that biological men who identify as women should not be allowed to enter those “women’s spaces” that shouldn’t include biological men, namely women’s prisons, women’s sports, battered women’s shelters, or rape counseling. There are no preexisting “rights” there save those arrogated by trans activists themselves. But beyond this limited sphere of access, neither Rowling, I, nor our many confrères want to deny trans people genuine rights, nor to discriminate against them any way, nor to shame them or misgender them. They’re just humans like everyone else.
But that’s not enough, and we all know that because of her stand (and her fame), Rowling has been a magnet for hatred, accusations of bigotry, and, of course, death threats—so many that she says she can paper her house with them. People boycotted her books, two of the actors in her movies (Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson) basically disassociated themselves from her, and her books were even burned. There are no activists as full of bile and genuine hatred as extreme trans activists (Chase Strangio, an ACLU lawyer, is one example).
In my few optimistic moments, I think the tide against Rowling may be turning as people realize how far the insanity and mischaracterization has gone. This article, from the Torygraph (click screenshot to read an archived version) suggests that the tide may be turning, with Warner Bothers bringing Rowling on board in an upcoming television series, despite the opprobrium of the haters:
A few excerpts:
Amid a backlash against her views on women’s rights and transgenderism, even mentioning Rowling’s name next to her works has been taboo in recent years.
At one event to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone last June, a journalist was infamously blocked from asking a question about her absence.
But on Wednesday, executives at Warner Bros Discovery gave Rowling their support as they positioned the Harry Potter TV show as a flagship offering of their enlarged “Max” streaming service.
Casey Bloys, the chairman and chief executive of HBO and HBO Max, dismissed suggestions that showrunners will struggle to find cast members because of her involvement, telling journalists: “That’s a very online conversation.
“We’ve been in the Harry Potter business for 20 years, this isn’t a new decision. We’re comfortable being in the Potter business.”
The decision to work with Rowling again generated instant outrage from trans activists, with some vowing to boycott the show before it has even begun filming.
Brands are facing a growing backlash for wading into trans issues, with the US beer maker Budweiser embroiled in a row over adverts featuring transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney and Disney locked in a feud with the US Republican Party for its opposition to “don’t say gay” laws in Florida.
I couldn’t get excited about the Budweiser/Mulvaney dustup because if they want to sell beer using trans people, well, that doesn’t bother me. The vehemence of the opposition—including people making videos blowing away cases of Bud with shotguns, spoke to me of genuine transphobia. Why would they want to do that?
But this bit heartened me, especially the bit I’ve put in bold:
One senior film industry source says the uncancelling of Rowling will ruffle feathers but is ultimately the right call.
“If you look at what JK Rowling has actually said and done, this is a woman who herself was a victim of domestic violence, who was a single mother, and has now devoted herself to women’s rights and helping other women who have suffered,” the source adds.
“Yet because she took a position, out of concern about those issues, she was just completely thrown under a bus.
“I think you are now going to see her redeemed, for a lot of reasons. Hollywood likes to forgive – and particularly when someone is a creative genius like her.”
Another industry source says: “I think you just need to lean into these things, there isn’t any point in shying away as it was always going to raise a few eyebrows.
“Their focus is on involving the best creatives possible to make something that fans will really want to watch. Rowling is undoubtedly one of them.”
I’m not so sure that Hollywood likes to forgive (really?), and isn’t it convenient that she’s being picked up by some people because they can make more money with her on board? As for “there isn’t any point in shying away as it was always going to raise a few eyebrows,” well, that’s the wisdom of hindsight, and doesn’t show much spine.
There’s a bit more heartening defense:
However, since [the attacks on her] Rowling has received support from other quarters.
“Warner Bros has enjoyed a creative, productive and fulfilling partnership with JK Rowling for the past 20 years,” it said.
“She is one of the world’s most accomplished storytellers, and we are proud to be the studio to bring her vision, characters and stories to life.”
Ralph Fiennes, who played the villain Lord Voldemort, also came to Rowling’s aid, telling The New York Times that the author had faced “disgusting” abuse.
