Why Evolution is True Feed

In his latest Real Time monologue, Bill Maher discusses pedophilia, how it’s exacerbated by the media (including Disney), celebrated by parents who dress up little kids as adults, and even excused by progressives. His take on “Drag Queen Story Hour” is pretty funny.

Money quote: “I’ve said it before wokeness is not an extension of liberalism any more it’s more often taking something so far that it becomes the opposite.”

He then goes on to gender, suggesting that teaching six-year-old kids about gender is a form of “entrapment,” making them do something they otherwise wouldn’t. He’s gonna get in big trouble for that one!

This has its funny bits, but it’s one of Maher’s more serious pieces, bearing on the possible indoctrination of kids into “nonbinary” roles by peers and teachers.

A while back I posted about my cinemaphilic nephew Steven’s nominees for the “Golden Steves,” which he humbly presents as a better alternative to the Oscars. As he says,

Far and away the most coveted of motion picture accolades, Golden Steves are frequently described as the Oscars without the politics. Impervious to bribery, immune to ballyhoo, unswayed by sentiment, and riddled with integrity, this committee of one might be termed in all accuracy “fair-mindedness incarnate.” Over 200 of the year’s most acclaimed features were screened prior to the compilation of this ballot. First, some caveats:

1) Owing to a lifelong suspicion of prime numbers, each category comprises six nominees, not five.

2) A film can be nominated in only one of the following categories: Best Animated Feature, Best Non-Fiction Film, Best Foreign Language Film. Placement is determined by the Board of Governors. Said film remains eligible in all other fields.

3) This list is in no way connected with the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences—a fact that should be apparent from its acumen. Please look elsewhere for Oscar analysis.’

Click to read and see all the winners.

The nominees for the “big” categories are below, and I’ve put in bold the winners. Remember that there are eight categories below but 12 on the original list, so I’ll put the four extra winners at the bottom.

Best Picture

Afire
All of Us Strangers
Anatomy of a Fall
Killers of the Flower Moon
May December
Trenque Lauquen

Best Director

Laura Citarella, Trenque Lauquen
Andrew Haigh, All of Us Strangers
Todd Haynes, May December
Christian Petzold, Afire
Martin Scorsese, Killers of the Flower Moon
Justine Triet, Anatomy of a Fall

Best Actor

Paul Giamatti, The Holdovers
Benoit Magimel, Pacifiction
Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer
Franz Rogowski, Passages
Andrew Scott, All of Us Strangers
Michael Thomas, Rimini

Best Actress

Jodie Comer, The End We Start From
Lily Gladstone, Killers of the Flower Moon
Sandra Huller, Anatomy of a Fall
Natalie Portman, May December
Emma Stone, Poor Things
Teyana Taylor, A Thousand and One

Best Supporting Actor

Jamie Bell, All of Us Strangers
Robert Downey Jr., Oppenheimer
Glenn Howerton, BlackBerry
Charles Melton, May December
Paul Mescal, All of Us Strangers
Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

Best Supporting Actress

Penelope Cruz, Ferrari
Merve Dizdar, About Dry Grasses
Claire Foy, All of Us Strangers
Anne Hathaway, Eileen
Rachel McAdams, Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.
Da’Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

Best Non-Fiction Film

Apolonia, Apolonia (Lea Glob)
Beyond Utopia (Madeleine Gavin)
Menus-Plaisirs Les Troisgros (Frederick Wiseman)
Orlando, My Political Biography (Paul B. Preciado)
Our Body (Claire Simon)
To Kill a Tiger (Nisha Pahuja)

Best Foreign Language Film

About Dry Grasses (Nuri Bilge Ceylan)
Afire (Christian Petzold)
Anatomy of a Fall (Justine Triet)
Fallen Leaves (Aki Kaurismaki)
Trenque Lauquen (Laura Citarella)
The Zone of Interest (Jonathan Glazer)

And the other winners:

Best Screenplay–Adapted: All of Us Strangers (Andrew Haigh)

Best Screenplay–Original: Do Not Expect Too Much from the End of the World (Radu Jude)

Best Animated Feature:  Robot Dreams (Pablo Berger)

Best Original Song: “Live That Way Forever,” The Iron Claw (Richard Reed Parry, Laurel Sprengelmeyer)

Here’s that best original song:

I guess I’ll have to see “May December” as it took home three Golden Steves. My moviegoing has been thin in the past year, and I know nothing about this movie save that it got a 91% Critics Rating (but only a 65% Viewers Rating) on Rotten Tomatoes. Here’s the trailer, showing the costars Julianne Moore and Natalie Portman.

 

A recent announcement from The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) tells us something we knew was coming: the Biden Administration is walking back the improvements in Title IX made by Betsy DeVos. (Yes, it was one of the few good things done under Trump.) The original rules, which bear on how colleges adjudicate sexual misconduct, were put in place by Obama, then rolled back and made more fair by DeVos, and now Biden’s reverting the law to the Obama standards, which are palpably unfair because they take away rights from the accused that are in place in real courts.

You can read several of my posts on this issue here, but this one details the changes.  I believe they’re not yet finalized, but are nearing completion. It’s not yet clear whether this document, which is heavy on “gender identity”, will permit transgender females to compete athletically against natal females. The rules don’t seem to be finalized, but I’ve heard that Biden is holding off until after the election before allowing the athletic thing, since trans “inclusion” in women’s sports is opposed by most Americans.

You might also want to read Emily Yoffe’s Free Press piece criticizing Biden’s proposals (which are now law), as well as her other pieces on the issue cited at the bottom of her article.

If FIRE opposes something, I’m usually on their side, and I certainly am this time. These changes in regulations, as you’ll see below, are part of Biden’s increasing wokeness, and deny those accused of sexual misconduct of a fair hearing.  Biden will have the accused lose their right to contest the allegations against them in a live hearing, to cross-examine those who accuse him (yes, it’s usually men), and will allow a single person to be the original investigator of the charges, the adjudicator of the charges, and the jury who gives a decision. How fair is that? There are other changes, too, and if you have the time you can read all the rules here in a 1577-page document.

Here’s the FIRE summary:

Today the Department of Education released troubling new rules on how colleges investigate campus sexual misconduct allegations. The bottom line: Students who find themselves in a campus hearing are now less likely to receive a fair shake.

If reading this feels like déjà vu, you’re not alone.

For years the government has politicized college students’ rights under Title IX, the 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination in education. Bureaucrats play political games, taking away student free speech and due process rights during one presidential administration, then restoring them in the next.

Fairness shouldn’t be politicized. Campus hearings should be fair for every single student — accused and accuser alike. But these new rules deprive students of fundamental rights that help investigators uncover the truth in the most serious types of campus misconduct cases, including those that concern sexual misconduct.

The rules:

• Eliminate the right to a live hearing to contest the allegations.
• Eliminate the right to cross-examine one’s accuser and witnesses.
• Weaken the right to be represented by lawyers in campus sexual misconduct expulsion proceedings.
• Require colleges to adopt a definition of sexual harassment which will inevitably be used to censor constitutionally protected speech.
• Allow for the return of the “single-investigator” model, in which a single administrator serves as prosecutor, judge, and jury.

“Justice is only possible when hearings are fair for everyone,” said FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley. “Rather than playing political ping-pong with student rights, the Department of Education should recognize that removing procedural protections for students is the exact opposite of fairness.”

Colleges and the government should not team up to deprive students of their rights. And no one should implement policies that make uncovering the truth in cases of serious misconduct even more difficult.

Riley Gaines has been an outspoken advocate of allowing only natal women to compete in women’s athletics. Here’s her take on the new rules, though, as I have no energy to plow through 1577 pages, I haven’t checked her assertsions:

The Biden Admin has just officially abolished Title IX as we knew it. Now, sex = gender identity.

In a nutshell, the new rewrite means:
– men can take academic AND athletic scholarships from women
– men will have FULL access to bathrooms, locker rooms, etc
– men could be… pic.twitter.com/JfQVI9Yfph

— Riley Gaines (@Riley_Gaines_) April 19, 2024

I’ll still vote for Biden, but he’s making it harder and harder. But even with this change that makes adjudication of sexual misconduct an unfair process, he’s still miles and miles ahead of Trump. If I get too fed up, I simply won’t vote for President, which in this Democratic state won’t affect the presidential results at all.

h/t: Luana

I suppose this counts as Readers’ wildlife today, as we’re dealing with the primate H. sapiens.  We have videos and photographs from a demonstration in Chicago.

Yesterday my colleague Peggy Mason (like me, an atheistic Jew) went downtown to get pick up her repaired watch, and ran smack into a huge pro-Palestinian demonstration around Michigan Avenue. These protests occurred widely across America yesterday, perhaps in solidarity with the entitled demonstrators squatting, snacking, and shouting on the campus of Columbia University (see this morning’s Hili Dialogue and the tweets below). I’ll first show two videos taken by Peggy and then add a group of her photos. First, her words:

This is just beyond anything I ever thought I’d see in my lifetime.  I was downtown today and there was a huge pro-Palestinian march on Michigan Avenue.  Also huge police presence walling them in.   Signs included anti-Zionism≠Anti-semitism, which is obviously not true here or in London or anywhere.  Next to that sign was a throwback to the Elders of Zion – “Their god is CAPITAL and God is our Witness.”

The people in the march appeared to be quite pleased with themselves.  There was no opposition to them.  Tourists ignored them.  I had no clue what I could do as a single person.  I did nothing but take pictures for Jerry.  I just don’t see how we return to comity and civility.

And two videos.  First, the cops keep the demonstrators in tight order.

More shouts. I can’t make out the words beyond “Genocide Joe”, but readers can help with that and other chants.

 

And some photos. Note in the first one the claim that anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism, which of course is an excuse to be anti-Semitic. I disagree with the slogan anyway, as to oppose an established country now, formed as a homeland for Jews expelled or demonized elsewhere, and long after the Holocaust made its existence necessary, is to say that you don’t think the country should exist—that it should be eliminated (and perhaps merged with Palestine, with dire results), or the Jews should be deported from Israel. Either way it’s anti-Semitic, so these protestors are flatly making a false statement.

Notice the blood libel here: the sign that says “Their God is Capital, and God is our witness.”  That’s simply the old claim that Jews worship money, and it’s a poster I hadn’t seen. This is the kind of stuff, in conjunction with things like the London police driving away people who look “openly Jewish” (see this morning’s Hili Dialogue), that makes me believe that the protests are moving from being anti-Israel to being anti-semitic.  Note also the “From the River to the Sea” poster.

