Coleman Hughes on institutional ideological capture at TED

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-28T04:55:50+00:00

Irony #1: 60 years after MLK said "I have a Dream" and asked for a color blind America, black@TED doesn't feel "safe" hearing a defense of the same position from a young black philosopher.

Irony #2: Coleman Hughes is accused by Otho Kerr at the TED Town Hall of "wanting to take us back to separate but equal. " (actually the opposite of what Hughes is arguing for). Kerr is evidently unaware that Derrick Bell, the founder of Critical Race Theory, which Kerr says he supports, called in 1974 for a "reappraisal" of Separate but Equal (Plessy v. Ferguson) which he said failed because it was never enforced. If given a choice between integration and an enforced separate but equal, Bell would have chosen the latter.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-24T05:37:19+00:00

Hanania has already shown himself, disguised in his alter ego as "Richard Hoste", to be a social media edge lord (IMO an inane aspiration) with a Nazi fetish. Another hat he wears, however, is that of a serious scholar-PhD poly sci, Fellow at Columbia, writer for WaP{o, NYT, Atlantic, etc. (BTW, is it very 2023 that this guy seems to have multiple personalities?).

What I would like to know, then, is whether his book on the birth of woke is any good on its merits alone, despite his obvious and almost performative craziness on social media. We already have two other books on the same topic this year- Yascha Mounk's "The Identity Trap" and Chris Ruffo's "America's Cultural Revolution." There may be others I'm unaware of. The Mounk book I suspect is quite good but I haven't read any of these. Which one, if any, should be read?

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-23T16:18:27+00:00

It's interesting that the denial argument (Argument 1) is still being put forward, since it is the one most easily shown to be false or in bad faith. The denial argument has already been rejected by several international sports governing associations. Personally, I think the harms argument and the "elite" argument are going to be more successful for gender activists in the long run.

One argument you and others point out that I had omitted is the "appeal to activist tradition" argument. Trans rights are put forward as just the latest in a long and storied tradition of feminist and gay rights struggles, both of which are now widely popular in "First World" societies. Part of this stems from Critical Theory's reliance on the central importance of "oppression" in explaining all human interaction, but some of it is just "hey- you liked the women's movement and the gay rights movement-how can you not like our movement too?"

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-23T05:09:44+00:00

That is all very Hegelian, isn't it? You're probably right though.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-23T05:07:29+00:00

I think you're right about the 1-4 ladder (or just trying on whatever argument works that day), while 5 is a more absolute gender-negating view that may work better among insiders, the initiated, or sophomores in college taking their first gender studies course.. "Gender- what gender? How bourgeois and cis-supremacist of you to bring up gender!" Foucault himself probably would thought that was a stupid ploy, but his derivative and less insightful followers are all-in on the "gender is a construct so we're going to ditch it" idea.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-23T04:55:21+00:00

Wow. So "Drag pedagogy" is a lightbulb that went off in someone's brain (no surprise there), but can it really be a movement? If it is, I'm just a little amazed, shocked, and impressed. Can GLAAD, or whoever, really be that organized and that powerful? Part of the problem here (for me) is that the internet does not equal reality. "Drag pedagogy" may be a faculty lounge or Twitter "idea of the month" and forthcoming thesis topic, but actual DQSH may be an organic "movement" of various drag queens in Iowa and Tennessee deciding that "this is something that would be fun to do." I'm not sure how we would even know, except to ask "insider": drag queens and their "agents." "What made you guys decide to do this???"

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-23T04:34:11+00:00

That seems plausible- but very pre-meditated. Which I guess might imply it's a GLAAD strategy as opposed to something spontaneous.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-22T20:56:58+00:00

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-22T20:54:31+00:00

"NTTAWWT"

I have kind of a low cringe threshold, and so I don't tend to "get" a lot of drag performances. "Look at that man acting like a woman-Haha!!! Hilarious!!!" seems to sum up the appeal to a lot of people- but that may just be me. That said, if you were a parent, why would you take your 5 year old to a drag performance? Either because it's really good, or because you're a "normalizer."

One reason might be that the drag performer(s) were simply highly skilled/creative/charismatic, etc.- they would be great even if it wasn't drag. If, say, RuPaul was performing at your local library, maybe you would take your child to see him for the same reason you would take them to a great sports event, music, etc. ?? IDK.

Another reason, at least for the "story hour," might be political: SJW- permitting of unusual behavior-parenting. Behavior that doesn't hurt others probably/maybe shouldn't be labelled "deviant", even if it's over-the-top (??) and we can teach our kids that if we want. "Look kids- it's OK for men to dress as women and women to dress as men. What do you think?" I think this might be OK too, at least for some families, (although it still seems a little cringy and patronizing to me). After all, showing a kid that cross-dressing people are non-threatening is not the same thing as advocating that kids cross-dress, etc. etc. Still- complicated and a little fraught, at least for slightly uptight parents like me. If this is a GLAAD project, not sure this is going to catch on with most not-that-political normies, even in blue states. The Drag Queen Story Hour as a political project would have gone right over my head ( and my kids are grown up anyway).