“It’s not some obscene, uber right-wing fascist,” he told the New York Times. “It’s just a woman saying, ‘I’m a woman and I feel I’m a woman and I want to be able to say that I’m a woman.’”
Evanna Lynch, who played Luna Lovegood in the films, told The Telegraph in February: “Her [Rowling’s] character has always been to advocate for the most vulnerable members of society… I do wish people would just give her more grace and listen to her.”
But then filthy lucre raises its head again (at least Fiennes or Lynch can’t be accused of pecuniary gain!):
Next to those successes, Warner Bros’ decision to bring Rowling back may be motivated by profit just as much as principle.
The company certainly needs a little magic. It is currently battling the likes of Netflix, Disney, Amazon and Apple for streaming dominance, with the companies splashing huge sums collectively on films and TV shows in the quest for subscribers.
HBO’s combined “Max” service will wrap HBO Max and Discovery+ platforms into a single, bigger competitor, says Tom Harrington, a television analyst at Enders Analysis.
And David Zaslav, president and chief executive of Warner Bros Discovery, says major franchises such as Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and DC superheroes such as Batman are at the heart of his strategy to woo audiences.
Although I’ve never been a big Harry Potter fan, I’m a huge J. K. Rowling fan, for the woman has courage. Yes, of course she’s a gazillionaire, and has little to lose financially from being canceled, but still, what does she have to gain from speaking out? Nothing tangible but the ability to express what she thinks despite the inevitable disapprobation, hatred that cannot feel good. And of course she’s lost readers. Yet she is not a hater or a transphobe, but a creative force and a caring woman, and that’s reason enough to stop this cancelation now.
It won’t stop, of course, because haters gonna hate. And through it all, Rowling has never lost her aplomb or dignity, and so the last sentence of the piece is appropriate:
Rowling, her literary agent and Warner Bros declined to comment.
There seems to be no limit to the willingness of scientific societies to alter their mission from purveying science to promoting the Critical Theory version of Social Justice, and I’m getting tired of reporting it. Stories of science meetings replete with behavioral guidelines, appointed roaming Pecksniffs and snitches, and admonitions to further equity and recognize one’s “privilege” are now the “dog bites man” stories of online reporting. They’re almost too common to mention. Regular meetings not infused with social justice have become the “man bites dog” story!
Sadly—and it does pain me—the MBD stories are mostly reported on right-wing sites, for the Left’s narrative prefers to keep the infection of science by ideology under wraps. But why? Isn’t publicity what the “progressive” Left wants? The reason for the silence (which is deafening in the MSM liberal media), is that most Americans don’t want Critical Social Justice to be the dominant strains of all our institutions, so while the more vocal of the “progressive” left wreak their damage, they’d prefer that their efforts be kept quiet until their hands are firmly on the reins of power. They know that the Right can use such ideological intrusion as a weapon against the Left.
But I digress. This reports is about a small scientific organization doing what every other science group is doing: laying out a panoply of behaviors at meetings that are not only seen as inappropriate, but urging attendees to snitch on offenders. If these behaviors were pervasive and not stopped, that would be one thing, but science meetings are the very picture of respectful behavior, civility, and equal opportunity. Rules, then, should be minimal, and limited to common sense. And the focus of the meeting should be, again, to promote science, not change society in ways that appeal to its organizers. The long list of strictures that come with every meeting announcement these days is a form of virtue-flaunting for scientists.
The article below appeared in another conservative site dealing with academia: Minding the Campus. But ignore the source and focus on the details, which can be verified. Click on the screenshot below to read:
Quotes from the piece are indented, and you can of course check for yourself by going to the hyperlinks.
“Allies … will have ‘ALLY’ presented on their name badges at the conference.”
What kind of conference is this, one wonders? Athletic? Religious? Political?
None of the above. This is the 2023 conference of the Comparative Cognition Society (CCS), a small scientific organization devoted to understanding the intelligence and learning capacities of animals. The “Ally” information is from a new group created by the organization’s president.