Sundry other photos by Peggy:

This kid is doomed to being propagandized:

Of course I don’t deny these people the right to demonstrate and say whatever they want. (I’m pretty sure they had a permit.) What I am saying is that their speech is both hateful and scary, and not a good portent for Jews.

Truly, these people want to see Israel gone, wiped off the map—by “any means necessary.”  And the nature of chants and slogans is changing. As I said this morning, at Columbia you can hear stuff like, ““Remember the 7th of October” (and they’re happy about that), followed by “Ten thousand times”.  They are happy about the 7th of October attack, and they want it to happen again and again! It’s no coincidence that this is precisely what Hamas says. I can’t help feeling, and it chills me to the marrow, that many of these protestors think that Hamas did a good thing on October 7th.  After all, they say, they are no real “civilians’ in Israel, and that apparently includes babies, who are just infant colonizers.

You will not convince me that all these people want is a peaceful and terror-free coexistence between Israelis and Arabs.  They are in favor of getting rid of Israel, and you know what that means.  Meanwhile, things at Columbia are heating up last night and this morning, and the slogans appear to be in Arabic. Some tweets:

I am not sure, as the tweet below avers, that all the people in the video are “terrorists or “openly supporting terror,” which seems very hyperbolic.  I am putting up the first tweet just to show you how academia has become ideology.

This is the Chabbad Rabbi (!) and a group of Jewish students being scared off of @Columbia's campus. pic.twitter.com/VdAlJ5G3V1

— Shai Davidai (@ShaiDavidai) April 21, 2024

Look at the epithets hurled at the rabbi and the Jewish students as they’re followed off campus. Click the button but read the epithets at the bottom of the screen. They’re clearly anti-Semitic, e.g. “Go back to Poland.” And the second tweet points out Jews as “targets”.  What else could that mean?

Here's a terrorist directing the Hamas' military wing al-Qassam Brigades to target and kill Jewish students at @Columbia.

(ironically, she misspelled "al-Qassam". Do your homework) pic.twitter.com/cLMAUyhGMj

— Shai Davidai (@ShaiDavidai) April 21, 2024

You can read about Nerdeen Kiswani at the Anti-Defamation League.

Here's another one of their leaders, praising the October 7th massacre ("the Al-Aqsa Flood") and lauding
Hamas terrorists who raped, tortured, murdered, and kidnapped thousdans of civlians as "the sacrificial spirit of the Palestinian Freedom Fighters that will guide every… pic.twitter.com/OznpFA5YZQ

— Shai Davidai (@ShaiDavidai) April 21, 2024

From Andrew Sullivan’s new Weekly Dish piece, “Katherine Maher is not a liberal“, criticizing the new CEO of National Public Radio:

The point I have been trying to make for years now is that wokeness is not some racier version of liberalism, merely seeking to be kinder and more inclusive. It is, in fact, directly hostile to liberal values; it subordinates truth to ideology; it judges people not by their ability but by their identity; and it regards ideological diversity as a mere dog-whistle for bigotry. Maher has publicly and repeatedly avowed support for this very illiberalism. If people with these views run liberal institutions, the institutions will not — cannot — remain liberal for very long. And they haven’t. Elite universities are turning into madrassas, and media is turning into propaganda.

Dan Dennett died yesterday, and I still can’t believe he’s gone, though he’d used up a good portion of his nine lives in a series of cardiac events.  His NYT obituary can be read by clicking the screenshot below, or you can find it archived here.

The subheading seems to me a bit inaccurate. For one thing Dennett certainly did not think religion was an illusion, though he’s quoted saying that below. Perhaps he thought it was a delusion, but he certainly took it seriously as a human behavioral phenomenon, even though he was an atheist. What the subheading means is that he thought the idea of god and its concomitants were an illusion, but that is not all that religion comprises.

More important, Dan certainly did NOT believe that free will was a fantasy: Dan was a compatibilist who didn’t believe in libertarian free will, but wrote two books and several other papers and half of another book defending the idea that free will was not a fantasy, but that we did indeed have it: it was, he said, simply different from what most people thought.

Dan and I disagreed strongly on Dan’s compatibilism (Sam Harris disagreed as well), but free will being a fantasy? Nope.

Finally, yes, Dan concentrated on natural selection as the only process that could produce the appearance of adaptation, but didn’t deny, as I recall, the fact that genetic drift could cause some evolutionary change. (For a rather critical review of his book Darwin’s Dangerous Idea by my ex-student Allen Orr, go here.) But Dan concentrated on adaptations, including human behaviors, because the appearance of design, for centuries imputed to God, is what really demands explanation.

(*Note the misplacement of “only” in the subheading; it should appear after “explained,” not after “could”. Where are the proofreaders?)

At any rate, here’s an excerpt from the NYT that is more accurate than the subheading:

Daniel C. Dennett, one of the most widely read and debated American philosophers, whose prolific works explored consciousness, free will, religion and evolutionary biology, died on Friday in Portland, Maine. He was 82.

His death, at Maine Medical Center, was caused by complications of interstitial lung disease, his wife, Susan Bell Dennett, said. He lived in Cape Elizabeth, Maine.

Mr. Dennett combined a wide range of knowledge with an easy, often playful writing style to reach a lay public, avoiding the impenetrable concepts and turgid prose of many other contemporary philosophers. Beyond his more than 20 books and scores of essays, his writings even made their way into the theater and onto the concert stage.

But Mr. Dennett, who never shirked controversy, often crossed swords with other famed scholars and thinkers.

An outspoken atheist, he at times seemed to denigrate religion. “There’s simply no polite way to tell people they’ve dedicated their lives to an illusion,” he said in a 2013 interview with The New York Times.

According to Mr. Dennett, the human mind is no more than a brain operating as a series of algorithmic functions, akin to a computer. To believe otherwise is “profoundly naïve and anti-scientific,” he told The Times.

For Mr. Dennett, random chance played a greater role in decision-making than did motives, passions, reasoning, character or values. Free will is a fantasy, but a necessary one to gain people’s acceptance of rules that govern society, he said.

And on free will:

His first book to attract widespread scholarly notice was “Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology,” published in 1978.

In it, Mr. Dennett asserted that multiple decisions resulted in a moral choice and that these prior, random deliberations contributed more to the way an individual acted than did the ultimate moral decision itself. Or, as he explained:

“I am faced with an important decision to make, and after a certain amount of deliberation, I say to myself: ‘That’s enough. I’ve considered this matter enough and now I’m going to act,’ in the full knowledge that I could have considered further, in the full knowledge that the eventualities may prove that I decided in error, but with the acceptance of responsibility in any case.”

Some leading libertarians criticized Mr. Dennett’s model as undermining the concept of free will: If random decisions determine ultimate choice, they argued, then individuals aren’t liable for their actions.

Mr. Dennett responded that free will — like consciousness — was based on the outdated notion that the mind should be considered separate from the physical brain. Still, he asserted, free will was a necessary illusion to maintain a stable, functioning society.

“We couldn’t live the way we do without it,” he wrote in his 2017 book, “From Bacteria to Bach and Back: The Evolution of Minds.” “If — because free will is an illusion — no one is ever responsible for what they do, should we abolish yellow and red cards in soccer, the penalty box in ice hockey and all the other penalty systems in sports?”

First of all, the notion of a separation between mind and body is not “outdated”: a huge number of people believe in libertarian free will: that your mind alone can, at any given moment, allow you to make any one of two or more choices. It’s outdated among scientists and philosophers, but not among the general public, as surveys have shown.

Further, “random decisions” aren’t really random to either libertarians or determinists. Even Libet-like experiments show that what you do is to some degree predictable using fMRI, and is probably entirely predictable if we had a complete understanding of the brain. No determinist argues that decisions are “random”, as they’re based on the pattern of your neurons produced by your genes and your environment. And libertarians would argue that decisions aren’t random, for if we were we’d have no ability to predict what anybody we know does. Finanly, determinists don’t claim that individuals aren’t liable for their actions. They are liable, but not in the way that most people think. If somebody murders someone else, we don’t just let him go and say, “well, he wasn’t responsible for the killing.”

Do note that Dennett is credited with believing something that I always maintained: he favored compatibilism, at least in part, because of “belief in belief”: without belief in some kind of free will, he said, society would fall apart (he said that at least twice):

Mr. Dennett responded that free will — like consciousness — was based on the outdated notion that the mind should be considered separate from the physical brain. Still, he asserted, free will was a necessary illusion to maintain a stable, functioning society.

But if religion is also thought necessary by some (not Dennett) as necessary to maintain a stable, society, then why is free will TRULY necessary to maintain a stable, functioning society? Perhaps our feeling of free will is necessary for that, but, like religion, that’s a delusion that we simply can’t avoid feeling. I function very well even though I’m a hard determinist, even though I feel like I have a choice. And, in the last sentence, I don’t think one can characterize Dan’s view of free will as an “illusion”. He argued strenuously for a form of free will that was not an illusion.

But I digress. Dan was an important figure in bringing philosophy and Darwinism to educated readers. How often do philosophers produce bestselling popular works?  Yes, he could be wrong, and the force of his personality led some to adopt what I thought were erroneous ideas (like “we have the kind of free will worth wanting”), but more often his arguments were cogent, important, and vividly expressed.

And Dan was a nice guy, one who befriended me when I was just a stripling. One thing missing from the NYT piece—and something I hope they’ll add—are quotations from Dennett’s friends and colleagues. Where, for instance, is an assessment by Richard Dawkins? I expect that will appear on Richard’s Substack site, but we needed some quotes for the NYT obit. Here’s Richard’s tweet about Dan’s death:

Dan Dennett was a great philosopher, skilled with words, images, thought experiments & intuition pumps. But unlike many clever philosophers (to borrow from PB Medawar) he had something important to be clever ABOUT, namely science. Much more yet, he was a dear friend. So very sad.

— Richard Dawkins (@RichardDawkins) April 19, 2024

You can find other obituaries at the Torygraph, at Ars Technica, and at the Daily Nous, which is short but has a recent video interview, which I put below. And I’d recommend reading his recent autobiography, I’ve Been Thinking.

 

There will be more obituaries to come.

Here from the WaPo we hear about a special area (not really an island) near Shanghai where stray cats are sequestered. If you see the video below, you’ll see they’re better off there–people come to feed them amd adopt them–than roaming the streets. Click to read (archived free here, or go to a shorter article here).

An excerpt:

The happiest place on Earth for cats might just be here, on Cat Island, a feline playground just a few miles from Shanghai Disneyland. While humans whoop and whirl at the latter, the 400-plus kitties who call Cat Island home rest in the shade of specially constructed grass-covered play tunnels or loll about in pagodas. They cross a wooden bridge to stalk through pear orchards, the intrepid among them even venturing into the horse stable.

