Lex Anteinternet: A Sorority (Fraternity) lawsuit, and a subject who...

Lex Anteinternet: A Sorority (Fraternity) lawsuit, and a subject who...: 

A Sorority (Fraternity) lawsuit, and a subject who could be helped.

Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent's faith is to say that I must not discuss it.

G. K. Chesterton.

The Gibson Girl, the iconic female figure of the early 1900s created by Charles Dana Gibson. The thing is, you see, she isn't, and wasn't, real.

There's been a story much in the news here, and indeed elsewhere, about a figure who is a guy but who claims he identifies as a girl, or more accurately, a figure who is a man who claims he identified as a woman.

What impresses me about this story isn't that aspect of it, so much as nobody, up until very recently, and after I started this post, has really bothered to dive very deep into the story, particularly from a psychological level.

It seems that they should.

Not that we should be too surprised about this. People rarely do.  During World War Two, for example, in one rural area of Germany a figure held forth as a local open anti-Nazi member of the German nobility. . . except he wasn't a member of the nobility at all.  He was lucky to get away with it, and his anti-Nazi stance was genuine.  But a Junker he was not.  Why did he do that?

Backstories to the public positions people take are very rarely looked at, but really should be.  Some backers of causes that are strongly for them in a virulent way have a personal connection that undermines their position in one fashion or another.  Others just make you wonder.  Why, for instance, would a well-to-do young man with no employment history relocate to a Western state and run for office as a political firebrand on the populist libertarian front?  You'd think voters would ask, but they largely don't.  Why would an ostensible billionaire who has gone down in defeat in an election and who faces a pile of criminal charges be running so aggressively for office again?

We tend to take things at face value.

So too here.

There's some new data out that shows that for the majority of people who claim transgenderism, if left to develop that claim on their own, the claim itself is transitory and youthful.  Most girls, for example, who in their very early teens feel they want to be boys, don't a decade latter.  That's a good reason in and of itself not to allow "transitions" that can't be reversed, and any substantial one can't be reversed.  Indeed, it's criminal to allow it in an existential sense, and ought to be in a legal sense.  But what causes it?

Indeed, as a commentor on the story in Wyo File, which finally did look at some of the backstory, noted:

The strong correlation between trans identity and autism spectrum disorder has been recognized over the last three years by such professional organizations as the National Autism Society, The Institutes of Health, Autism Research Institute, and studies published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Noted was the observation that autistic youths were up to 6 times more likely to identify as trans than a similar non-autistic demographic. The medical field recognizes and treats autism as a disorder, not a normal expression of the spectrum of the human condition. Since it appears that trans gender identity is resultant from ASD, it should also be treated as a disorder rather than celebrated.

That's an interesting observation, to say the least.

Well, we've looked at it before, but in regard to the individual who has been so much in the news, why hasn't anyone looked up until now?

The data is there, or at least was, when this story first developed.  It doesn't appear to be a happy story.

When this news first broke, there was a blog up, and maybe there still is, by the father.  It wasn't on his sons, but his son appeared in the photos.  He already looked different from the rest, having gained a lot of weight even as a child.  But what the blog made clear is that the father was bitterly disillusioned.

Not with the son, but with his former wife.

His wife, he claimed, had left and divorced him, and her Mormon faith was the reason why.

Now, that was never explained.  Mormon's can and do marry outside of their faiths, so there are a lot of roads that could be gone down there. Whatever the story was, from his prospective, the wife had left him and their children for her Mormonism.

Now, that doesn't really make sense.  One of the things most noted about Mormon's is their deep devotion to the children.  It's hard to imagine what the conflict was, but it was at least perceived that way by the former father.

Maybe the topic of the young man had already come up, and now based on the Wyo File story, it seems it definitely had.  Perhaps that was the division.  Or not.  Maybe that had nothing to do with the split.  Again, we don't really know.