Does “ally” refer to ethical matters involving the well-being of animals—a PETA initiative, perhaps? Or maybe it represents an effort by CCS to resist attacks on animal research?
None of the above. The committee gently explains:
Warm greetings from your new Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) committee. We are here to help promote EDI initiatives in the society, and are excited to share some of the new features you might notice at the CO3 [comparative cognition] conference this year … The CCS EDI Committee has advanced the following five initiatives with the goal of creating a welcoming and inclusive environment for all …
That first sentence would put a chill up my spine (who believes that those greetings are really “warm”?), and the greetings include a three-page code of conduct outlining behaviors that are now only frowned upon, but reportable. This is not really an effort to promote diversity, but civility, which is ubiquitous at meetings. Yes, people can get out of line, but in all my years of going to science meetings I haven’t seen a single case (of course it could happen behind close doors). And at least for legal violations, like sexual misconduct or harassment, the police should be called in.
Anyway, with respect to that code of conduct, the article notes this:
Next, readers are referred to a thousand-word Code of Conduct, much of which states etiquette that should not have to be reiterated. But it also rates as “unacceptable” “Verbal comments related to gender, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, age, body size, race, religion, national origin. [italics added]” Any verbal comments? Would the claim that “Marie Curie was female” lead to disciplinary action? Possibly. But saying that Roscoe Arbuckle was “fat” is surely over the line.
This is followed by an invitation to snitch:
If you are the subject of unacceptable behavior, have witnessed any such behavior, or are acting as an ally to someone who was the subject of unacceptable behavior, please notify a CCS EDI member on-site or e-mail your concern to edi@comparativecognition.org [emphasis mine].
There’s the obligatory section on pronouns, which links to a somewhat patronizing guide to the topic. This obsession with pronouns always puzzles me: at meetings you refer to people by their names, not by their pronouns; in fact, I can’t even see a third-person use of pronouns: if you introduce a speaker, for instance, you can say something like “I’m pleased to introduce Joan Smith, who will discuss how bees can identify a genuine threat to their colony.”
And what about being an “ally”? Here ideology has overcome science completely. If you want to become an ally at the meeting, you have to pledge to actively work to change society. (Not necessarily for the better if you’re not aboard the Critical Social Justice juggernaut). A quote from the meeting protocol:
Allyship:
CCS EDI committee members are all Allies during the conference and will have “ALLY” presented on their name badges at the conference. To quote from Dr. Maysa Akbar in the APA EDI Inclusive Language Guideline:
“Allies are people who recognize the unearned privilege they receive from society’s patterns of injustice and take responsibility for changing these patterns. Being an ally is more than being sympathetic and feeling bad for those who experience discrimination. An ally is willing to act with, and for, others in pursuit of ending oppression and creating equality. Real allies are willing to step out of their comfort zones. Those who decide to undertake the ally role must recognize and understand the power and privileges that one receives, accepts, and experiences and they use that position to act for justice.”
This is fine, and I have no objections to people working on their own time to better society (though of course it depends on what you mean by the verb “better”). But do that on your own time, not as a part of a team working at a scientific meeting. Allies, snitches, and patronizing codes of conducts, treating scientists as if they were juveniles who need a stiff lecture on behavior—all of this somehow rubs me the wrong way. In fact, the concept of enforcing social conformity through allies and snitching is one of the themes of Nineteen Eighty-Four. More important, being a “ally” at a scientific meeting accomplishes nothing for society. It’s purely performative.
This is all par for the course. The Society for the Study of Evolution, once my go-to society, has also chosen this route. In this case there’s a specially trained group of snitches, “Evo Allies”, who walk around looking for misbehavior with the goal of interceding to stop it. Snitching is also encouraged. Lest you think I am making this up, check here:
Evo Allies:
Started in 2019, Evo Allies are members of our community who have been vetted by a safety officer and trained to help support individuals who have experienced or witnessed potentially inappropriate behavior during the conference, including informing them of their options. They commit to creating safe spaces at the meeting by serving as active bystanders. The inspiration for this program came from the https://entoallies.org program.