The pampered residents here were once strays in downtown Shanghai, a city of 25 million people and somewhere between 400,000 and 1.5 million stray cats. But efforts are underway to stem the exploding feral population in the metropolis and find homes for at least some of the newly neutered cats

Cat Island’s entire population is up for adoption. Many at “cat cafes” in the city do a similar thing: Provide a space where people can befriend and potentially take home a neutered, if shy, kitty.

There’s no equivalent of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in China. Instead, it’s left to grass-roots organizations like these to step in to save cats — from the streets, or from people who think they’re better off culled.

“Cat adoption has become quite popular in recent years, especially among the younger generation,” said Erica Guo, owner of all-rescue cat cafe More Meow Garden.

. . . and you can adopt the island’s cats, as (according to the article) cats are becoming more and more popular as pets in China:

At the end of 2022, a few months after Shanghai’s longest lockdown ended, a government-affiliated nonprofit foundation opened the 130-acre Shanghai Pet Base facility, which encompasses Cat Island.

It is concentrating on trapping and neutering strays, then returning them to the communities where they were found. When that’s not possible, they’re rehomed to Cat Island.

“This is what we are able to do, here and now,” said Zha Zhenliang, the foundation official responsible for Cat Island and the Pet Base. “We hope every [apartment] compound can have their own ‘cat island’ of a safe place for the cats to be,” and their feeders can operate openly, he said. Feeding strays can be a controversial activity, resulting in conflict between cat lovers and neighbors who just want them culled.

To adopt a Cat Island cat, people must first trek to the remote, grassy site outside Shanghai — a semirural location chosen to avoid angering neighbors — then complete a pet-care course and have their home inspected by video call for suitability. The precautions mean adoption numbers are barely denting the problem: In 18 months, only 130 cats have moved to new homes.

Here’s a 4½-minute video showing what the “island” is like. The cats seem pretty well taken care of.

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

From Bored Panda we find a selection of fifty cat memes. Click below to read; I’ve selected a few for your delectation:

From catsweek From catsweek From catsweek From catsweek From catsweek From catsweek

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

Here’s a heartening tale from MPR News of a lost cat found after going missing for more than a month. Click below to read or click the link in the first sentence:

The story:

“Lost trucker cat. Help me get home, call my team. Leave tuna for me,” reads a poster with a white and gray cat posted around St. Cloud.

At 2 a.m. on Jan. 17, “Tom the lost trucker cat” jumped out of his owner’s semi truck at the Pilot/Flying J truck stop off exit 171.

“He took a few steps, turned back and gave me one last look,” Owner Angel Anthony Garcia said. Tom was gone.

Garcia and his wife, Tom’s other owner Marie Sanchez, searched for him as long as they could without success. Garcia had to deliver a truck full of apples to Virginia and the deadline was approaching.

They made the difficult decision to leave and hoped that someone would find him. Garcia posted about him in a local Facebook page.

Oh, man, I wouldn’t have abandoned that cat. But here’s the poster, labeled as a “courtesy photo”; I like the “please feed” bit:

But he was found!

Jan Peterson was scrolling Facebook and saw Garcia’s post about Tom. She reached out to Garcia and Sanchez and told them she wanted to help. This isn’t her first time looking for a lost pet, she has helped many families through Facebook find lost animals.

She contacted her community and set up a Facebook group for Tom asking for tips. She put up signs, posted on social media and wished for the best.

Forty days had passed with no sign of Tom. At 4 a.m. on Tuesday, Peterson’s husband woke her up.

“I think somebody found Tom!” he said.

She ran out of bed to find the Facebook post and there he was. A sweet, slightly dirty, gray and white cat.

When Garcia and Sanchez got the call he was okay, they were speechless.

“It was devastating to me because he is the light of my life,” Sanchez said. “Knowing he survived, knowing that he was found, oh my gosh, I can’t even tell you, I am so overwhelmed with joy. I can’t wait to get to him.”

Tom was found by Jeremiah Moe at a metalworking shop in Sauk Rapids, 9 miles from where he went missing.

Here’s the FB post asking if this was the right cat. He looks as if he had a rough time:

The end of the tail. But if the owners truly love Tom, why haven’t they gotten him yet?

Peterson retrieved him and brought him to Rice Vet Clinic where Dr. Kayla Schmitz took over. He had lost about half his weight, was dehydrated and a little roughed up. He was given fluids and cleaned. After being missing for more than a month, he showed little impact of the Minnesota climate.

On his journey it is likely he ran into wildlife, including predators, and the Mississippi River. While we may never know what Tom did for all those days, it is clear he was determined to survive.

Now he is staying with a foster home until his owners can come retrieve him. Funds are tight for Garcia and Sanchez. They are trying to get a truck load they can drive that will run through Minnesota so they can get Tom, but they haven’t heard about any opportunities yet. They said they will get to him as soon as they are able to.

“Get to him as soon as they are able to”? Is that love?

A bit more:

Peterson credits the community in his rescuing.

“It was the whole community … they really went out of their way to watch for him at night. They would check and say, ‘I went here today, I didn’t see him, but I look for him every night before I go to bed.’ It was that kind of dedication.”

Sanchez said Tom never would have been found without the residents of St. Cloud.

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

Lagniappe: A music-loving moggie perched on the piano, soothed by a lullaby.

h/t: Barry, Ginger K.

Today we have some noshing birds by reader Thomas Stringfellow. His captions are indented, and you can enlarge the photos by clicking on them:

The photos were taken in July 2011 below the dam at Lake Barkley in Kentucky, and feature our old friend the Black-crowned Night-Heron (Nycticorax mycticorax) having lunch at the all-you-can-eat buffet. This is a remarkable place for many species of birds, and photographing them is made easier because they are largely habituated to humans.

The order obviously tells a story; I especially like the drink at the end to help wash down the fish.

Camera details: Nikon D3 camera shot in aperture priority mode, Nikkor 400 mm f/2.8 telephoto lens with a Nikon 1.4x teleconverter.

Two obituaries in one day. . .

Dicky Betts, one of my favorite rock guitarists of all time, died in Florida last Thursday. He was 80, and had been plagued by illness (exacerbated by drugs, drinking, and smoking) for some time. When he was at his height with the Allman Brothers, especially when playing with Duane Allman before Duane’s untimely death, he was incomparable, and had a sound that could be identified immediately.  You can read the NYT obituary by clicking below, but I’d to memorialize him with his music rather than with words. From what I hear, he was probably somewhat of a jerk, and often didn’t get along well with his bandmates, but of course many great artists, musical or otherwise, weren’t exemplary people. I know virtually nothing about Betts as a person (look him up on Wikipedia if you want information), but I know his music, and I’ve put four great examples below.

You can read the NYT obit—in line with house style, they call him “Mr. Betts”—by clicking on the headline below, or see it archived here.

An excerpt:

Despite not being an actual Allman brother — the band, founded in 1969, was led by Duane Allman, who achieved guitar-god status before he died in a motorcycle accident at 24, and Gregg Allman, the lead vocalist, who got an added flash of the limelight in 1975 when he married Cher — Mr. Betts was a guiding force in the group for decades and central to the sound that came to define Southern rock.

Although pigeonholed by some fans in the band’s early days as its “other” guitarist, Mr. Betts, whose solos seemed at times to scorch the fretboard of his Gibson Les Paul, proved a worthy sparring partner to Duane Allman, serving as a co-lead guitarist, rather than as a sidekick.

With his chiseled features, Wild West mustache and gunfighter demeanor, Mr. Betts certainly looked the part of the star. And he played like one. Nowhere was that more apparent than on the band’s landmark 1971 live double album, “At Fillmore East,” which was filled with expansive jams and showcased the intricate interplay between Mr. Betts and Mr. Allman. It sold more than a million copies.

“The second half of ‘At Fillmore East’ is as vivid and exhilarating as recorded rock has ever been,” Grayson Haver Currin of Pitchfork wrote in a 2022 appraisal.

A centerpiece of the album was “In Memory of Elizabeth Reed,” a haunting, jazz-influenced instrumental written by Mr. Betts whose title was taken from a headstone at a graveyard in the band’s hometown, Macon, Ga. That track’s “textural interplay,” Mr. Currin continued, “resembles Miles Davis’s then-new electric bands, organ and guitar oozing into one another like melting butter and chocolate.”

“Duane and I had an understanding, like an old soul kind of understanding of let’s play together,” Mr. Betts said in a 2020 interview with The Sarasota Herald-Tribune in Florida. “Duane would say, ‘Man, I get so jealous of you sometimes when you burn off and I have to follow it,’ and we would joke about it. So that’s kind of Duane and mine’s relationship. It was a real understanding. Like, ‘Come on, this is a hell of a band, let’s not hot dog it up.’”

Mr. Allman made his feelings about his bandmate clear. “I’m the famous guitar player,” he once said, “but Dickey is the good one.”

Note that last sentence.  Yet on Rolling Stone‘s bizarre list of “The 250 greatest guitarists of all time,” Betts ranks at only #145 (sandwiched between Mike Bloomfield and Odetta), while Duane Allman comes in at a respectable #10. (#1 is Jimi Hendrix, while Eric Clapton is only #35.) That list is just wonky. Hendrix’s position makes sense, but to put Clapton at #35 and Betts at #145 is insane. Best to ignore that list!

Although the NYT and others name “Ramblin’ Man” as Betts’s biggest success, I still find”Blue Sky” preferable, and it’s my favorite song of his (he wrote it, sang it, and played it, alternating with Duane Allman). Here is “southern rock”—I’ve never been sure what that is—at its finest. I heard the Allman Brothers, sans Duane, play this song live, and was only about 10 feet from the stage in a standing crowd. After playing “Blue Sky,” Betts threw his pick into the audience, and I’m sad that I didn’t catch it.

The solo on this piece is incomparable, and you can hear the original recording here. Warren Haynes alternates with Betts, but Betts outshines him. (Dickie is, of course, the one with the cowboy hat and boots.)

Another favorite of mine, the instrumental “Jessica“.  This was also written by Betts, who does a great job playing it live in 1982. I love Betts’s great solo that starts with a big guitar whine at 3:39, slows and then speeds up at 4:51. The original is here.

This song, “Whipping Post,” was written by Greg Allman, but it’s one of the few examples on video of Betts playing with Duane Allman. Duane is the star here, but Betts gets his licks in starting about 5:40.  You judge who’s best. This is the full original band, and the original recording is here.