I don't really know the definitive Mormon position on transgenderism.  I do know the Catholic one which is that disorders are not sinful, but acting upon them if it's outside of the moral framework, is.  This has typically come up in regard to homosexuality. Being a homosexual isn't sinful, but sex outside of marriage is, and marriage is just between a man and a woman.  I believe the Mormon position is similar, but I can't say that definitively.  If the boy's declared sexual dysmorphia became an issue in the household, with one parent taking the boy's side, and one not (and I don't know if that was the case), I can see where it may ultimately have been fatal to the marriage.

What we do know, and from long, long experience, is that its difficult in the extreme to raise a child in a one parent household and that this is so much the case that when one parent is present but really absent, such as one works all the time, or one is a drug or alcohol addict, it statistically impacts the outlook of the children and often for life.

Daughters, it's been shown, of a checked out woman are much more likely to turn out to be lesbians than daughters where the mother is present. That doesn't mean their relationship is necessarily rosy. But the daughters of what now is so charmingly called "the day drinking moms" who sit there in front of the television at 1:30 in the afternoon getting blotto tend to have no real female role model.*  In contrast, a mother may be a Tiger Mom, or whatever, but if she's there, it makes a huge difference.

In contrast, the son's of men who are not there tend to be more likely to have same sex attraction as well.  The two impulses, one in male and one in females, are not otherwise similar and other aspects go into it. Women who perceive, while young, that men are a threat are more likely to take refuge with other women.  What about men?

Well, I don't know, but one thing that has been pretty clearly demonstrated is that young men who are exclusively around other young men, to the exclusion of females, are more likely to become homosexuals.  English Boy Schools provide a well known example.  

What about transgenderism?

One thing we do know, in spite of recent left wing attempts to scientifically legitimize it, much like was formerly done with eugenics, it has no biological origin.  No set of hormones or the like is going to send you off into a different gender. That means it's purely psychological in origin.

But what's going on with it?

We don't know for sure, but we do know that with females it mostly hits in the very early teens and is gone by the early 20s.  And we also know that young women are getting exposed to piles of gross pornography right now, and that those who are ADHD are more likely to take this direction.  Often it occurs in groups.

Which may mean that its origin is much like lesbianism, except its much more destructive, but also much more transitory.  Girls are seeking refuge outside of their sex as they fear the roles that their sex seems to have.  Once it starts to clear up that the life of adult women isn't something featured on Pornhub, it wanes.

And men?

Well, it would appear autism is an element of it, as the subject is apparently on the spectrum.  That's telling.

It would also appear that early on, he received "support" from elements after he started to reveal his claimed orientation.  For one thing, his school had a "SPEAK" club, standing for Genders and Sexualities Alliance, of which he was a member.**

That's telling not because he was a member, but because it's well known that recruitment of people to anything, particularly anything destructive, tends to take root if done very young. There's a reason that the Nazi Party in Germany eliminated youth organizations and replaced them with the Hitler Youth, or why the Soviet Communist Party had the Young Pioneers.  There's also a reason, although people now turn a blind eye to it, that homosexual men used to fairly notably recruit teenage men.  If you start to dive into debasement, it's really hard to get back out.

Young pioneers... for the struggle in the name of Lenin and Stalin... be prepared! (1951)

So what else is over all going on here?

I don't know, but I suspect that a certain element of refuge, or indeed a large role of refuge, from the male role is at work here as well, in the overall story of transgenderism.  In spite of a protracted effort to undermine it, male roles basically remain unchanged.

We tend, mentally, to still think of the Four things greater than all things are.

When spring-time flushes the desert grass,

Our kafilas wind through the Khyber Pass.

Lean are the camels but fat the frails,

Light are the purses but heavy the bales,

As the snowbound trade of the North comes down

To the market-square of Peshawur town.

 

In a turquoise twilight, crisp and chill,

A kafila camped at the foot of the hill.

Then blue smoke-haze of the cooking rose,

And tent-peg answered to  hammer-nose;

And the picketed ponies, shag and wild,

Strained at their ropes as the feed was piled;

And the bubbling camels beside the load

Sprawled for a furlong adown the road;

And the Persian pussy-cats, brought for sale,

Spat at the dogs from the camel-bale;

And the tribesmen bellowed to hasten the food;

And the camp-fires twinkled by Fort Jumrood;

And there fled on the wings of the gathering dusk

A savour of camels and carpets and musk,

A murmur of voices, a reek of smoke,

To tell us the trade of the Khyber woke.