Anyone, whether an Evo Ally or not, can make a report directly to the meeting safety officer for investigation; Evo Allies are not involved in investigation nor sanctioning, but instead serve as peer supports and help to make the meeting a more welcoming place.
Evo Allies are chosen through a nomination and vetting process; we anticipate that the next call will be for the 2023 meeting. Any vetting process is imperfect; if you have concerns about any Evo Ally, please reach out to the meeting safety officer.
New: Due to the unique nature of the 2022 conference and its covid policies, Evo Allies and meeting staff are empowered to remind participants of the mask mandate and, for participants who endanger others by refusing to wear a mask properly, to call for them to surrender their badges for the rest of the day. These individuals may be readmitted to the conference the next day by picking up their badge again at registration, if there have not been further sanctions placed upon them (which would involve an investigation by the safety officer and ruling by the sanctioning committee). \
At least the roaming Pecksniffs don’t pledge to work towards Critical Social Justice.
I always thought that science would be the last bastion of academia to be infected by ideology and, and that this kind of enforced conformity would be resisted on the grounds that it’s not needed, is a power grab, and, most of all, is not supported by data showing that science is structurally rife with bigotry or bad behavior.
I was wrong: we were among the first to jump aboard the juggernaut, probably because scientists don’t want to be bothered fighting ideology since we’re too busy doing our work. (And of course the humanities have jumped on this with vigor.)
Unfortunately, the article ends with a bump, invoking Godwin’s Law. The first paragraph below is fine; the second, which I’ve put in bold, is objectionable. The meeting, after all, is not a Nuremberg Rally. But there is a certain element of Big Brotherism in it:
After succumbing to “allyship,” and, perhaps, being warned a couple of times about their potential microaggressions, most of the now-cowed cognitive scientists will have forgotten that the purpose of the CO3 meeting is science; that the virtues to be promoted should be honesty, rigor, and creativity; and that the demographic makeup of the group is utterly irrelevant.
Good job, EDI’ers! You’ve shown how effective a short slogan like ally can be! (Another one that worked pretty well is heil).
Today’s photos of Wisconsin plants (and two spider webs) come from reader Rik Gern of Austin Texas, whose notes and IDs are indented. Click on the screenshot to enlarge the photos.
Here are the last of my pictures from northern Wisconsin. This batch consists of wildflowers and a few odds and ends.
I’ve been visiting the Northwoods for years, but usually travel in the fall or winter, so last August’s wildflowers were a novel treat. Most of these were taken by Alma Lake in St. Germain.
The first picture is of Linaria vulgaris, commonly known as Butter and eggs. It’s also called Yellow toadflax, but honestly, why would anyone call something so pretty Toadflax!?
The pink flower growing by the side of a lake is Slenderleaf false foxglove (Agalinis tenuifolia; first photo), and the yellow flower (photo below it) growing nearby is Crowned beggarticks, or Bidens trichosperma.
Our next yellow flower is Ohio goldenrod (Solidago ohioensis). Lacking petals, the goldenrod appears more weed like than the other flowers, but its beauty can’t be denied.
Now we travel farther north, to Madeline Island by Lake Superior on the northern tip of Wisconsin. This is Castilleja coccinea, or Indian paintbrush.
Next we head back to St. Germain for two unidentified plants on the marshy shores of Moon Lake.
The whole area is dotted with lakes and you often see American white water lily (Nymphaea odorata) riding the ripples and gently undulating on the surface.
The last two pictures are examples of an extended phenotype, in this case that of the Sheet weaver spider, of the family Linyphiidae. I never saw the spiders, but in the early morning their handiwork was evident; silvery webs that looked like miniature radar dishes nestled in the needles of the pine trees.
These are the last of my Wisconsin pictures till my last visit, which I look forward to!
Reader who wish to single out special events, births, or deaths that happened on this day should go to the April 21 Wikipedia page.
