Gender and Us: An Examination of the Transgender Idea

Abstract

The author, an “out” transgender woman, treats the subject of transgender issues and people to an examination and review.
This examination is followed by the expression of a possible direction for the future.

Continue reading

Advertisements

The Theft of Habeas Corpus

For those who may not know, a very crucial U.S. Supreme Court case is being argued as I write this.

The press hasn’t noticed because most of them have a fourth-grade reading level…..

But Microsoft Corp. v. Baker is a potentially landmark case about whether individuals who form a class [as-in, “class action suit”]can be barred from pursuing their claims on an individual basis when the class action suit has been dismissed with prejudice [against re-filing].
Remember all those class-action suit commercials?
Well, the reason they [attorneys]began doing that was so their class certifications would apply universally and they could directly cash the check and then “distribute” any awards due their clients.

The standard method is to establish a financial trust account.
Whoever establishes the trust makes the rules and with few outright exclusions,  they can make whatever rules they want, as long as they retain professional trust managers to do it. The trust fund managers cash their paychecks directly from the fund, so they have a major incentive to allow the fund to “mature.”

[READ: “Make it virtually impossible for the intended beneficiaries of the fund to ever draw from it.” Just ask the survivors of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing, or any of the innumerable other people who SHOULD have been paid but due to this crooked crap pulled by some fund manager, have yet to see a dime.]

And of course, all that money doesn’t simply sit idle; it is used to backstop real investments[gambled]in the hope that it will “grow.”

Class action rules state that if you are suing a company over a claim at tort, [they did something which damaged you]whatever disposition was rendered in any class action suit preceding it applies to you as well, whether or not you were named in the original class or ever received any award from it yourself.

In order to get away with that, the law firms have to put those commercials up on public television at 3 a.m. telling you about how this or that company is being sued for whatever.

In theory, this is the foundation for a claim of “constructive notice,” which means you can be construed to have notice of a claim affecting you.

So if your heart medication gives you a heart attack and kills you, your survivors can’t sue the makers of the drug; even when it comes out they knew their medication was potentially fatal, as long as some other crooked attorneys got there first and already cashed a check.

As you can imagine, this is an abuse of the judicial process and a miscarriage of justice.
Habeas Corpus assures the right of a claimant to have their grievances heard by a court.

This is in fact one of our most fundamental rights.
Indispensable to the patient and prisoner alike, Habeas is one of the cornerstones of our entire judicial process: the right of a person to be heard by a court.
This right has suffered some erosion beneath the gavels of several prior Courts, first denying certain indigent petitioners who were incarcerated at the time the right to be heard upon a showing by the State that petitioner had “abused” the judicial process.
This limit was insufficient to stem the rising tide of incarcerated pro se litigants, however, since very few prisoners actually abuse the judicial process.
So it became necessary to restrict Habeas even further by inventing the “class action” mechanism, whereby a claim at tort can be barred because some other party already sued the people you’re suing for the same cause.
Which may sound reasonable….and let me tell you the COMPANIES really love it…..because why should a company have to pay twice for the same screwup, right?
Except it’s not the SAME screwup because it’s not the SAME aggrieved party.
Think about this just for a moment: If your company damages millions of people with its product, say, then you only have to pay for one court case over the issue.
This is MAJORLY flawed reasoning because it lifts the center of the claim from the actions of the parties to their resources; whoever can “last” longer through a trial will always win.

So now a Habeas claim can be dismissed not only for untimeliness, failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, failure to properly name parties or failure to respond in a timely manner, but now also for not being aware of that commercial at three in the morning.

If the Court finds in favor of Micro$oft, anyway.

That case, again, is:
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker

Debunking the Miss Perigrine Photo

There are a few click-bait websites out there.
They don’t bother with fact-checking or truth.
I found this photo on one and got kinda mad.
See, this is not even an old photograph. At least, I could find no mention of it on the web before 2011, when the book in which it was published came out.
The “mystery” in the photo is solved far more easily when one simply flips it upside down:
rare039
Now the photo is quite obviously a composite of two completely different pictures. The “Water” in the upright photo is actually a different picture which was trimmed to fit. Because there is more sky visible in the “top” image as viewed right-side-up, the eye and the brain automatically decide that the bottom image is a reflection in the “water.”
However, even a cursory glance at the inverted photo reveals that NONE of the supposedly “reflected” objects match in any way. And it’s not just ripples in the “water,” either.
Ripples do not change statuary and they certainly do not render (undistorted) trees visible through stone markers.

On Gender and Religion

For the longest time, academia in general and gender studies in particular have been informed by those with no personal experience or understanding of what it is to BE trans*.
Science has been vulnerable to sexism for a very long time, and cisexism is EVERYWHERE, especially in science.
The entire Idea that gender is tied to physical markers of any kind is the real error.
Therefore, that error cannot be “corrected” with surgery.
It can only be corrected when the society itself [re-]discovers that gender is defined by the mind, not the body.