 

The lid of the flesh-pot chattered high,

The knives were whetted and -- then came I

To Mahbub Ali, the muleteer,

Patching his bridles and counting his gear,

Crammed with the gossip of half a year.

But Mahbub Ali the kindly said,

"Better is speech when the belly is fed."

So we plunged the hand to the mid-wrist deep

In a cinnamon stew of the fat-tailed sheep,

And he who never hath tasted the food,

By Allah! he knoweth not bad from good.

 

We cleansed our beards of the mutton-grease,

We lay on the mats and were filled with peace,

And the talk slid north, and the talk slid south,

With the sliding puffs from the hookah-mouth.

Four things greater than all things are, --

Women and Horses and Power and War.

We spake of them all, but the last the most,

For I sought a word of a Russian post,

Of a shifty promise, an unsheathed sword

And a grey-coat guard on the Helmund ford.

Then Mahbub Ali lowered his eyes

In the fashion of one who is weaving lies.

Quoth he:  "Of the Russians who can say?

When the night is gathering all is grey.

But we look that the gloom of the night shall die

In the morning flush of a blood-red sky.

Friend of my heart, is it meet or wise

To warn a King of his enemies?

We know what Heaven or Hell may bring,

But no man knoweth the mind of the King.

That unsought counsel is cursed of God

Attesteth the story of Wali Dad.

 

"His sire was leaky of tongue and pen,

His dam was a clucking Khattack hen;

And the colt bred close to the vice of each,

For he carried the curse of an unstaunched speech.

Therewith madness -- so that he sought

The favour of kings at the Kabul court;

And travelled, in hope of honour, far

To the line where the grey-coat squadrons are.

There have I journeyed too -- but I

Saw naught, said naught, and -- did not die!

He hearked to rumour, and snatched at a breath

Of `this one knoweth', and 'that one saith', --

Legends that ran from mouth to mouth

Of a grey-coat coming, and sack of the South.

These have I also heard -- they pass

With each new spring and the winter grass.

 

"Hot-foot southward, forgotten of God,

Back to the city ran Wali Dad,

Even to Kabul -- in full durbar

The King held talk with his Chief in War.

Into the press of the crowd he broke,

And what he had heard of the coming spoke.

 

"Then Gholam Hyder, the Red Chief, smiled,

As a mother might on a babbling child;

But those who would laugh restrained their breath,

When the face of the King showed dark as death.

Evil it is in full durbar

To cry to a ruler of gathering war!

Slowly he led to a peach-tree small,

That grew by a cleft of the city wall.

And he said to the boy:  `They shall praise thy zeal

So long as the red spurt follows the steel.

And the Russ is upon us even now?

Great is thy prudence -- await them, thou.

Watch from the tree.  Thou art young and strong.

Surely the vigil is not for long.

The Russ is upon us, thy clamour ran?

Surely an hour shall bring their van.

Wait and watch.  When the host is near,

Shout aloud that my men may hear.'

 

"Friend of my heart, is it meet or wise

To warn a King of his enemies?

A guard was set that he might not flee --

A score of bayonets ringed the tree.

The peach-bloom fell in showers of snow,

When he shook at his death as he looked below.

By the power of God, Who alone is great,

Till the seventh day he fought with his fate.

Then madness took him, and men declare

He mowed in the branches as ape and bear,

And last as a sloth, ere his body failed,

And he hung like a bat in the forks, and wailed,

And sleep the cord of his hands untied,

And he fell, and was caught on the points and died.

 

"Heart of my heart, is it meet or wise

To warn a King of his enemies?

We know what Heaven or Hell may bring,

But no man knoweth the mind of the King.

Of the grey-coat coming who can say?

When the night is gathering all is grey.

Two things greater than all things are,

The first is Love, and the second War.

And since we know not how War may prove,

Heart of my heart, let us talk of Love!"

Kipling, The Ballad of the King's Jest. 

But those four things are tough things too, resulting in physical and psychological injury and sometimes death, but also, in a proper view that Theophilus might hold, to quite another direction as well.