Da Nooz:
*This news will cheer you up because, no matter whether Republican or Democrat, it shows the hegemony of empirical fact over wish-thinking. It’s about a disproof of election denialism:
MyPillow founder and prominent election denier Mike Lindell made a bold offer ahead of a “cyber symposium” he held in August 2021 in South Dakota: He claimed he had data showing Chinese interference and said he would pay $5 million to anyone who could prove the material was not from the previous year’s U.S. election.
He called the challenge “Prove Mike Wrong.”
On Wednesday, a private arbitration panel ruled that someone did.
The panel said Robert Zeidman, a computer forensics expert and 63-year-old Trump voter from Nevada, was entitled to the $5 million payout.
Zeidman had examined Lindell’s data and concluded that not only did it not prove voter fraud, it also had no connection to the 2020 election. He was the only expert who submitted a claim, arbitration records show.
He turned to the arbitrators after Lindell Management, which created the contest, refused to pay him.
In their 23-page decision, the arbitrators said Zeidman proved that Lindell’s material “unequivocally did not reflect November 2020 election data.” They directed Lindell’s firm to pay Zeidman within 30 days.
LOL, as they say. The juicily ironic bit is that the winner himself voted for Trump. Lindell claimed that he had archival internet captures demonstrating that the Chinese interfered in the 2020 Presidential election. Zeidman, a text expert, examined the complicated data and showed that none of it had anything to do with the 2020 election. Bingo, checkmate, and Zeidman is $5 million richer.
*The SpaceX Starship launch was somewhat successful: the ship cleared the launch tower and nearly got to separation of the capsule from the booster. But then the rocket pitched end over end and EXPLODED.
SpaceX’s Starship rocket exploded on Thursday, minutes after lifting off from a launchpad in South Texas. The rocket, the most powerful ever built, did not reach orbit but provided important lessons for the private spaceflight company as it works toward a more successful mission.
At 9:33 a.m. Eastern time, the 33 engines on the Super Heavy booster ignited in a huge cloud of fire, smoke and dust, and Starship rose slowly upward. About a minute later, the rocket passed through a period of maximum aerodynamic pressure, one of the crucial moments for the launch of any rocket. Shortly after, it began to tumble before exploding in a fireball high above the Gulf of Mexico.
. . . . The space agency is relying on SpaceX to build a version of Starship that will carry two astronauts from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon during its Artemis III mission. There was great anticipation from the flight, which had been delayed from Monday as the gargantuan rocket could one day carry massive amounts of cargo and many people into space.
Before the launch, which had no people aboard, Elon Musk, the company’s founder, had tamped down expectations, saying it might take several tries before Starship succeeds at this test flight.
As you can see in the video below, which goes from launch to “rapid unscheduled disassembly” (as the SpaceX announcers called it), at about 3:30 in the ship turns end over end (it was supposed to invert once before separation of the booster), and then explodes into smithereens at 4:05. The explosion might have been triggered deliberately to prevent damage to humans below. Space experts don’t regard this as disastrous because the purpose of these launches is to work bugs out of the system (NASA had plenty of failed launches like this in the old days), and also because no humans were injured. In the coming days we’ll learn what went wrong.
*Inside Higher Ed reports something that I mentioned briefly the other day involving the notoriously venal scientific publisher Elsevier. They make tons of dosh charging libraries exorbitant fees to subscribe to their journals, and charging authors exorbitant “publishing fees” to get their papers to appear. Now they’ve gone too far (h/t Jon):
Elsevier, which says it disseminated about 18 percent of Earth’s scientific articles last year, declined editors’ requests to lower the $3,450 publishing fee at one of its journals.
NeuroImage editors said they formally asked Elsevier in June to drop the charge below $2,000. Early last month, they warned they would resign.
“We believe that the current slow decrease in submissions/publications is primarily due to the APC [article publishing charge]—we hear a lot on this from researchers in our field, no longer willing to submit papers or review,” they wrote.
“We appreciate that you do not accept that, but it’s not helpful to argue further in the absence of definitive proof.
The company wouldn’t budge, and so. . . .