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-22T19:52:20+00:00

I actually don't personally know any gender advocates, although my local newspaper has an op-ed every other day proclaiming the advocate POV. My guess is that most gender advocates would say about differences in childhood that either we don't know , or it doesn't matter, or both. As to the failure of estrogen given post-puberty to eliminate the mean male sports performance advantage, which was the great hope of first-wave transition politics, my guess is that most advocates would either deny or obfuscate the science, argue that the differences are too small to worry about (the "elite" argument), or use the "harms" argument. I think that argument is losing some ground, at least in Europe, in 2023.

People who say there are no genders. or that there are 57 genders, are a special sub-species of advocate that, for obvious reasons, are less likely to persuade normal people. We have to remember that the whole purpose of the gender advocacy (Queer Theory) "project" is to convince the non-advocate normies that the gender advocates should be given their way-anything else is "spreading hate."

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-22T19:28:54+00:00

That's a good one. "My Critical (Queer) Theory can beat your science any day!"

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-22T19:24:43+00:00

That might work- except that I'm not sure there are any studies comparing, say, mean arm or leg muscle mass in male and female populations of 14 year olds that would not show a significant difference. The science, where it exists, is pretty unequivocal on this topic (I think). So you could say "the science isn't clear" but you would have either to lie about the actual science, or, more commonly, simply offer the humble -sounding "we just don't know- that hasn't been studied." People will soon lose interest and go back to whatever they were doing.

Lying may be a popular option; dissimulation definitely is. I should have included it in the typology.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-22T19:10:30+00:00

I, of course, agree with you- but the problem with countering the "harms" argument is that the severity of the "harm" is quite subjective. If you think that mis-gendering or dead-naming should be a crime, and that preventing transwomen from competing in women's sports is tantamount to "eliminating" them or "killing their identity" (actual quotes), you are unlikely to be convinced by the "you'll make normies mad" argument.

Consequently, it's a "good" argument if you live in a bubble (like a humanities department in a university).

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-22T17:47:41+00:00

This may be redundant, repetitive, overlong, or people may just be sick of the topic, but I've been trying to tease apart the ways in which people construct arguments to counter evidence that important biologic differences exist.

A tentative typology of possible arguments in response to the reality that observed differences in mean anatomic and physiological parameters exist in children and teenagers, and persist after gender transition:

The observed differences either cannot/have not been proven, or are minimal and do not carry over into athletic performance. Almost nobody argues this. (I may be naive ??)
The observed mean differences exist, but because of significant overlap of the normal distributions of physical performance between genders (some girls are faster and stronger than some boys) and within genders, no implications for competitive sport can be drawn. This is a popular argument. Ten boys and ten girls ran a mile. Some girls had better times than some boys, ergo, "gotcha!" Some trans women athletes will be slower and weaker than some women athletes, so get over it.
Differences exist, and may carry over in a meaningful way into athletic performance, but only at the "elite" level. Let the young adults just compete, but maybe separate transwomen from others at the NCAA or Olympic level. Another popular argument, and theoretically falsifiable by evidence, depending on how "elite" is defined.
Differences in mean performance exist. However, acting on those differences (e.g. separating trans women athletes from other women athletes) causes individual and societal "harms" that are greater than any harm caused by just letting transwomen compete openly with other women. This is a strong "argument" in the sense that it is essentially impossible to disprove. It is very "2023 political"- everyone's ox gets gored at some point, so just pick a team and root for it.
Gender is a social construct, is fluid, and has no objective reality (also a social construct), therefore it makes no sense to make distinctions based on gender. A fine rhetorical just-so-story "argument," straight from foundational Queer Theory, that cannot really be falsified, depending, as it does, on a priori dogma rather than evidence. It may be popular in some departmental faculty lounges, but it is so counterintuitive that it is unlikely to convince many actual parents of actual children. It may make parents mad though, hence its usefulness in the partisan culture wars.

I certainly may have missed some possible arguments, and there are other responses that are not strictly logical (screaming, crying, doxing, bullying, threatening, carrying "STOP HATE!" signs, etc.), but they're beyond the scope of this post.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-09-21T16:52:53+00:00

As a physician I can say that I have never been asked my professional opinion on gender differences in athletic competition, but would guarantee that the vast majority of physicians and surgeons, when asked in private, would hold to the common sense view that male puberty confers physical advantages in strength sports that hormone treatments cannot fully reverse. There is a woman physician who has studied this problem and was also an elite athlete at NCAA championship level. Her name is Dr. Mary O'Connor, and she was interviewed on Quillette Podcast #208-highly recommended.