There's always been men who feared not measuring up to the male ideal or the male role.  This has expressed itself differently in different eras. World War Two saw a surprising number of suicides undertaken by men who were rejected by draft boards.  They couldn't stand the thought of what that meant, in their own minds, and took their own lives.  I've already noted, in other threads, that the Apostolic clergy provided refuge for a certain number of men in former ears for same sex attraction.  

It's been well documented that in prisons certain men who have never demonstrated a transgender inclination before, but who are physical weak and in need of protection, will take on female attributes and become the "female" object of a same-sex relationship.  

In the extremely rough and violent world of Plaints Indians, there were, as is sometimes famously pointed out, men who would declare, at an early age, that they were really drawn to femininity and then would drop out of the male role for the female role.  While moderns like to pretend there's no division of labor by nature in human beings, there very clearly is, and that tellingly reduced those men to cooking, cleaning hides, and the like.  It meant they were exempt from killing other human beings and fighting, a normal part of cultures which exalted warriors.

Lakota warriors.  No doubt, every one of these men had killed other men.

Put another way, Crow Heart Butte in Wyoming, and near where this boy is from, is named that because Washakie killed a Crow chieftain and ate his heart.  Not because they met for tea.

And this raises an interesting point.

The waif like Audrey Hepburn in 1956, who was pretty clearly the model of female beauty for a man who recently promoted Bud Light as a woman.  She's a model, however, of safe female beauty that wouldn't really attract unwanted male attention. By 1956, the other type of female beauty, one more admired by males, was very much in circulation, as Playboy was expanding and the screens were full of Marilyn Monroe.

Men who try to affect a female appearance tend to take on an exaggerated one.  In modern society, if you go out on a city sidewalk on any particular day, you'll find at least a few young women wearing blue jeans and t-shirts and who are healthy muscular, in a female sense.  In offices and in office culture, you'll find most women wearing suitable office attire. You'll never find, however, a woman walking around with a feather boa, or trying to look like Audrey Hepburn, or wearing something like a polka dress.

But in the transgender community, you'll find all of that fairly commonly, although in this particular case that's not being demonstrated.

Indeed, here, in spite of what we're supposed to say, what we really see is a guy who looks like a very large, soft looking guy. 

Actor Robert Conrad, right, in The Killers. Conrad was always a big guy, but definately a guy.

Now, in the male world, you can be overweight, but being soft is pretty difficult.  It no doubt goes back to our earliest origins.  Most likely, our Cro Magnon ancestors didn't get fat, they were too resource poor to pull that off, but softness probably simply couldn't be tolerated.  There wasn't any room for "I don't want to fight that new tribe that just showed up" allowed.  And to a large degree, there still really isn't.

Going back to when I was really young, I can think of some instances of pretty soft teenage boys, but the way that they and everyone else handled it was different.  They were soft, but not so soft that they were unreliable in a pinch. Basically, like a lot of people with different personality traits, they'd learned how to rise to the occasion, and in their cases often frequently, to overcome them.

We don't do that anymore.  We face our failings by "accepting" them, which is not to face them at all.

Now, there's more to this than that, but perhaps not as much as we might think, for no sane man would ever want to be a woman.

Women like to be women, as their DNA provides for it.***  But very few men, if any, would be comfortable with bleeding a great deal on a routine and scheduled basis, being subjected to hormonal storms, or being subject to the numerous medical and physical problems just being a woman entails.  Women's worlds change at least monthly, and in reality more frequently than that.  Over the course of a lifetime, women's reality changed massively, once at puberty, later at childbirth, if they have children, and then again at menopause.  Women live longer, to be sure, but the existential nature of their existence practically means they undergo a deep physical and psychological chrysalis at least twice if not three or more times.  Women mature more quickly than men, but some of them endure such hard physical changes that the impacts are nearly shattering when they occur, and that doesn't even take into account the monthly cyclonic storms they endure.

To be male means having a predictable physical reality that only changes over decades and to some extent never does.  And indeed, transgendered men in fact avoid that.  They aren't going to endure the agony of menstruation for one thing, and they likely don't want to.  Most just keep their dicks and balls and call it good.