I’m throwing in this version of Gregg’s song “Melissa‘ because it’s all-acoustic performance and shows Betts’s skill on acoustic guitar, especially in the final solo with Haynes. Greg wrote this song out of frustration, feeling unable to write any good songs. He finally succeeded with this one, despite the lameness of some of the words. The original recording is here.

Well, this is unexpected, and details will be forthcoming. He was 82.

Renowned philosopher Daniel Dennett has died https://t.co/Dbk0VgBZnY pic.twitter.com/q22ug7sYSv

— Ferris Jabr (@ferrisjabr) April 19, 2024

I have lots of stories about Dan, and found him amiable and charitable, though sometimes he could be domineering, especially when I professed a lack of belief in free will. But I once jumped in his lap and asked for a hug after I was attacked by Robert Wright at a conference lunch. Being enfolded by a replica of Santa was the best thing I could think of.

There will be a lot of obituaries, I’m sure, and if you want to read about his life he wrote an autobiography called I’ve Been Thinking.  I’ve read it, and you can see that he was far more talented and into far more things than you could ever imagine.

RIP, big guy!

Some photos from 2012 and 2019 (this is Rockwell’s original “Freedom of Speech” painting:

Perplexed at a symposium with Reza Aslan. Dan was NOT happy here!

Going to the Moving Naturalism Forward conference at Stockbridge, MA.

I hope John McWhorter’s latest column, which I see as misguided, doesn’t show that he’s running out of gas. His point is to show that substantial progress in racial relations between blacks and whites has occurred over the years. But who could deny that? African-Americans are represented far more in the media than they were when I was a kid, they are beneficiaries of Civil Rights Acts passed in the Sixties, there is affirmative action so that universities and businesses are far more integrated, and one sees and hears far less bigotry than was evident to me as a kid. Do we need more evidence.

McWhorter has given ample evidence of this progress before, and gives more in this column, including a bit on how Mother Jefferson (Zara Cully, a black woman), despite being a better actress on television than was Mother Dexter (Judith Lowry, a white actress) on “Phyllis”, was given short shrift. That wouldn’t happen today, and black actors are getting far more roles, and good ones, than they used to.

Despite this palpable progress in racial relations—progress that, if you listen to some black activists, is illusory—McWhorter says, correctly, that overall black people are treated worse than white people by the police, and have been for years:

For Black people in Los Angeles recalling how the L.A.P.D. had treated them for decades, for Black people in Philadelphia not long past the all but open racism of the police force there under Mayor Frank Rizzo, for Black people in Chicago remembering the racist profiling and abuse by the cops called the Flying Squad, the sheer fact of a Black man getting off on a murder charge was of epic significance. If anything, the fact that he was obviously guilty only amplified the victory.

For all the statistical discrepancies between Black and white Americans, interactions with the police may be the central driver of how many Black people experience racism. I noted this in my research and conversations in preparation for my book “Losing the Race” in the late 1990s, when I was sincerely trying to figure out why so many Black people spoke of racism almost as if it were the 1890s rather than the 1990s. There is a reason that the main focus of the Black Panthers was combating police brutality, that anti-cop animus was central to gangsta rap and that today Black Lives Matter may be more influential than the N.A.A.C.P.

Well, I won’t comment on whether the differential influence in the last sentence is true, or, if true, is a good thing; but differential police treatment of races surely accounts for the different reactions of blacks and whites to O. J. Simpson’s acquittal of murder in 1995. And to McWhorter, that difference would be reduced today. McWhorter calls this “progress in race relations”. I think that, if it were true, it would be progress in performative antiracism, but not genuine progress.  But read his column by clicking on the headline, or find the article archived here:

 

First, McWhorter makes it clear, as it is be to anyone with neurons, that O. J. was guilty as hell of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. McWhorter makes that view clear several times, including in the first paragraph, where he describes the racial differences in reaction to Simpson’s acquittal (all bolding is mine):

Among the signature images of O.J. Simpson’s acquittal of the murders of his ex-wife and her friend was the contrasting tableaus of Black people grouping in front of television screens applauding while white people watching it were shaking their heads — appalled, perplexed and even disgusted by a verdict that flew in the face of obvious fact. Those contrasting perspectives have gone down as demonstrating a gulf of understanding between the races.

That gulf persists, but it narrows apace, and if the verdict came down today, it would be a lot less perplexing to many white people than it was back then. Many would understand why the jury acted as it did. We might even see some of them applauding along with Black people.

To McWhorter, that last sentence instantiates racial progress, but more on that later.  More on his opinion of Simpson’s guilt:

The evidence of Simpson’s deed was overwhelming despite the ineptitude of the prosecution team. The verdict and the response to it among the Black community weren’t signs of support for Simpson; they were protests against a long legacy of mistreatment and even murder at the hands of the police.

. . . the sheer fact of a Black man getting off on a murder charge was of epic significance. If anything, the fact that he was obviously guilty only amplified the victory.

I agree with McWhorter. I was on Simpson’s defense team, and the DNA material I got must be kept confidential. But I will say that it’s my personal opinion, from all the evidence that came out during the trial and thereafter, that Simpson was guilty as hell. But the prosecution apparently could not convince the jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so he walked. (DNA evidence, for one thing, seemed to only confuse the jury. And then there was the glove and the racism of Mark Furman.)

So a black man, in the face of all the evidence (and yes, the prosecution was inept) was acquitted of murder. Black people applauded because, though perhaps many thought him guilty, his acquittal represented a black man beating a racist system. White people groaned because many also thought him guilty, and there may also have been some racism in that reaction.

I can fully understand these reactions. But understanding them doesn’t mean I approve of them.. A man was on trial for his life, yet he was apparently being judged by the public on his pigmentation and historical racism by cops. If you thought he was guilty but applauded the verdict because Simpson was black, you’ve judged the system, not the man.

And now McWhorter avers that if the trial took place today, it’s likely that, because of improved racial relations, many white people would also judge the system and join blacks in applauding the verdict:

Today I see white people far more aware. That’s why when I fast-forward the Simpson verdict to 2024, I picture some white people getting the news on their phones and doing high-fives and group hugs, some of them in tears. They would be no more likely to see Simpson himself as a hero than were the jurors of 1995, especially given that modern America is more sensitized not only to racism but also to abuse of women. But they would be more likely to see the acquittal as a kind of payback for all of the white cops who have been exonerated for murdering Black people. It would be processed, I imagine, as a teaching moment of sorts.

This smacks strongly of Robin DiAngelo. High-fiving and group hugs as a reaction to Simpson’s acquittal is a performative act: it’s saying, “Look, I understand that black people are mistreated by the cops! I’m not a racist!”  But if you’re celebrating and still thought Simpson did the crimes, then you’re happy because a guilty man went free—and only because that guilty man was black. To me, that’s making Simpson stand for all blacks, though, as McWhorter notes, Simpson really wasn’t considered part of the black community,and was not an activist. A verdict should be judged on the content of the man’s crime, not on the color of his skin.

Others may agree with McWhorter, but I think this hypothetical scenario, if it occurred, would be evidence not of real racial progress, but of performative antiracism by whites. If you see that as progress, so be it. I can give a lot of harder evidence that there’s been racial progress in the past three decades, and especially in the past six decades. You don’t need to make up some dumb scenario to show this, just as a way to mark Simpson’s death.

As for me, I am a white man who always thought Simpson guilty. His acquittal was bad for society (look what happened to him afterwards), and that was the last trial in which I acted as an expert witness for DNA.  I didn’t see the acquittal as a sign of improved racial relations, but as a miscarriage of justice largely due to the incompetence of the prosecution. I ran out of gas at the moment he was acquitted, and from then on turned down all requests by defense lawyers to use me as an expert witness.

If the acquittal happened today, I would not be high-fiving others, crying, or engaging in group hugs. That doesn’t prove that I’m a racist, because I agree that cops treat blacks worse than whites. But I also believe in evidence, and the evidence adduced in the Simpson case, and revealed soon after by reporters, is not a reason to celebrate his acquittal.

And I’m wondering why McWhorter had to confect this hypothetical, performative scenario to demonstrate that racial relations have improved in America.

McWhorter:

All that leads me to think that America has a problem with police violence in general. But here’s the thing: I am accustomed to vigorous resistance to that argument from not only Black but white people, too.

It is in this context that the stark racial divide in the reception of the Simpson verdict three decades ago seems rather antique. There has been, regardless of the disagreements that inevitably persist, progress.

There are, I’m sure, better ways to show progress.

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

“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit”:

 

 

Today’s photos come from reader Bill Dickens, whose notes and IDs are indented. You can enlarge the photos by clicking on them, and don’t miss the eclipse photo at the bottom.

I’ve been camping at Flamingo, Florida in the Everglades National Park. April is a good time of year to visit with warm temperatures and before the rains arrive and turn much of the coastal prairie into mud. (The mosquitoes though are a constant.)

Here are some wildlife shots taken along the Coastal Prairie Trail – a 13-mile round-trip along a historical trail once used by local cottonpickers and fishermen. It’s now a part of the Everglades National Park. The trail winds through an open prairie of succulents and buttonwoods both leaved and dead, presumably from constant inundation by flooding.

It was the dragonflies that are the real star at this time of year. Swarms of them.

Plus a bonus shot taken of the eclipse. I drove from my home in Florida to the Texas Hill Country to view it from Tow, Texas. The weather was cloudy most of the morning leading up to the eclipse. Then the cirrus clouds were headed one way, lower-level clouds the other and five minutes before the eclipse it cleared and stayed clear.

The Wildflowers were out in the Hill Country and this makes it a pretty time of year to visit.

Coastal Prairie Trail:

Pileated Woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus) – there are actually two in the frame:

Osprey (Pandion haliaetus),:

Osprey with Fish tail:

Halloween Pennant Dragonfly (Celithemis eponina):

Blue Bonnets, the official flower of the Lone Star State, at Lake Buchanan in Tow, Texas  (there are 5 different species of Blue Bonnet. I’m not going to guess):

The 2024 eclipse viewed from The Texas Hill Country:

I’ll write more about this tomorrow, perhaps, but here’s what I was going to put in tomorrow’s Nooz:

*One day after Columbia University’s President and some of its trustees testified before Congress on endemic antisemitism at the University, and after President Shafik promised to double down on antisemitism, the school has started arresting lots of pro-Palestinian demonstrators engaged in illegal protests.  I guess those nasty Republicans put the fear of God (literally) into Shafik, who doesn’t want to go the way of Liz Magill.