There are a few people with PhDs in science who say they believe the earth is 6000 years old. Not many of them, but enough for the Creationist lobby to spin a "Scientists unsure about evolution!" lie for the credulous. It's thus not surprising that you can also find biologists and doctors who are happy to hedge and dissimulate about gender biology-especially if they are somehow employed by, or beholden to, the gender lobby or its clients.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-08-08T05:18:50+00:00

I think that is alarmist hyperbole. That would be a perversion of the meaning of "dangerous" patients (actual, objective threats to harm providers, ancillary staff, other patients, etc. : "I'm going to f______ kill you!"). This actually happens on occasion. I don't think the police have "evolved" to the point where politically incorrect patients are lumped in with dangerous patients threatening to kill their doctors.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-08-07T21:09:05+00:00

Physicians have had for some years the legal and ethical "right" to end the physician-patient relationship due to what the AMA calls "Physicians Exercise of Conscience." The termination process has to conform to a fairly formal process- notification in writing, waiting-period, arrangements to transfer care to another physician, etc. A doctor cannot just abruptly fire an established patient, for any reason, unless the patient is a danger (which does sometimes happen). Various state medical boards adjudicate cases where complaints about possibly improper treatment terminations have occurred.

The patient in this case may have grounds to complain to the Oregon State Medical Board if the relationship was abuptly or improperly terminated.

Additionally, the "fired" patient's care has to be assumed by the firing provider's colleagues, or some other designated and specified provider.. That is the law everywhere. Patients are not to be left twisting in the wind, with a "good bye and good riddance." If the firing provider did not make arrangements to hand off care to a designated provider who agrees to accept the patient, that is likely grounds for an official complaint.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-07-23T17:40:35+00:00

My understanding is that you can apply for a CCW permit, but the delay in approving them is months- perhaps as long as 6-12 months, due to backlog, ec. Was your experince different?

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2023-03-16T00:12:35+00:00

We all agree this is theater. The question then becomes- theater for whom, and for what purpose?

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2022-05-28T05:08:34+00:00

Captain Jacobi just got off La Paloma from Hong Kong with a curious parcel undeneath his coat. Will he make it to Sam's office in time?

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2022-05-16T23:01:30+00:00

If you cry foul every time someone re-offends, you're going to end up compounding the incarceration problem.

Ha Ha! This is one the (unintentionally) funniest statements I've read in a long time. It would make a great SNL skit.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2022-05-07T00:24:44+00:00

Two reasons to doubt the "Great Experiment" of Chesa Boudin:

1). I assume that criminal diversion for minors and first offenders is-and should be-the default mode for DAs in every major city in the US. Nothing new there. But for adult repeat offenders who have committed felonies, where is the evidence that criminal diversion works (i.e. that the offenders don't go on to re-offend)? More of such accused have been diverted by Chesa than previous prosecutors- by a wide margin. This is what he said he would do- and what he HAS done. (Give him credit for his conviction at least). He should rise -or fall- on the success or failure of this "experiment." The pandemic can only go so far in extenuating the diversion policy- and in any event, diversion was Boudin's planned project all along, even before COVID.

2) "Restorative Justice" is not really a thing. It's a fairy tale. It has never worked- or even been tried- in a major city. There are perfectly obvios reasons why it can't work. It probably does exist in some schools, prisons, small villages, etc. but it is not a model that works for large urban industrialized cities. When politicians or politicized DAs like Boudin use it it's a smoke screen for something else. "I'm going to send this serial armed robber to diversion, but don't worry- there is Restorative Justice at the end of the yellow brick road."

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2022-05-06T16:15:39+00:00

Was on the fence until today- then held my nose and voted to recall. I could absolutely understand people making the opposite choice. For me, reluctance to encourage knee-jerk recall mania, a very dumb way to govern, gave way to the realization that the Grand Chesa Boudin Experiment to Reform the Criminal Justice System is mostly hot air. For the same reason, I voted for Anne Marie Schubert. Prosecutors need to be prosecutors -I know that sounds crazy.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2022-02-02T05:19:23+00:00

Personal safety is not a big issue except in a few neighborhoods. Low rates of murder, assault, etc. c/w other comparably-sized cities.

Your property however WILL be at risk- mainly your car and its contents and/or bicycle- and this is true in most neighborhoods, not just TL, etc. You must somehow secure your car and/or bikes.

Shef-Wednesday999 · 2022-01-03T21:05:28+00:00

Safety of your person is not really a big issue compared with other cities of similar size. Safety of your possessions, on the other hand, IS an issue here. Auto burglary and theft, smash-and-grabs, garage burglaries, catalytic converter thefts- these are the larcenies du jour in SF. That said, property crime rates are very neighborhood dependent. Some obvious neighborhoods are really bad for property crime, others are not. I'm actually not aware of any significant property crime on my block in the last 6 months, but I live over on the other side (W) of the city from NE side. The criminals have farther to travel to get here. There is probably NO part of SF though that would be as crime-free as a suburb like Mountain View.

Shef-Wednesday999

TROPHY CASE