Old Man : Hey are all farmers. Farmers talk of nothing but fertiliser and women. I've never shared their enthusiasm for fertiliser. As for women, I became indifferent when I was 83. I am staying here.

Line from The Magnificent Seven.

Two imagines, once expected, and one exaggerated, of 20th Century manhood.  In the top image, a British Tommy holds the line. . . alone.  He's probably going to die.  In the second, the super macho and brooding Sgt. Rock, entertainer of thousands of juvenile males in the second half of the century, leads Easy Company into a charge.

To be a transgender male, in some ways, means dropping out of the expectations without picking up the pain and agony of being a woman.  Male strength remains, and repeated naturally programmed female physical distress does not arrive.  No matter what they may say, for the most part, transgendered men are dropping out of male society.  Men don't want them as lovers, and most of them have physical attributes, even with their pants buttoned up, that make them unattractive even if an unsuspecting male eye was cast on them.

Beyond that, however, they're omitted from the male warband when young.  Nobody is going to ever ask them what they'd do if they're drafted.  And nobody is going to conscript them into a bar fight, which almost every living Western male has had happened or nearly happen.  You aren't going to be asked to defend some woman's  honor.  You aren't going to intervene if somebody threatens your sister, girlfriend or wife.  You aren't, moreover, ever going to hear "go over and ask her to dance", and all that means and what follows.

U.S. teenage pregnancy rates from the mid 1970s to mid 2010s.  Contrary to what might be expected, if this chart went back to the 1950s, the rate would have started off even higher, as the 50s really saw the peak in recent U.S. teen pregnancy rates.  Exactly 0% of these pregnancies were to the transgendered expressing as female.  Some probably originated from the same group acting contrary to their declared expression.

You also, however, are going to usually be safe to women, except as alleged here where the allegations, which are denied, is that you are leering at boobs and getting erections.  This isn't true at all of other men, no matter how friendly they may be.  Some males, including some highly intellectual ones, hold that no real platonic friendship can ever exist between a man and a woman, as the man (not the woman) will always regard a female contemporary as at least a suppressed potential object of affection.****  While it may be misperceived, transgenendered men and homosexual men are usually received well by women, as that threat is generally absent, or at least conceived of being absent.

Highly romanticized illustration of a teenage mother from Street Arabs and Gutter Snipes, The Pathetic and Humorous Side of Young Vagabond Life in the Great Cities, With Records of Work for Their Reclamation 1884.

But none of that is natural, and all of it, in some fashion, is a cry for help.  Even the cry for acceptance is just that.

Over the years, sometimes personally, and sometimes professionally, I've known people who ended up needing help, some well after they'd received it.  I know one lawyer who is a convicted felon, but overcame that for a successful career.  I've met people who were addicted to drugs or alcohol, and overcame that.  Usually if you got down to it, you could see that they didn't take up their afflictions as they really enjoyed them, but because they were attempting to bury something else.  One lawyer I somewhat knew disappeared for about a month before his family found him, in another state, in a hotel room, having crawled into a bottle.  He wasn't there as he enjoyed drinking himself stupid in hotel rooms.

Some people, with more conventional afflictions, are like crashing trains right as you watch them.  And interestingly, if is a more conventional and traditional affliction, like addition to alcohol and sex, or the two combined, its commented about backdoor, but nobody ever says that being in that condition is just a life choice.  Everyone knows its not, and that is a disaster.

And so is this.

As the comment above notes, we help people on the autism spectrum, and we know that they may need help.  It's not regarded as a life choice.  But in 2023, everything sexual, except for pedophilism, is just an expression of individualism.  The ban on sex with children only remains as its so disgusting, as otherwise all the logic that applies to "accepting" every other sexual behavior applies equally to it, save for that its destructive to children.  But it's also destructive to adults, and its been shown that it tends to come on with people who have had multiple sex partners.

Transgenderism is like that.  There's no reason to believe that it is not a mental illness, one associated with other conditions, that can be arrested and addressed.

But in our political purity of the age, we're not doing that.  And that's destructive for the people making the declaration, who could have been helped.