The authorities moved Thursday afternoon to quell a protest at Columbia University, arresting dozens of demonstrators who had constructed an encampment of about 50 tents on campus. The arrests, which drew a new crowd of students to support the protesters, came the day after university leaders pledged to Congress that they would crack down on unauthorized student protests tied to the war in Gaza.

Police officers, clad in riot gear and prepared with zip ties, began taking protesters into custody just before 1:30 p.m. as scores of demonstrators gathered in front of Butler Library. “Since you have refused to disperse, you will now be placed under arrest for trespassing,” a man repeatedly called through a loudspeaker. “If you resist arrest, you may face additional charges.”

The scene played out less than 24 hours after Columbia’s president, Nemat Shafik, and other top officials insisted to Congress that they would take a harder line in handling the protests that have embroiled campuses across the country since the Oct. 7 attack on Israel by Hamas. Leaders at two other elite schools, Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania, lost their jobs after similar appearances last year.

Here’s what else to know:

• Hundreds of students and others rallied with the protesters inside and outside of the school overnight and through the morning. “They can threaten us all they want with the police, but at the end of the day, it’s only going to lead to more mobilization,” said Maryam Alwan, a senior and pro-Palestinian organizer on campus, speaking from the tent encampment.

• Police officers loaded at least three buses with demonstrators, who cooperated as they were taken into custody, though other protesters shouted “Shame! Shame!” Organizers had said they expected to be arrested.

• Dr. Shafik angered some students and professors during her appearance before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on Wednesday, when she largely conceded that she felt some of the common chants at pro-Palestinian protests were antisemitic. In a letter sent on Thursday afternoon as the arrests began, Dr. Shafik said she “took this extraordinary step because these are extraordinary circumstances.”

About time, I’d say.  Without punishment there is no deterrent, which is my own University’s problem with protestors like these. And foreign students are especially liable, as they could lose their visas if suspended (that’s why MIT didn’t arrest any of its protestors). Colleges are loath to suspend foreign students, or have them arrested, because foreign students pay pretty much the full fees at colleges, whereas Americans often get big breaks on tuition.

And, mirabile dictu, one of the students who has been both arrested and suspended (from Barnard), is Isra Hirsi, the daughter of none other than Congresswoman and notorious antisemite Ilhan “Follow the Benjamins” Omar. (Omar was in fact on the House committee that grilled the Columbia people.

Isra Hirsi, the daughter of Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, is among several Barnard students who have been suspended for participating in a pro-Palestinian encampment at Columbia University.

The camp, which includes dozens of tents pitched on the campus’s South Lawn in protest against Israeli actions in Gaza, has created a standoff between administrators and students on the Ivy League campus. Dozens of students were arrested on Thursday, after the university notified them that they would be suspended if they refused to move and the students vowed to remain in place.

Ms. Hirsi posted on social media around 11:30 a.m. on Thursday that she was one of three students suspended so far for participating in the protest, which began on Wednesday, the day the university’s president, Nemat Shafik, appeared before Congress to discuss antisemitism on campus.

At the congressional hearing, Dr. Shafik told lawmakers that she would enforce rules about unauthorized protests and antisemitism. Ms. Omar, who is on the committee that held the hearing and who did not mention that her daughter was among the pro-Palestinian protesters, was one of several Democrats who questioned Ms. Shafik about her actions toward Palestinian and Muslim students.

Ms. Hirsi, 21, said on social media that she was an organizer with Columbia University Apartheid Divest, the student coalition that has been pushing the university to cut ties with companies that support Israel. Such divestment is the key demand of protesters in the encampment. She is also involved with the Columbia chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, one of two student groups that was suspended in November for holding unauthorized protests.

“I have never been reprimanded or received any disciplinary warnings,” she wrote. “I just received notice that I am 1 of 3 students suspended for standing in solidarity with Palestinians facing a genocide.”

Ms. Hirsi is a junior majoring in sociology. Two other Barnard students, Maryam Iqbal, 18, a freshman, and Soph Dinu, 21, a junior majoring in religion, were also suspended, protest organizers said.

Who would have thought that testifying before a hostile group of Republicans in Congress would make college presidents straighten up and fly right? I disagree with the hostile treatment of Presidents, but it’s time to start enforcing the “time, place, and manner” aspects of protests, speech, and demonstrations. It’s also time to enforce behavior codes (and speech codes, if schools have them, which they shouldn’t) uniformly, for it was the lack of uniformity that got Liz Magill fired from Penn and started the process that resulted in Harvard’s Claudine Gay being let go.  My preference is the Chicago Free Expression principles, but those don’t allow you to say anything, anywhere, and at any time on campus.

Pro-Palestinian protestors have been coddled too long (even at the University of Chicago), and unless they get serious discipline from their colleges, they’ll just keep disrupting everything.  This is a lesson that Daniel Diermeier, Chancellor of Vanderbilt University, learned, perhaps from being Provost here first.  What a pity that threats like those of Congress are what make colleges reform and apply their rules uniformly!

Now if only the University of Chicago would listen. . .

I used to think that the “decolonization” of STEM was strongest in New Zealand and South Africa, which of course is a movement to dethrone so-called “Western” science in favor of indigenous science. But now I’m beginning to wonder if the “indigenization/decolonization of science” isn’t making its way deep into Australia as well.  I have followed developments in New Zealand far more closely than these other places, because I hear often from Kiwi scientists who beef about the dethroning of modern science (which hasn’t been “Western” in a while) in favor of Mātauranga Māori (MM), the “way of knowing” of the indigenous Māori people. Also, I have visited New Zealand, love the place, and would be devastated if science were watered down with superstition, myth, legend, and morality.

And that’s the first issue with “decolonizing” science. Usually those movements intend to either defenestrate modern science or at least teach “indigenous science” alongside it as an equally valid “way of knowing”. Yet indigenous science, like MM, is a grab-bag of empirical knowledge based on trial and error (the premier example is the navigation of Polynesians, the ancestors of Māori; another is how to catch eels), but is also imbued with superstitions, myths, legends, word-of-mouth tales, and “rules for living”, including morality. And rarely is indigenous science vetted with the same rigor as is modern science, because modern science has many features missing in indigenous “ways of knowing” (double-blind testing, deliberate replication, hypothesis testing, and so on).  One result is that “indigenous science” can be wrong more often. One example is the insistence of some New Zealand researchers that Polynesians discovered Antarctica in the early seventh century. This is based on oral legend combined with mistranslation; in fact, the Russians were the first to glimpse the continent—in 1820.

Now trial and error methods can indeed produce empirical knowledge in the sense of “justified true belief”, but that is practical knowledge, designed to help people where to find things to eat, how to navigate, how to herd bison, when to plant food, and the like. Its ambit is far narrower than that of modern science, and examples of “indigenous science” that have made valuable contributions to modern science are thin on the ground.

Which brings us to the second issue with indigenous science. Although it’s touted loudly and passionately, examples of indigenous knowledge making substantial contributions to modern science are either scant or missing. Most of the written defenses of enthroning indigenous science I’ve seen are based on a need to pay attention to marginalized people as oppressed victims, whose knowledge must be elevated precisely because they were victims.  But that’s no way to judge science.

And that is precisely the content of this puff piec, coming from Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, touting the dethroning of “mainstream European-based mathematics” in favor of mathematics produced and used by “Indigenous and First Nations peoples around the world.” The article highlights Professor Rowena Ball of ANU’s College of Science, who lists these as her research interests:

Mathematics Without Borders, Truth-Telling in Mathematics History, Decolonisation of STEM, Indigenous and Non-Western Mathematics, Emergence of life, Nonlinear and complex dynamical systems, Thermochemical instabilities and oscillators, Thermodynamic analysis, Railways and trains, Country pub lunches

What is mathematics? What is included in mathematics? Who gets to say? How and why did Western mathematics exclusively colonise minds and curriculums over the whole world? Should that situation continue unabated?

It will not escape your notice if you read the piece, heavy with quotes from Dr. Ball, that she neglects the contributions of anything other than “mainstream European-based mathematics” to modern mathematics, leaving out the contributions of the Egyptians, Greeks, Arabs, Romans, and Babylonians to modern mathematics. Those people were apparently not “indigenous” and at any rate were not “colonized”. But Ball goes on and on, proffering only one tepid example of how a group of Australian aboriginals in Mithaka Country (an area of east-central Australia) had a form of mathematics that was useful. It turns out that it wasn’t mathematics at all, but practical knowledge that we wouldn’t recognize today as “math” at all.

Click the screenshot to read this short piece (h/t Peter Forsythe):

First I’ll give some of her quotes from the ANU piece (indented) and then her holotype specimen of indigenous math.

What constitutes mathematical knowledge? What is included in mathematics? Who gets to decide? These are some of the questions being asked in a growing decolonisation movement.

“Mathematics is a universal human phenomenon, and students of under-represented and minority groups and colonised peoples are starting to be more critical about accepting unquestioningly the cultural hegemony of mainstream European-based mathematics,” says Professor Rowena Ball from the ANU Mathematical Sciences Institute.

Professor Ball leads a research and teaching initiative called Mathematics Without Borders, aimed at broadening and diversifying the cultural base and content of mathematics.

“Mathematics has been gatekept by the West and defined to exclude entire cultures. Almost all mathematics that students have ever come across is European-based,” she explains. “We would like to enrich the discipline through the inclusion of cross-cultural mathematics.”

“Indigenous and First Nations peoples around the world are standing up and saying: ‘Our knowledge is just as good as anybody else’s − why can’t we teach it to our children in our schools, and in our own way?’

“And this is happening in New Zealand, North and South America, and Africa, and also in a great movement in India to revive traditional Indian mathematics.”

But wait!  There’s more:

. . .“There is a lot of gatekeeping going on,” Professor Ball says of having to justify Indigenous maths. “One effect of colonisation of the curriculum is defensive protection of what is thought to be an exclusively European and British provenance of mathematics.”

“Like most mathematicians I was educated in European and British mathematics,” says Professor Ball, “and it’s fine stuff – I still love my original research field in dynamical systems.” But that mathematics did not develop in isolation, she says, and now there’s even more to learn about how non-Western societies have been seeing the world mathematically that many of us haven’t yet tuned into.

“What the general public think of as mathematics tends to be whatever they learned (or, more likely, did not learn) at school. But in many Indigenous societies, mathematics is lived from when you are born to when you rejoin your ancestors,” Professor Ball says.

Rejoin your ancestors? Does she mean as underground worm food? I don’t think so. But I digress.  Ball argues that indigenous math is largely non-numerical, though in her one unpublished paper that is mentioned in the article (see below), numbers and counting figure largely.

At any rate, here is the single example Ball gives of valuable indigenous mathematics. I am not making this up: it involves the direction of smoke signals.