Also, for those with a theological bent, this implies that the current interpretation of the Bible as condemning what is now considered to be “homosexuality” is erroneous.
Since every singe person occupies their own unique position on the gender spectrum, there is no such thing as “homosexuality.”
With that Idea in mind, a reading of Leviticus doesn’t condemn two males or two females lying together: It condemns the Idea that homosexuality is even possible.

Here’s the $64,000 question:

How many agendas, personal, political and financial, do you think would be threatened by a mass realization of the above?

For starters, it would eliminate an entire billion-dollar industry built around the “homosexual lifestyle.”

It would put MANY churches out of business.

It would revolutionize gender studies and inform the sciences for the next hundred years. [No more, “gender dysphoria.”]

But above all, it would free so many of us who labor under the yolk of gender tyranny….at work, at home, in court, in jails and prisons across the country and around the world.

A LOT of poor people would no longer be weighed down by this massive thing that gender has become for so many: not just we trans*, but all women and yes, even the men would be healed by the realization that gender is not based on anatomy.

I envision here nothing less than a sharp decline in sex crimes of all kinds; rape, pedophilia, stalking, lewd acts…….the works.

Imagine that…….

The Chemtrail Problem; or, “Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is NOT Real.”

I have investigated the recent, rapid spread of this scare tactic and have discovered the source of this laughable notion.

The source is Natural Gas developers who are trying to misdirect the attention of all the suspicious, curious people who are willing to believe that a resource development firm might not be terribly scrupulous about the ways in which it pursues profit.

Chemtrails are the myth.

The reality is much more mundane but no less insidious: Hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is the means by which natural gas is drawn from the Earth. Natural gas pockets are plentiful at relatively shallow depths, but the gas will not send itself up a pipe under its own pressure like oil will. It is not possible to suck the gas up the mile-long pipe like a straw because there is no source of pressure on the surface of the gas. To create the needed pressure, a toxic soup of over 600 chemicals in a bunch of water and sand is driven down a second bore near the first. The theory is this drives the gas up the other pipe, and nowhere else.
The company claims to recover 65-85% of the dirty water. This is nowhere near accurate, as they are allowed to count water they never used as “recovered.” Also, common sense says if you need the dirty water to force the gas out, then you will need something to force out the dirty water. You can’t just suck it out because if you could, why not just suck out the much lighter gas instead of the dirty water? If you send a cat in after the mouse, you will need a dog to go in after the cat. Duh.

The whole chemtrail thing is here to get us focused on the sky instead of the very ground beneath our feet.
Now, most of the common-sense ways to utterly debunk the whole chemtrail nonsense do not apply to fracking.

The top three reasons Chemtrails are bullshit:

a. EARTH’S AIR VOLUME IS INSANELY HUGE. The volume of free air on Earth’s surface is calculable. That volume is about 12 billion cubic miles.

A cubic mile is a mile on x, one on y and another on z. There are over 12 billion of these on the Earth’s surface if we stick to the Karman Limit of about 63 miles up as being where the atmosphere stops.

The payload capacity of a super-secret air tanker able to carry and dispense twice the weight of an An-225(the world’s largest air vehicle–only two exist) would be one million pounds. To make this easy, say the chemical has an average density exactly halfway between air and water at sea level. Then, we suppose there are a MILLION of these super-sized planes in the air at any given moment all day, every day, until the entire atmosphere is soaked in this chemtrail crap.
It would take 602 years to bake the Earth’s atmosphere with whatever the chem is.

b. THE AIR IS IN MOTION. The atmosphere is not static. It moves, and there is an actual “air river” system encircling the globe which pretty much guarantees that all of the air on Earth is rotated on a bi-weekly basis. Which means that one would have to soak ALL of the air to poison it effectively, not just the stuff at the bottom right now.

c. WE BREATHE IT, THEY BREATHE IT. Anyone interested in poisoning all of us in this way would not be able to avoid poisoning themselves also, unless they took to wearing gas masks out of doors. Then the jig would be up for sure.

Now, NONE of these limitations apply to poisoning the ground. Military strategists know how easy it is to precisely enbarren the landscape of a very narrow area so as to avoid contaminating friendly soil.
This requires one to taint merely the top four inches of soil to be completely certain that nothing will grow there for a given time.
Now, fracking injects hundreds of thousands of gallons of carcinogenic, mutagenic contaminated water into the ground at relatively shallow depths(often under a mile), the chemicals in which percolate back up through the ground to the surface. It takes time and happens slowly, but it utterly destroys every living thing on the surface.
The ground is essentially static, so if you poison one patch of it now, those poisons are likely to remain there for a long time.
And finally, if you poison your neighbor’s backyard, chances are really good that your own will be unaffected if you used the right stuff at the right depth.