We might, before concluding, stop to ask two questions. Does it really matter, would be the first.

After all, if somebody wants to drink themselves into oblivion, does it matter, if that's their choice?  Or more particularly, if somebody wants to present as a woman, who is a man, what does it really matter to me or anyone else?

Well, it does matter if your view of humanity is that we are our brother's keeper.  Oddly enough, in our contemporary world, it's the political left that claims that we are, while the political right, as exhibited by Jeanette Ward in a common in the last legislative session, feels we are not.  But most decent societies, and all Christian societies, feel that we are.

So there's a duty to the individual to help them live an ordered life. We know that living a disordered one leads to unhappiness.

There's a wider duty, however, to society.  Assaults on individual natures are assaults on nature in general, are destructive to us all.

And, additionally, telling a lie to yourself is one thing. But demanding, even with the force of law, that everyone else adopt the lie is quite another. That's completely destructive to the social structure, as enshrining lies as part of them inevitably leads to decay.

And finally, and more particularly, it's damaging to women in the extreme. Real women, that is.  Women know that they aren't men.  We all know that the biological life of a woman is radically different from a man's in nearly every sense.  Psychologically, it isn't the same either.  Reducing womanhood to appearing to have boobs is the most Hefnereque position of all, and an insult to women in every fashion.

Footnotes:

*I don't know how or why "day drinking", which is very often attributed to women, became cute. But it isn't.

**The existence of such non-academic clubs in schools is ample evidence of the intrusion of really left wing "progressive" values into schools. By and large I"m skeptical when such claims are made, but the recent library controversies over homosexual pornography in public schools shows there's definitely something to it, as do the existence of clubs that exist to effectively demand that inclinations that are poorly understood and fairly recently regarded as mental illnesses be accepted as normal.

***Having said that, there's plenty of evidence that well into the mid 20th Century, at least, plenty of women regretted having been born women, which isn't quite the same thing.

****Whatever hte truth of htat may be, it's pretty clear that it's not true of close relatives.  The "taboo" on incest is clearly ingrained enough into us to translate over to close relationship, such as cousins.

Lex Anteinternet: Nature worship producing the unnatural.

Lex Anteinternet: Nature worship producing the unnatural.:

Nature worship producing the unnatural.

In the Roman Empire, long before the end, we find nature-worship inevitably producing things that are against nature. Cases like that of Nero have passed into a proverb, when Sadism sat on a throne brazen in the broad daylight. But the truth I mean is something much more subtle and universal than a conventional catalogue of atrocities. What had happened to the human imagination, as a whole, was that the whole world was coloured by dangerous and rapidly deteriorating passions; by natural passions becoming unnatural passions. Thus the effect of treating sex as only one innocent natural thing was that every other innocent natural thing became soaked and sodden with sex. For sex cannot be admitted to a mere equality among elementary emotions or experiences like eating and sleeping. The moment sex ceases to be a servant it becomes a tyrant. There is something dangerous and disproportionate in its place in human nature, for whatever reason; and it does really need a special purification and dedication. The modern talk about sex being free like any other sense, about the body being beautiful like any tree or flower, is either a description of the Garden of Eden or a piece of thoroughly bad psychology, of which the world grew weary two thousand years ago.

G. W. Chesterton, in St. Francis of Assisi.

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the (modern, w...

Lex Anteinternet: Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the (modern, w...: 

Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the (modern, western) world, part 3. Our lost connection with animals.

ICELANDIC MILKMAID ON HER MORNING ROUND

This is a fine, sturdy pony standing so stockily for his photograph, and he can make light of his burden of buxom beauty with her heavy can of milk. She cares not for saddle or stirrups, for most of these island people are born to horseback, and her everyday costume amply serves the purpose of a riding-habit for this strapping Viking's daughter, with her long tresses shining in the breeze.  

(Original caption, of interest here I wouldn't call this young lady "buxom" or "strapping", but just healthy.  This might say something about how standards have changed over time.)

The other day, I posted this in a footnote on a completely different topic.