“One interesting example that we are currently investigating is the use of chiral symmetry to engineer a long-distance smoke signalling technology in real time,” Professor Ball says. “If you light an incense stick you will see the twin counter-rotating vortices that emanate − these are a chiral pair, meaning they are non-superimposable mirror images of each other.”

A memoir by Alice Duncan Kemp, who grew up on a cattle station on Mithaka country in the early 1900s, vividly describes the signalling procedure, in which husband-and-wife expert team Bogie and Mary-Anne selected and pulsed the smoke waves with a left to right curl, to signal “white men”, instead of the more usual right to left spiral.

Mithaka country is southwest Queensland − Kurrawoolben and Kirrenderri (Diamantina) and Nooroondinna (Georgina) river channel country − and for thousands of years this region was a rich, well-populated cultural and trade crossroads of the Australian continent.

To create and understand these signals, you have to be a skilled practical mathematician, Professor Ball says.

“Theory and mathematics in Mithaka society were systematised and taught intergenerationally. You don’t just somehow pop up and suddenly start a chiral signalling technology. It has been taught and developed and practised by many people through the generations.”

At that time in the early twentieth century, British meteorologists were just beginning to understand the essential vortical nature of atmospheric flows.

“Imagine if the existing Indigenous Mithaka knowledge of vorticity had been recognised, nurtured and protected? In what ways may it have fed into the high performance, numerical weather forecasting capabilities that we all rely on now?” she asks.

I don’t find this at all convincing. First, Bogie and Mary-Anne sound like white oppressors to me. But even if they weren’t, is the “reverse curl” something the locals actually used to signal “white people around”? It couldn’t have been going on for thousands of years because the first European people arrived in Australia in the early 17th century. So was there an elaborate system of smoke signals before that? Perhaps, but how are they based on mathematics? Patterns of smoke, like drumbeats, is a kind of language, and how to make the patterns and get them understood correctly is based on trial and error. Where does the math come in?

Further, the claim that the Mithaka knowledge of vorticity—I’m not sure what that knowledge is beyond empirical ways to make smoke signals—would have revolutionized “high performance numerical weather forecasting” long before now is simply risible.

Well, that’s enough. But I’d be remiss not to at least mention a paper by Xu and Ball that defends the thesis above. It’s called “Is the study of Indigenous mathematics ill-directed or beneficial?“, and appears at Arχiv.org, which means it hasn’t been published or peer-reviewed. There are a few examples of indigenous mathematics, which I put below. In some cases you’ll have to look up the references given to check on which people they’re referring to:

Much of ordinary day-to-day arithmetic and geometry performed by ‘illiterate’ women, artisans, carpenters and many other workers are unwritten and even unspoken (Wood, 2000). The apprentice learns by watching carefully then doing the mathematics themselves. The use of tools–an unwritten approach–to support arithmetic has a long history; there are different media for recording and computing with numbers, including stones, twigs, knots and notches (Hansson, 2018). People of many Indigenous Pacific and Australian nations can use parts of the body to count quickly and accurately (Goetzfridt, 2007; Owens & Lean, 2018; Wood, 2000), communicating methods, operations and results through speaking, listening and gesture. Weaving skills were taught unwritten to next generations to construct the numerical relationships that give rise to the desired complex geometrical designs with symmetries (Hansson, 2018). Knotted quipus were used by ‘illiterate’ Inca people of South American
Andes regions to allot land and levy taxes (Ascher & Ascher, 2013). The quipu (Figure 1), with its columns of base-10 numerical data encoded as knots, can be thought of as a spreadsheet, and it seems likely that the Inca knew and applied some array and matrix operations.

Dan, an Indigenous language of central Liberia, is non-written but Dan speakers can carry out arithmetic operations orally, including addition, subtraction and division, play games that require fast counting, tracking and calculating skills, and practice geometric principles in constructing buildings (Sternstein, 2008). Fractal geometry, developed to a high art in Western mathematics from the late 1960s and executed in silico, has non-Western antecedents that were implemented in the built environment in Africa (Eglash, 1998). Chaology and fractal geometry have also been a part of traditional Chinese architectural and garden design for thousands of years (Li & Liao, 1998).

Clearly some indigenous people could count and calculate, though the calculating seems to fall largely to the Chinese, not usually considered indigenous. At any rate, what’s above doesn’t jibe with the claim and quote in the article:

Numbers and arithmetic and accounting often are of secondary importance in Indigenous mathematics.

“In fact, as most mathematicians know, mathematics is primarily the science of patterns and periodicities and symmetries − and recognising and classifying those patterns.”

A lot of the above sounds like counting and accounting to me.  Regardless, it’s clear that some indigenous people could count and figure out patterns that involved counting.  I’m not so sure about the Inca “matrix” operations,  but one can hardly carry out some kind of commerce or taxation without being able to count. At any rate, yes, indigenous people had a form of “counting and pattern mathematics,” but to put them on a par even with what the ancient Egyptians and Greeks accomplished mathematically is to give indigenous people too much credit.

The final version of the Cass Review (formally the “Independent Review of Gender Identity Services for Children and Young People”) was issued on April 10. Here’s a brief summary by the CBC, noting that doctors and others have griped about it:

A long-anticipated — and contentious — national review of gender-affirming care for youth in England was released last week, resulting in headlines across the U.K. saying that gender medicine is “built on shaky foundations.”

The Cass Review, chaired by pediatrician Hilary Cass, was commissioned by England’s National Health Service (NHS) in 2020.

Even before the final report was published, the review has led to significant changes for youth gender medicine in England, where the debate over transgender care has become increasingly heated, with complaints of both long waiting lists and medical treatments being too readily available to youth.

Last month, the Cass Review findings led to a ban on the prescription of puberty-suppressing hormones except for youth enrolled in clinical research.

That’s a move away from the standard of care supported by many international medical bodies, including the Canadian Pediatric Society (CPS), the American Academy of Pediatrics and World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Though several European countries including Sweden have also restricted access to puberty blockers and other medical treatments for youth.

The report cites a systematic review of evidence, commissioned as part of the Cass Review, which found “a lack of high-quality research” that puberty blockers can help young people with gender dysphoria.

While experts in the field say more studies should be done, Canadian doctors who spoke to CBC News disagree with the finding that there isn’t enough evidence puberty blockers can help.

I had no time to read the long report, and didn’t think that just regurgitating a summary for the readers was sufficient. But reader Jez told me he was going through it, and I asked him if he wouldn’t mind writing his take for this site. He kindly agreed, and so, without further ado. . . .

First, though, Jez notes

“The Cass Review’s final report (and its other publications) are available here.

 

THE CASS REVIEW: A READER’S TAKE

by Jez Grove

Since around 2014, the number of children and young people presenting at gender clinics in the Western world has surged and the patient profile has switched dramatically from predominantly pre-pubertal males to teenage females. Both changes are unexplained. The treatment offered to these patients has also significantly shifted: a psychosocial and psychotherapeutic approach has given way to many being offered medical treatment with puberty blockers (gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues, GnRH) and cross-sex hormones.

In September 2020, Dr Hilary Cass, a retired consultant paediatrician and former President of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, was appointed to undertake a full review into how NHS England* “should most appropriately assess, diagnose and care for children and young people who present with gender incongruence and gender identity issues [and] to make recommendations on how to improve services […] and ensure that the best model/s for safe and effective services are commissioned”. [Cass Review Final Report, henceforeth “CRFR”, Appendix 1: Terms of Reference]

The Cass Review’s Interim Report (2022) highlighted that a lack of evidence on the medium- and long-term outcomes of the treatments that children and young people were receiving was limiting the advice that the Review could give. In response, it commissioned an independent research programme to provide “the best available collation of published evidence, as well as qualitative and quantitative research to fill knowledge gaps” and set up a Clinical Expert Group to help it interpret the findings. [CRFR, p. 25]

The Interim Review also warned that social transitioning (changing, name, appearance and pronouns, etc.):

. . . .“may not be thought of as an intervention or treatment, because it is not something that happens within health services. However, it is important to view it as an active intervention because it may have significant effects on the child or young person in terms of their psychological functioning. There are different views on the benefits versus the harms of early social transition. Whatever position one takes, it is important to acknowledge that it is not a neutral act, and better information is needed about outcomes”. [Cass Review Interim Report, henceforth”CRIR”; pp 62-63]

The findings of the Interim Report led to the closure of the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) last month.

Last week, the Cass Review published its Final Report. Dr Cass begins it with an apparent effort to placate her critics; her opening sentences read:

“This Review is not about defining what it means to be trans, nor is it about undermining the validity of trans identities, challenging the right of people to express themselves, or rolling back on people’s rights to healthcare. It is about what the healthcare approach should be, and how best to help the growing number of children and young people who are looking for support from the NHS in relation to their gender identity”. [CRFR, Foreword from the Chair, p. 12]

However, she is not blind to the problems that have developed in this area of healthcare:

“It often takes many years before strongly positive research findings are incorporated into practice. There are many reasons for this. One is that doctors can be cautious in implementing new findings, particularly when their own clinical experience is telling them the current approach they have used over many years is the right one for their patients. Quite the reverse happened in the field of gender care for children. Based on a single Dutch study, which suggested that puberty blockers may improve psychological wellbeing for a narrowly defined group of children with gender incongruence, the practice spread at pace to other countries. This was closely followed by a greater readiness to start masculinising/feminising hormones in mid-teens, and the extension of this approach to a wider group of adolescents who would not have met the inclusion criteria for the original Dutch study. Some practitioners abandoned normal clinical approaches to holistic assessment, which has meant that this group of young people have been exceptionalised compared to other young people with similarly complex presentations. They deserve very much better”. [CRFR, Foreword from the Chair, pp. 13-14]

The problems with the evidence base that sparked the Review persist, with Cass writing that the independent research programme she had commissioned

. . . .“has shown that there continues to be a lack of high-quality evidence in this area and disappointingly […], attempts to improve the evidence base have been thwarted by a lack of cooperation from the adult gender services.  The Review has therefore had to base its recommendations on the currently available evidence, supplemented by its own extensive programme of engagement”. [CRFR, p. 20]

The failure of the UK’s adult gender services to cooperate is perhaps the most shocking revelation in the report. As Cass notes,

“When clinicians talk to patients about what interventions may be best for them, they usually refer to the longer-term benefits and risks of different options, based on outcome data from other people who have been through a similar care pathway. This information is not currently available for interventions in children and young people with gender incongruence or gender dysphoria, so young people and their families have to make decisions without an adequate picture of the potential impacts and outcomes”. [CRFR, p. 33]

A quantitative data linkage study was intended to

. . . “use existing data held by the NHS, including data from GIDS, hospital wards, outpatient clinics, emergency departments and NHS adult GDCs, to track the journeys of all young people (approximately 9,000) referred to the GIDS service through the system to provide a population-level evidence base of the different pathways people take and the outcomes. This type of research is usual practice in the NHS when looking to improve health services and care received.  However, this has not been the case for gender-questioning children and young people and the hope was that this data linkage would go some way to redress this imbalance”. [Cass Review Final Report, p. 190]

Despite its “not particularly unusual” methodology, it took more than a year for the study to receive ethics approval from the Health Research Authority (HRA); Cass considers the “robust scrutiny and consideration [to be] entirely appropriate given the sensitivity of the subject matter”. [Ibid.] The independent research team “undertook stakeholder engagement and developed the patient notifications and communications resources to explain the research and provide information about how to opt-out of the study should an individual choose to do so. […] In January 2024, the Review received a letter from NHS England stating that, despite efforts to encourage the participation of the NHS gender clinics, the necessary co-operation had not been forthcoming”. [Ibid.] Appendix 4 of the Review sets out the details and history of the “thwarted” study.

