What is a Female?

Gender theorists like to pick some sexual characteristic that we associate with females/women and then show that some alleged/obvious females do not have that characteristic, but some alleged/obvious males do, therefore (they claim) there is no objective determinant of what is a female, therefore there is no objective determinants of what a woman is either. For example, ‘not all females have ovaries (and some males do) therefore Female is not <a person with ovaries>’. This line of reasoning involves at least two logical fallacies: a) begging the question (presupposes a definition of Female in order to define Female, which violates the law of identity as premise=conclusion, therefore not-premise and not-conclusion; b) fallacy of composition (equivocates between the function of a part and the function of the whole). This kind of nonsense just got accepted by the Australasian Journal of Philosophy (“Women are not adult human females” by R. Mason) which discredits not only the peer-reviewers but primarily the editor of the journal.

What then is the meaning of Female if not all females have ovaries?

Female is a functional kind characterised by the hypothetical capacity to produce eggs, get pregnant and give birth to a child. By ‘hypothetical capacity’ I mean a capacity that could be realised in one’s lifetime under conditions of statistically determinate anatomical completeness, sexual maturity and health.

Male is a functional kind characterised by the hypothetical capacity to produce sperm and impregnate females.

Some individuals are incapable of realising either of the hypothetical capacities defined above; those individuals are functionally deficient. We can nevertheless infer from all other sexual characteristics which functional kind their body fits better. In rare cases, sex may be indeterminate (neither function is expressed better than the other, and neither functional capacity can be realised).

The question of what is a female/male is so simple to comprehensively resolve that any attempt to create the impression that there is a genuine definitional dilemma is irrational and easily disproved on logical grounds.

I previously covered this topic here: https://culturalanalysisnet.wordpress.com/2018/01/27/functionalist-defence-binary-gender/

Remember how Bishops and the Pope were saying it is a moral obligation of Christians to get vaccinated, and that Jesus would do it too. I wonder, did they imply that vaccination is analogous to crucifixion?

Exquisite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-p0d4Lxa88

Why are this kind of TV shows no longer produced? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2JVMOkoDo8

If a particular social practice is morally wrong, then it is wrong only because it is directed against a human; not because it is directed against a woman. Focussing on gender as a relevant moral distinction displaces and corrupts the moral problem, and introduces new moral wrongs. Feminism is irrational and harmful for the same reason that abuse of women by some regimes is irrational.

It is commonly assumed that feminism has liberated women from systemic prejudices. This is not true. Women were incrementally liberated, allowing feminism to incrementally emerge as a new form of systemic prejudice. Anyone who is genuinely committed to humanity, human rights, and egalitarian in their motives, does not require nor should desire moral focalisation in terms of gender. Feminism in all its guises is tarred by its defective moral categorisation of the problem, which is inherent in the name itself. It is morally on par with any racially-demarcated activism, all equally irrational and anti-humanist in principle, which undermines the rationale of human rights.

She was allegedly injured by the Pfizer vaccine 6 months prior to endorsing the same vaccine for kids.

“Downplaying” is the most convincing way of propagandising.

My Email to Energy Network company regarding the introduction of a quarterly Meter Reading Fee.

I received your letter informing me that a meter reading fee will apply if a smart meter is not installed, implying that this fee covers an additional cost to your company associated with traditional meters.

In order to establish whether your financial claim reflects a genuine cost, I need additional information:

1. The actual purchase price of the additional “smart meter”.
2. The estimated installation cost of the additional “smart meter”.
3. The expected service-free lifespan of the proposed “smart meter”.

I bring to your attention that the extended scope of information that would be collected by a “smart meter” is owned by me and is subject to licensing. You have not attempted to negotiate a price for this near real-time, energy-lifestyle information to be made available to you. If you will make me an offer, I will be able to determine whether “smart meter” is the right choice for me.

The idea that Feminism can be legitimately used for gender equality is logically analogous to using the label White Power for racial equality.

In every natural category there are both abusers and the abused, and by generalising across the entire category (gender, race, nationality etc) the abusers within those categories get to hide, claim innocence or even victimhood, using those who were abused by them as human shields. Throughout history, there was a tiny elite who exploited everyone, worked men, women and children literally to death, starved entire villages, practiced actual and virtual slavery, but themselves lived in extreme luxury and splendour. It is they who like to generalise over massive demographics to evade accountability for millennia of crimes against humanity. Every nation, religion, culture or tribe, and certainly both genders, have internal abusers of this kind. Regarding historical abuses of women, we should remember that the weakest, the most vulnerable, are always abused the most. The pure mechanics of power rather than any inherent prejudice necessitates that lower class children of all races were universally the biggest historical victims, followed by lower class women, followed by lower class men. But even these divisions are not a good basis for ethical analysis because it requires dynamic discernment (that most people lack) to avoid being tricked into another form of diversion and abuse, weaponised against one another to the benefit of the intergenerational, criminal clans. The only common feature we have, the only basis of fundamental rights, is our humanity, not gender, not race, not age.

Thinking ‘originates’; it does not ‘imitate’. Most people do not think at all; some think occasionally; very few consciously intend to think. Ask yourself whether you are thinking or only imitating the meaning-patterns that are already there, originated by someone else.

Who needs Neuralink to control people when most are already comprehensively controlled. Is Neuralink then just a symbol for the means of mind-control already in use but of which we are unaware of?

How to become immune to propaganda and psychological operations

1. Never reuse the new idioms and catch phrases used by the media. Whatever issue is discussed, try to conceptualise it in your own words, be more descriptive rather than accepting the given phrases at face value. It is not essential to express the underlying ideas in the “right way” (there may be no right way), but only differently.

2. When someone else would reuse the media catch phrases, ask them to explain what they mean; they don’t know, your task is only to reveal their ignorance. This is particularly important when engaging with government departments. For example, a public school may appeal to inclusion and diversity. Ask them what they mean by that; what is supposed to be included and is there anything that ought to be excluded, and if anything ought to be excluded then how can you just call it “inclusiveness”, isn’t that misleading?

3. Whenever you come to believe a proposition, profess some value or principle, challenge yourself to mentally defend the opposite view. Consider evidence from both sides of the debate. Playing a daily game of chess against yourself can help you establish this routine.

An effective method for learning how to ‘think in your own words’ is to play with words, reverse their conceptual order in an established pattern and see what comes out, experiment with Situationist ‘detournament’. For example, Churchill has anecdotally said that “the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with an average voter”; it is then tempting to try ‘the best argument against dictatorship is a five minute conversation with Churchill’. If you drop a line like this without explaining how you derived it, it is bound to make others think too, disrupt their conceptual pattern. Be silly, have fun with language, make jokes, it teaches you how to think.

Join NORMAL

Free-associations, acting on impulse, acting from emotion or listening to your feelings (“following you heart”), is largely deterministic and therefore liable to hacking. You can free yourself from this liability only if you delay your judgement, never act without reflection (where possible) and evaluate your reasons for action.

A person delivering a profound message is the medium of the message. The medium is always the primary message, which obstructs and displaces the mediated message. Remove the person and strip bare the context and the message speaks for itself, unmediated. For this reason TEXT is the most direct path to the rational mind of the audience.