Lex Anteinternet: What's wrong with the (modern, western) world, par...:   

4.  One of the odder examples of this, very widespread, is the change in our relationship with animals.

Our species is one of those which has a symbiotic relationship with other ones.  We like to think that this is unique to us, but it isn't.  Many other examples of exist of birds, mammals and even fish that live in very close relationships with other species.  When this occurred with us, we do not know, but we do know that its ancient.  Dogs and modern wolves both evolved from a preexisting wolf species starting some 25,000 to 40,000 years ago, according to the best evidence we currently have. That likely means it was longer ago than that.

Cats, in contrast, self domesticated some 7,000 or so years ago, according to our best estimates.

Cat eating a shellfish, depiction from an Egyptian tomb.

We have a proclivity for both domesticating animals, and accepting self domestication of animals, the truth being that such events are likely part and parcel of each other. Dogs descend from some opportunistic wolves that started hanging around us as we killed things they liked to eat.  Cats from wildcats that came on as we're dirty.  Both evolved thereafter in ways we like, becoming companions as well as servants.  But not just them, horses, pigs, sheep, cattle. . .the list is long.

As we've moved from the natural to the unnatural, we've forgotten that all domestic animals, no matter how cute and cuddly they are, are animals and were originally our servants. And as real children have become less common in WASP culture, the natural instinct to have an infant to take care of, or even adore, has transferred itself upon these unwilling subjects, making them "fur babies".

It's interesting in this context to watch the difference between people who really work with animals, and those who do not.  Just recently, for example, our four-year-old nephew stayed the night due to the snow, and was baffled why our hunting dog, who is a type of working dog but very much a companion, stayed the night indoors.  The ranch dogs do not. . . ever.  The ranch cats, friendly though they are, don't either.

I started this thread back in February, when the entire news on "transgenderism" really hit the fan, so to speak.  Since that time there's been the filing of the sorority lawsuit in Laramie, a host of transgender mass shooting, and an absolutely freakish campaign by Budweiser in which a guy trying to channel a girl of the 1960s is sponsoring Bud Light.  Anyhow, this thread was to tie into it somehow, but now a lot of time has gone by, and working seven days out of seven, etc., I've really forgotten what my brilliant point here was to be, more or less.

But I'll go on anyhow.

This photograph shows a young woman at work, doing something that counted, and doing it in a way that was very close to nature.

So does this one:

Mid Week At Work: Mail Carrier, 1915, Los Angeles

And also this one:

Rural Nurse, Virginia. 1919.

And this one:

LOC Caption:   Sarah Crutcher, 12-year-old girl herding cattle. Route 4, c/o S.O. Crutcher. She was out of school (#49 Comanche County) only 2 weeks this year and that was to herd 100 head of cattle for her father, a prosperous farmer. She said: "I didn't like it either." She is doing well in school. Is in Grade 8.] Location: [Lawton, Oklahoma]

I think one of the interesting things about this photographs is, contrary to the modern image of what women wore when doing livestock work in the early 20th and late 19th Centuries, she's dressed in completely typical female attire for the time. She's riding wearing a fairly long skirt and a woman's hat that is typical for the period.

The point here?

Well this.  

We've gotten to the point where we don't deal with animals as they really are, daily.  We also are at the point where a large percentage of the original WASP demographic of the nation (more on this shortly) has lost most of the values it originally had, and replaced them with very weak tea instead.  And we've so removed ourselves from a state of nature, that most people don't have a grasp on what nature really is.

It's hard not to know the reality of the world if you live in it.

This past week, the Wyoming Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case in Casper in which the plaintiffs claim they suffered emotional distress as their two pet dogs were caught in snares which they claim were improperly placed on public lands by a trapper.  Apparently, in a companion criminal case, the trapper was exonerated.  The state land is very close to the city, which is a problem, but it's still state land, and still unincorporated.

Losing dogs is a tragedy, but emotional distress?  This has never been allowed in the common law, as the law always held that the law is, basically, for people.  If you can claim emotional distress due to the loss of a pet, why not anything?

Now, that sounds cruel, and I understand grieving over the loss of an animal.  I've done it myself.  That is, in fact, one of the things about owning pets.  Normally, you outlive them, and if you are normal, you'll miss them when they die.