The proposed linkage study had been complicated by the fact that, uniquely, GIDS patients are issued new National Health Service (NHS) numbers when registering their new gender identity. Cass notes:

“From a research perspective, the issuing of new NHS numbers makes it more difficult to identify the long-term outcomes for a patient population for whom the evidence base is weak”. [CRFR, p. 229]

The UK government had to bring forward a special legislative instrument to facilitate linking the patients’ new and old NHS records; NHS England had vowed to pursue the thwarted research before the special instrument’s powers expire in 2027.

There are other serious unintended consequences of allowing young patients to change their NHS numbers. Cass writes,

“Safeguarding professionals have described a range of situations where this has put children/young people at risk. These include young people attending hospital after self-harm not being identifiable as a child already on a child protection order; records of previous trauma and/or physical ill health being lost; people who do not have parental responsibility changing a child’s name and gender; children being re-registered as the opposite gender in infancy; children on the child protection register being untraceable after moving to a new area”. [CRFR, p. 229]

While Cass has been unable to use a stronger evidence base, she has provided a valuable service in bringing together an independent and thorough assessment of the existing research in areas related to the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of gender-confused children and young people and suggested a way forward.

The Review gives:

• An overview of the patient profile, including mental health and neurodiversity, adverse childhood experiences, theories about the rise in referrals and the change in case mix, and the weak evidence with regard to suicidality.
• An important appraisal and synthesis of the available international guidelines. Cass notes,

“For many of the guidelines it was difficult to detect what evidence had been reviewed and how this informed development of the recommendations. For example, most of the guidelines described insufficient evidence about the risks and benefits of medical treatment in adolescents, particularly in relation to long-term outcomes. Despite this, many then went on to cite this same evidence to recommend medical treatments.

Alternatively, they referred to other guidelines that recommend medical treatments as their basis for making the same recommendations. Early versions of two international guidelines, the Endocrine Society 2009 and World Professional Association for Transgender Healthcare (WPATH) 7 guidelines influenced nearly all the other guidelines. These two guidelines are also closely interlinked, with WPATH adopting Endocrine Society recommendations, and acting as a co-sponsor and providing input to drafts of the Endocrine Society guideline. WPATH 8 cited many of the other national and regional guidelines to support some of its recommendations, despite these guidelines having been considerably influenced by WPATH 7. The links between the various guidelines are demonstrated in the graphics in the guideline appraisal paper (Hewitt et al., Guidelines 1: Appraisal).

The circularity of this approach may explain why there has been an apparent consensus on key areas of practice despite the evidence being poor.” [Cass Review Final Report, p. 130]

• An overview of the existing clinical approach and clinical management and recommendations to improve them.
• Recommendations for a new service model for NHS England, including follow-through services for 17-25 years-olds to ensure continuity at “a potentially vulnerable stage in their journey” and “allow clinical and research follow-up data to be collected”. [CRFR, p. 225] She also stresses the needs for detransitioners to be supported and warns of the dangers of private healthcare providers outside the NHS not following its policies.
• Finally, she cautions that, while innovation in healthcare is important, there must be a “proportionate level of monitoring, oversight, and regulation that does not stifle progress, but prevents creep of unproven approaches into clinical practice. Innovation must draw from and contribute to the evidence base”. [Cass Review Final Report, p. 231]

To critics who say the Cass Review tells us nothing new, surely the onus is on them to justify continuing to provide children and young people with “gender-affirming care”, care for which we already knew there is no reliable evidence on the medium-and long-term outcomes.

______________________

* Health is devolved in the UK; Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (and indeed all other  healthcare services) are free to ignore the Cass Review’s findings, but may be unwise to do so.

I forgot that Columbia University officials are being grilled in Congress about anti-semitism on its campus. You can watch it live below, and things are getting heated, as they did in the House hearings involving the presidents of MIT, Harvard, and Penn. The Republicans are loaded for bear, but I think I’ll have to watch most of this later. CNN has an article, with a live feed, about what’s going on. Here is some of their news:

All four Columbia officials testifying before Congress unequivocally stated that calls for the genocide of Jews violate the university’s code of conduct.

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici asked Columbia President Minouche Shafik, board co-chairs David Greenwald and Claire Shipman and David Schizer, co-chair of a task force on antisemitism, for a simple yes or no response. All four said “yes,” calls for the genocide of Jews would violate Columbia’s code of conduct.

The response offered a stark contrast to the lawyerly answers that university presidents provided during the December hearing before the same committee. That moment went viral, sparking an uproar that eventually contributed to the ousters of the presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania.

Of course, the Columbia officials had the advantage of having months to prepare for that question.

Days after the December hearing, Columbia issued a statement saying: “Calls for genocide against the Jewish community or any other group are abhorrent, inconsistent with our values and against our rules.”

Columbia certainly has learned from what happened in the last hearings! But apparently Columbia doesn’t adhere to the First Amendment, under which calls for genocide are, under many circumstances, legal. This means that their code of conduct does not completely comport with the First Amendment.

Here, quickly, are the YouTube notes:

The Committee on Education and the Workforce, chaired by Virginia Foxx (R-NC), will hold a hearing to call on the leadership at Columbia University to answer for the rampant antisemitism engulfing their campuses and threatening their Jewish students.

 

Here’s FIRE’s free-speech ranking for Columbia University. It’s below average: #214 out of #248 schools (Harvard was the lowest). Click to look it up:

As Luana Maroja and I wrote in our paper on the ideological subversion of biology, some of that subversion involves a fallacy that we called the “reverse appeal to nature”, an inversion of the naturalistic fallacy:

All the biological misconceptions we’ve discussed involve forcing preconceived beliefs onto nature. This inverts an old fallacy into a new one, which we call the reverse appeal to nature. Instead of assuming that what is natural must be good, this fallacy holds that “what is good must be natural.” It demands that you must see the natural world through lenses prescribed by your ideology. If you are a gender activist, you must see more than two biological sexes. . . . .

In other words, people tend to justify something they consider morally desirable by seeing the phenomenon (or something like it) in nature. As we noted, the claim that sex is a spectrum in nature is a conclusion meant to buttress the value of people who consider themselves neither female nor male—those who are “nonbinary”. The problem here is twofold. Most important, biological sex is indeed binary in nature: all animals and vascular plants have just two sexes: males, making small motile sperm, and females, making large immotile eggs. I won’t defend this binary-ness now, as I’ve done it many times before, as have others. For a quick refresher, see this piece by Colin Wright.

The second problem is that the existence of something in animals or plants doesn’t buttress human morality.  Trans-identifying people should have all the same rights as other people, except that in some sensitive settings like sports, prisons, etc., segregation should be based on biological sex rather than gender. And that is regardless of what we see in nature. After all, we don’t think that theft, murder, and cheating are justifiable because we can point to these phenomena in various animals. (See my quote at the bottom.)

And yet there are still those, like gender activist Peter Tatchell, who fall victim to this fallacy.  In his tweet below, Tatchell claims to point out 18 animals that are transsexual (i.e., can change biological sex) and also show that “gender is not a simplistic binary, male & female”. This is a doubly incorrect instance of the reverse appeal to nature.

First, most of the animals in Tatchell’s litany of example do not change sex, and none of them are “transsexual” in the human sense (i.e., transgender humans who change their gender identity, not their biological sex, because they suffer from gender dysphoria).  And none of the animals that do change sex are mammals, since we know of no example of a mammal that can change from producing eggs to producing sperm or vice versa. (There are no examples, either, of human hermaphrodites that are fertile as both sexes.)

Second, not a single of Tatchell’s 18 examples shows that sex is “not a simplistic binary.” Every one of the animals shown instantiates that there are two sexes: males and females (or both combined in one body as simultaneous hermaphrodites). There are no third, fourth, or fifth sexes shown by Tatchell, for none exist.

His tweet:

18 animals you didn’t know were biologically trans

Gender diversity in the (tr)animal kingdom blurs the lines of “biological sex”

These animals show that gender is not a simplistic binary, male & female

Trans & intersex are real. Get used to it!https://t.co/QqhacYgi4u

— Peter Tatchell (@PeterTatchell) April 7, 2024

In an earlier post I showed how Emma Hilton attacked Tatchell’s claims in jer twitter feed, with one tweet for each of Tatchell’s examples. Now she and Jonathan Kay have teamed up for a complete demolition job at Quilette, which you can read by clicking the headline below.

 

First the authors show the prevalence of using nature to justify nonbinary and transgender people:

Anyone who’s followed the debate about transgender rights will immediately understand why this type of fish now has a starring role in advocacy materials designed to convince the broad public that sex-switching is a common feature in the natural kingdom, including among humans [JAC: The preceding link goes to a Vice article by Diana Tourjée called “Yes, there are trans animals.”] In Canada, for instance, the publicly funded CBC is airing a documentary titled Fluid: Life Beyond the Binary, in which the self-described “non-binary” host, Mae Martin, invokes the existence of clownfish, and various other creatures, to argue that “each of us are on the gender spectrum.” Not surprisingly, Martin is explicitly promoting the documentary as a paean to social justice, and as a rebuke to anyone seeking to put limits on “gender-affirming health care” (such as the double mastectomy that Martin publicly announced in 2021).

This week, British human-rights campaigner Peter Tatchell tried to advance similar arguments in a widely read tweet referencing—as the linked Gay Times article put it—“18 animals you didn’t know were biologically trans.”