On Monday, every editor at NeuroImage and the NeuroImage: Reports companion journal—over 40 people—resigned.
“It’s a pretty big exodus,” said Cindy Lustig, a University of Michigan at Ann Arbor psychology professor and one of the eight now former senior editors of the open-access NeuroImage. The departures also include editors in chief and handling editors.
“Pretty big exodus” is a wild understatement: it’s a fricking disaster, and one that may lead to the death of that journal. (Elsevier, however, publishes 2800 other journals.) What will happen now? The departed editors are going to start a newer, cheaper journal covering the same topic:
They’re starting their own journal, taking themselves, the Twitter profile they were using and (almost) the same name. They plan to publish their new Imaging Neuroscience with MIT Press.
Elsevier says it has over 2,800 other journals. But the en masse exit is part of continuing backlash against the business model of the world’s largest scientific journal publishers.
I signed a petition a long time ago not to have any connection with Elsevier journals. I’m not a Marxist, but this is capitalism gone wild. The $3,450 publishing fee means that the taxpayers pay twice for the research: once via government grants to fund it, and then again when scientists use grant money to pay the money-grubbing publisher.
“In the United States,” the authors tell us, “somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 churches close down every year, either to be repurposed as apartments, laundries, laser-tag arenas, or skate parks, or to simply be demolished.” (I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that my apartment was once the rectory of a church, also built in the 1800s and transformed, a couple of decades ago, into condos for yuppies who want dramatic windows and a hint of ecclesiastical flavor.)
It’s not just the frequency of churchgoing or temple membership that’s declining in our country: Last month, The Wall Street Journal and NORC at the University of Chicago surveyed around 1,000 American adults about the importance of different values to Americans, including the importance of religion. In 2023, only 39 percent of respondents said religion was very important to them, compared to 62 percent who said that in 1998.
But Grose, a secular Jew, says that what’s happening is more nuanced than a simple decline in religiosity:
When you look at the full results, the picture becomes a bit more complicated. Sixty percent of respondents said that religion was either somewhat or very important to them, and only 19 percent said religion was not important to them at all. The United States is still a more religiously observant country than our peer nations in Western Europe — according to Pew Research in 2018, for example, we are more likely to believe in God or some kind of higher power and more likely to pray daily.
But two things can be true at the same time, said Mark Chaves, a professor of sociology at Duke Divinity School who directs the National Congregations Study: America can still be a comparatively observant nation and religious observance can be on the decline in various dimensions, happening at different paces, Chaves explains. “The decline in religious belief and interest is much slower than the decline in organizational participation,” he said when we spoke.
Where’s the nuance in that? Churchgoing, identification with a church (the “nones”) and belief in God are all falling, with the last falling more slowly than the others—but still falling! Grose tries to flaunt her “I’m better than both atheists and believers” attitude by saying that she doesn’t care much whether religion is good or bad for society:
My goal: to inject some nuance and specificity into this discussion, since I feel like it can be and sometimes is dominated by partisans who want to argue that the decline in religiosity is either uniformly good or bad for society. My own feeling is one of profound ambivalence. I have no interest in going back to temple and little trust or appetite for organized religion. But I feel passionately about being Jewish, and a little heartsick about not knowing quite how to pass along my ritual and history to my children. I do wonder about what may be lost by not having a community connected by belief, but I’m not quite sure what that is, or if replacing it is possible, or even desirable.
It’s certainly possible to replace belief communities, as Scandinavia and northern Europe amply demonstrate. And if you can have their moral and empathic societies without having the undeniably bad bits of religion (Catholic priests raping women, Muslims killing apostates and infidels, orthodox Jews oppressing their wives and keeping their children from learning) then why isn’t the lack of religion also desirable? All religions also tout faith—belief without good evidence—as a virtue, and that by itself makes religion bad, for it’s an enabler of other forms of belief without evidence (e.g., Donald Trump really won in 2020).