The Mysterious Case of the Closed Comment

I have been a solid Internet denizen since before Prodigy.

I was on the web before many of you reading this were born.

Back in my day, (I’ve always hated this phrase: as though today is not your day because you are past your thirties or have not yet arrived there)if you wanted information about whatever, you had two options: watch television or read a book.

But it wasn’t just “read a book;” no! first you had to find the book. Which, in the days before electronic card catalogs, was only done via actual drawers filled with thousands and thousands of cards which required a manual alphabetic search for a book according to title, author, subject or keyword. ( More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dewey_Decimal_Classification )

Once you found the book in the catalog, you then had to find that book on the shelf, which often was the longest phase of the process. Many times I searched for hours trying to find a book which provided little to no information useful to me.

And of course, book in hand, you then had to search through that book page-by-page for what you actually wanted, which was not guaranteed to be there in the first place.

Then, in 1996, I heard about this thing called “Alta Vista.”

Alta Vista was the immediate predecessor to Google. Like Google, Alta Vista had its competitors such as Lycos and WebCrawler and HotBot.

They all sucked. Like, they sucked REALLY BADLY. If you searched, say, Alta Vista (best in its time) for “RG-6” which is a type of network cable which is really similar to the coax in the wall for your television, it would return all the results with an “R,” a “G” and a “6” on the same page, with no reference to context or topic or popularity.

In other words, it is SO EASY to find information these days. It will be three generations before most people (especially academics)have any CLUE how useful a search engine like Google can be, and what a wealth of information is available through Wikipedia.

Then there’s YouTube. I’ve spent much of my life, as a child and as an adult, making the most out of the available technology. As such, I’ve made MANY predictions about the future of informatics and knowledge in general, so when Wikipedia happened I was not surprised. When Google happened I was not surprised. But when YouTube happened, I was amazed.

Not only can we get information from “authoritative” sources, but now we can bypass the middle-man completely and teach each other directly through full-motion, HD broadcast-quality video. Amazing.

Anywhere in the world, any culture……even language barriers are no longer towering, insurmountable walls past which only the wealthy can afford a glimpse. Wow.

We can all address each other directly. We can do research on any topic of interest, and we can acquire goods and services from parts of the world which would have been unheard-of to most (let-alone shopped)even ten years back. What?

There will be a crucial rebound period where interested parties will have a thirty-year opportunity to convince the People that online knowledge is essentially worthless. They will attack these information sources with their propaganda and buzzwords and phoney “statistics” in the hope that no one will protest too much when these information sources are attacked and removed.

It has already started: Phrases like “YouTube famous,” or “Wiki troll” are already in the spotlight. The former suggests that a YouTube producer whose product has been viewed 100 million times is somehow less influential to the zeitgeist than a televised episode of “American Housewife.” While a “Wiki troll” is a person who has donated their time and maybe even money to the task of making truly useful, academically-sourced information free to all.

Now, with just a bit of thought, and it doesn’t take much, you can see just who would be opposed in principle to such a wealth of information being made so widely available free of charge, since such a thing would severely damage their interests. {all hats off to MIT and Professor Lewin for pioneering the OpenCourseWare program; check YouTube for HOURS of MIT lectures in physics, astronomy, computer networking….you name it. Free.}

But the true subject of my post here is a disturbing trend I’ve seen developing for the last decade. Prior to that time, it wasn’t much of an issue, because most of the world had yet to discover the web: Expirations on reply comments.

You know what I mean: you’ll see a post or a comment on the web made by some person, and you will even sign up for the forum just to make your own reply; only to find out (AFTER you’ve surrendered your e-mail address) that the thread has been closed to further comment.

Ever wonder why?

I did. And you know, I just can’t figure it out. I mean, why would anyone open a public or semi-public forum for anyone else interested to join and contribute their knowledge or ask their questions and then choose NOT to allow others to contribute more at some later date? While the people who originally asked the question or OP’ed the thread may be long gone, (again: may be)there are other people who may come along later and wish to further contribute.

Do they not matter? Is it something to do with thread ranking? What possible reason could there be for closing a thread to further comment after some specified time has elapsed?

I feel like I’m a pretty smart person, and like I said, I’ve been on the wire for longer than many of you have been alive: so it is with no lack of experience in web-stuff that I can say with certainty there is NO LOGICAL REASON for this “thread death” phenomenon. Even if there were, such reason could not possibly outweigh the benefits, to every party interested in that knowledge, of leaving the thread opened to new comments indefinitely.

Unless of course you can be presumed to have an interest in limiting the spread of Ideas across time because maybe you feel THAT “privilege,” at least, will remain with those in power.

Don’t fall for the bullshit, people. Use your brains, and do more every day to strengthen your minds. Responsibly help everyone you can to do the same. You will NEVER regret it, I can assure you.