“These animals show that gender is not a simplistic binary, male and female,” Tatchell gushed. “Trans and intersex are real. Get used to it!”]

Indeed, the article that Tatchell cited goes further, denouncing the very idea of “biology” as a “pseudo-intellectual” fixation of “lesbian separatists” and “right-wing lobbyists.” The author, one Fran Tirado, warns that even mentioning terms such as “biological sex,” “biological male,” and “biological female” is a problematic affront to the supposedly non-binary, gender-bending nature of life—which, the author claims, has been in evidence since “the earliest recorded histories of the earth.”

Then comes the promised 18-point catalogue of “animals you didn’t know were biologically trans”—starting with the above-pictured clownfish (often described by scientists as anemonefish).

Hilton and Kay then run through the list, which I won’t repeat here. I’ll just say that none of the examples show that there are more than two sexes, though individuals of some species can embody both sexes in a single individual, like slugs (a ” simultaneous hermaphrodite”), or, like clownfish, can switch over time from one biological sex to another (“sequential hermaphrodites”). But that is a switch from one biological sex to another, something not seen in mammals, and of course not seen in humans (transgender people do not change biological sex, but switch from one gender identity to another).

That leaves us with the so-called “trans” animals, most of which don’t really change sex. Tatchell needs to bone up on his biology.  Here I list some of the biological phenomena cited by Tatchell

• Real changes of sex (sequential hermaphrodites like clownfish, jellyfish, oysters, sea bass, sea snails).  That constitutes five species in his list.
• Simultaneous hermaphrodites (banana slug): individuals can produce both sperm and eggs. There are a fair number of animals that do this, but no mammals and only a few fish (e.g., some gobies and serranid sea bass) There are no simultaneous or sequential hermaphrodites known in mammals or birds.
• Rare cases in which a single individual is known to have swapped testes for ovaries or vice versa (Boyd’s forest dragon, mandarin duck). These are rare exceptions to species in which there are two biological sexes that do not change.) They are developmental anomalies.
• Parthenogenesis: species in which females can produce offspring without her eggs being fertilized (e.g., some Komodo dragons). Some animal species in which females can do this also have males (sometimes copulation is required to produce eggs, but there’s no fertilization). But all of these species are either completely female or have both males and females. They do not violate the sex binary
• Species in which males look different from females (“sexual dimorphism”). The example Tatchell gives is a swallowtail butterfly. It doesn’t switch sex and there are only two sexes. Sexual dimorphism is widespread but doesn’t exemplify either changing sex or nonbinary sexes.
• Species in which males can behave like females to get copulations (the ruff, a bird) or avoid predation (e.g., marsh harriers, a bird).  Again, it’s just a sneaky behavior; there is no sex-switching and all individuals are either male or female
• Species in which males can get “pregnant”, like seahorses. Females stick their eggs into a the pouch of a male who fertilizes them and releases the newly-hatched seahorses. This is a reversal of sex roles, but not of sex: males still produce sperm and females eggs, and there is no changing of biological sex.
• Hyenas (yawn). Females have long penis-like clitorises through which they give birth. There is no change of sex and individuals are either male or female. It baffles me why these animals are considered either “trans” or “nonbinary”
• Gynandromorphs: individuals that, through a developmental accident, are part male and part female. Often the animal is split right down the middle with one half being one sex and the other being the other. I’ve seen them in fruit flies, and they are not all that rare in birds (see a gynandromorph cardinal here). These animals are developmental anomalies, not part of the regular constitution of a species, and most are sterile though some can be fertile.

So yes, some animals can switch sex, though none of those are birds are mammals. Those might be considered “trans” animals, but hardly (and shouldn’t) justify the existence of trans humans, which don’t change biological sex but gender identity.  And none of the species proffered by Tatchell show that there is a spectrum of sex.  As Hilton and Kay conclude:

Do some creatures change sex? Absolutely. But this isn’t new information. It’s a fact that biologists have known about for a long time.

What is also well-known is that none of these sex-changing creatures are mammals, much less human. Rather, they’re insects, fish, lizards, and marine invertebrates whose biology is different from our own in countless (fascinating) ways.

What’s more, in every single case described above, there are always (at most) just two distinct sexes at play—no matter how those two sexes may switch or combine. One of those sexes is male, a sex associated with gonads that produce sperm (testes); and the other is female, with gonads that produce eggs (ovaries). There’s nothing else on the menu. It’s just M and F.

Yes, there’s a “spectrum.” But it’s not the imaginary sex spectrum that activists such as Martin, Tatchell, and Tirado are trying to conjure. Rather, it’s the extraordinary spectrum of traits, behaviors, and evolutionary adaptations that all of these creatures exhibit as part of nature’s grand pageant.

I swear that people like Tatchell need to learn some biology. If I hear about sexual dimorphism, gynandromorphs, or hyena citorises again, I’m going to lose it.  And people really need to learn not to scan through species in nature to buttress what they see as moral or “right”. That way lies considerable danger, as I wrote in my Times Literary Supplement review of Joan Roughgarden’s Evolution’s Rainbow several decades ago:

But regardless of the truth of Darwin’s theory, should we consult nature to determine which of our behaviours are to be considered normal or moral? Homosexuality may indeed occur in species other than our own, but so do infanticide, robbery and extra-pair copulation.  If the gay cause is somehow boosted by parallels from nature, then so are the causes of child-killers, thieves and adulterers. And given the cultural milieu in which human sexuality and gender are expressed, how closely can we compare ourselves to other species? In what sense does a fish who changes sex resemble a transgendered person? The fish presumably experiences neither distressing feelings about inhabiting the wrong body, nor ostracism by other fish. In some baboons, the only males who show homosexual behaviour are those denied access to females by more dominant males. How can this possibly be equated to human homosexuality?

In the new Jesus and Mo strip, called “Whoa,” the barmaid compares modern-day versions of Christianity and Islam, and judges Islam as palpably worse for humanity. In that she agrees with Richard Dawkins, though not with those sophists who simply cannot admit that one religion can have more pernicious effects on the modern world than another.

The artists’s comment in the post: “It is worse.”

x

Here’s a fun video with a range of sounds from an alligator to the loudest sound we know of, which you’ll have to watch to find out—and you’ll want to. (I have heard a white bellbird, and it was LOUD!)

There’s a wallet commercial from 3:00 to 4:00, so you can skip that minute.

I cannot vouch for any of the information given!

What a life! First I defend the speech rights of pro-Palestinian student who may well favor the elimination of Israel, and now I’m back again at Vanderbilt University, where, according to both the student newspaper and the Jewish paper The Algemeiner, students have rejected precisely one out of 11 student groups that applied to joint the school’s Multicultural Leadership Council (MLC): Students Supporting Israel. Wouldn’t you know it!? (One other group, Vanderbilt United Mission for Relief and Development, is awaiting a vote.)

There are two articles that say largely the same thing, so I’ll quote from the shorter Algemeiner piece.  But let us not forget that Vanderbilt become an “Our Hero” school when its Chancellor, Daniel Diermeier (Chicago’s former Provost) had students removed and arrested after occupying the administration building for nearly a whole day, protesting Vandy’s supposed complicity in supporting Israel against Gaza. Many of the students were also given interim suspensions, and there’s no sign that those suspensions will be lifted.  It was not free speech that Diermeier was opposing, for he’s a big advocate of such speech (after all, he’s from the University of Chicago). He was enforcing “time and place” regulations for protest, and it’s simply against Vandy’s rules to sit inside the administration building.

According to these two articles, the rejection of Students Supporting Israel (SSI) was a decision of Vanderbilt students, not the administration, and I guess they just don’t like Israel. After all, Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine, both hate-filled groups favoring the elimination of Israel, are already members of the MLC (so is a subgroup from Hillel, but I bet it’s been a member forever).

Click below to see the piece from the Vanderbilt Hustler, the student newspaper:

Click below to go to the Algemeiner piece:

I’ll quote from The Algemeiner, but you can check the other piece, too:

According to The Vanderbilt Hustler, [Students Supporting Israel] is the only one to be rejected from this year’s applicant pool, an outcome that SSI president Ryan Bauman said is evidence of febrile opposition to dialogue and coexistence among some segments of the student body. The only Jewish group to be admitted, Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP), is a fringe anti-Israel organization that did not condemn Hamas’ Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel and has long celebrated terrorism against Israelis.

Among the nine groups to be admitted to the MLC this year were the Taiwanese American Student Association, Vanderbilt Pride Serve, the Vanderbilt Association for South Asian Cuisine, and the Vanderbilt Iranian Student Association. One of the 11 total organizations that applied, Vanderbilt United Mission for Relief and Development, is still awaiting an upcoming vote.

As a requirement of its application, SSI was told to deliver a presentation to the MLC but given only a few minutes to do so. Afterward, the group was cross-examined by the MLC — of which Students for Justice in Palestine is a member organization — about their opinions regarding “genocide” and “apartheid,” an apparent attempt to use the proceeding as a soapbox for anti-Zionist propaganda.

“We told them that we didn’t show up to discuss politics,” Bauman told The Algemeiner during an interview on Tuesday. “We told them we were there to celebrate Israeli culture and further the pro-Israel movement and invited them to have other dialogues at another time. We were then told to leave, and they held a closed session. And as you can see, it resulted in us being rejected by a wide margin.”

Is there any reason besides antisemitism or anti-Zionism that SSI would be the only group to be rejected? If you know Jewish Voice for Peace and especially Students for Justice in Palestine, you’ll know that they’re to a large extent hate groups who favor the abolition of Israel (SJP also celebrated Hamas’s October 7th attack on Israel). Is it too much to ask for a group supporting Israel to be added to the mix? Apparently so.

One more note from The Algemeiner:

This is not the first time that Students Supporting Israel has been denied membership in a student organization. In 2021, the president of Duke University’s Student Government vetoed a vote approving recognition of SSI, an incident which set off volleys of criticism and a sharp rebuke from the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law.

“Grant them the same access,” Brandeis Center president Alyza Lewin said at the time, warning of potential civil rights violations. “Treat them no differently than any other student recognized organization. If the university chooses not to intervene and does not make sure that SSI gets equal access and it is understood to be no different than any other organization, there could be potential legal liability for the university.”

That also holds for Vanderbilt, whose reputation for fairness could be besmirched by this act. As I said, I don’t blame the administration, which has been exemplary. Chancellor Diermeier also adopted the position of institutional neutrality as embodied in The University of Chicago’s Kalven report, making Vanderbilt one of only a handful of schools to take this essential position. Pity his efforts are being tarred by a bunch of hypocritical students.