It’s interesting that Grose, who may be an unbeliever, is passionate about being a Jew, for Judaism is the one faith where vast numbers of its advocates are atheists. One can be a cultural Jew, but not a cultural Muslim. For many of us, Judaism isn’t even a religion, but simply a tribe or a club. I don’t believe in God or a word of Jewish dogma, but I still enjoy being Jewish.
* Voting along party lines, the House of Representatives passed a sensible vote that will undoubtedly be rejected by the Senate, or, if passed there, will be vetoed to death by Biden:
Transgender athletes whose biological sex assigned at birth was male would be barred from competing on girls or women’s sports teams at federally supported schools and colleges under legislation pushed through Thursday by House Republicans checking off another high-profile item on their social agenda.
The bill approved by a 219-203 party-line vote is unlikely to advance further because the Democratic-led Senate will not support it and the White House said President Joe Biden would veto it.
Supporters said the legislation, which would put violators at risk of losing taxpayer dollars, is necessary to ensure competitive fairness. They framed the vote as supporting female athletes disadvantaged by having to compete against those whose gender identify does not match their sex assigned at birth.
And, in fact, that’s the correct framing. Here I stand with the Republican vote itself, even if some of its members are surely motivated by transphobia. The Democrats frame it another way:
Opponents criticized the bill as ostracizing an already vulnerable group merely for political gain.
The House action comes as at least 20 other states have imposed similar limits on trans athletes at the K-12 or collegiate level.
The bill would amend landmark civil rights legislation, known as Title IX, passed more than 50 years ago. It would prohibit recipients of federal money from permitting a person “whose sex is male” to participate in programs designated for women or girls. The bill defines sex as “based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”
I’m sorry, but the Democratic framing is largely bullpucky. The simple fact is that the data show, over and over again, that transwomen who have gone through male puberty retain, probably permanently, muscle, bone, and physiological features that give them substantial athletic advantages over biological women. There are no data I know of to the contrary. To deny the evidence in favor of ideology puts you in the camp with ivermectin-pushers and QAnon conspiracists.
To me the bill is about keeping sports fair to women, not demonizing transsexuals, and although I get my share of emails for being a transphobe, I laugh them off. What I can’t laugh off is that organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, who support the participation of trans women in women’s sports—even if the transwomen are medically untreated biological men who identify as women—are trampling on women’s rights without admitting it. I hate being in bed with Republicans, but on this issue the facts stand on their side. And their definition of sex as “reproductive biology” is okay, though they should have left out the “genetics” bit. They need a biologist to tell them what a biological woman is: it’s simply about gamete size and the reproductive apparatus that makes different-sized gametes.
Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili and Szaron are worried:
A: What are you looking at?
Hili: We are observing global warming.
. . . and I found this one too. Ten tweets by FIRE showing the disturbing trend of scholars being investigated for speech and their work. It’s skyrocketing!
BREAKING: FIRE investigated every attempt to punish scholars at American colleges and universities since 2000.
— Brent Terhune in Erie, PA April 29th (@BrentTerhune) April 20, 2023
From “Otter”:
Sad to see that @FFRF now endorses the expansion of sex to include gender. I was once a huge fan of FFRF. Including gender as sex means ignoring biology, it means allowing biological males to compete against biological females in sports. Just unfair. pic.twitter.com/C60u6FnKNY
From the Auschwitz Memorial, a family probably gassed upon arrival at the camp. The boy wasn’t even a year old.
21 April 1942 | A Dutch Jewish boy, Abraham Mozes Davidson, was born in Rotterdam.
In January 1943 he was deported to #Auschwitz with his mother Kornelia (pictured), father Jacob and older sister Rieca. None of them survived. pic.twitter.com/b8tMsxjwvM
Tweets from Dr. Cobb, who’s temporarily abandoned Twitter for his book. (Good choice!) Thank Ceiling Cat I have a backlog of his tweets. Here’s one of a nice gentleman saving an owl. The Google translation is:
“The best part of a good man’s life is his small, unknown, forgotten acts of kindness and love.”
La parte migliore della vita di un uomo buono sono i suoi piccoli, ignoti, dimenticati atti di gentilezza e di amore.