It's a part of life.

But emotional distress has been reserved, in the common law, for the loss of humans, based, in the end, for what we feel with the loss of a loved human being.  Not an animal, no matter how loved.

And of course, up until recently, there was no such concept as a legally recognized animal for "emotional support".  Support they did provide, but the bond was in a naturalistic way, not one for which the law afforded protection.

Have we lost something here?

I think we have, and it's connected with real work and real animals.

We'll explore What's Wrong With The World more in this series of threads, but here's one.  Being connected with animals in a real sense, and not in the sanitary removed from nature sense, helped keep us real.  

We've lost that.

It's hard to be obsessively focused on yourself, including your reproductive self, if you're around animals as animals, particularly great big ones that can hurt you.

And I'll bet the thought "I'm a girl, but I want to be a boy" didn't much cross the minds of Icelandic pony riding milkmaids, Oklahoman girl cowpunchers, or Los Angeles mounted mail carriers.

Related Threads:

What's wrong with the (modern, western) world, part 1. A thought on community

What's wrong with the (modern, western) world, part 2. Care, lack of care, and an existential lack of focus.

Lex Anteinternet: Just another day in the Big Top

Lex Anteinternet: Just another day in the Big Top: 

Just another day in the Big Top

Lex Anteinternet: How to loose friends, make enemies, make a bad arg...: Our friend here again.  As we previoulsy noted, a Morganucodon, our great, great, great. . . . . grandmother or grandfather. Really.  You&#3...

Well, hold a circus and performing elephants will appear 

And that's just what's happening at the University of Wyoming in regard to the saga of Rev. Schmidt and his poorly thought out approach to arguing on whether transgenderism is real or not.  GOP politicians, from that party that adopted the elephant to remind people that they'd seen it in the form of the Civil War, have appeared in the form of legislative members of the "Freedom Caucus" and, of course, Chuck Gray.*  The letter was written, in fact, by his successor in office, Jeanette Ward, recent arrival from Illinois.¹ 

Let's recap this a bit.

Rev. Schmidt has been maintaining a table in the UW Student Union in which he has books to the effect that evolution is a fib and that Dr. Fauci is some sort of misguided personage.

Rev. Schmidt called out a person who is undergoing some sort of "gender reassignment" by name, noting that it's contrary to how God created humanity.

That latter item is correct, even if Schmidt is wrong on the fossil record and Dr. Fauci, but the apparent approach, which is based directly and perhaps even solely on his religious views, and which was very forward, was always more likely to create a flap and repel people rather than convince them.²  A wise way to approach this would have been to argue biology and science, rather than religion, but Schmidt took the latter approach and is now preaching on campus, which perhaps he always did.

UW, faced with an issue not of its own making and certainly not of its desire, booted Schmidt out of the Student Union.³

Now members of the Freedom Caucus, that body of legislators whose name would suggest they are Libertines, but whom are not, have entered the fray, accusing UW of squelching Schmidt's right to free speech.⁴ Given their entry and the presence of such notables as youthful Stolen Election Gray and Illinoisan Ward, who presumably have real tasks to do in their elective offices, this will become all the more circus like.  Gray, of course, needs a new issue now that the Stolen Election Myth has gone down in flames and crashed all over the GOP outside of Wyoming, and Ward always campaigned from the extreme right, claiming she had to leave Illinois so that her youthful progeny didn't have to wear masks in school, among other things.

Sigh. . . 

Nobody is going to talk the science at all.

There was a time, not all that long ago, when people claiming to be transgendered here would have simply been ignored, thereby being treated exactly the way they claim they want to be.  Likewise, Rev. Schmidt would have been ignored, even at UW, of an earlier era also.  Students wearing flannel and hiking boots would have simply walked on by.⁵

Sic Transit Gloria Mundi.

Prior Related Threads:

How to loose friends, make enemies, make a bad argument, and discredit everything you stand for. The Transgender issue and a minister in Laramie.

Footnotes:

*I'm going to cite the Jimmy Akin citation rule here and ask why reporters don't upload a link to what they're writing about?  Given as this is about a letter, and give that if we are reading about it, we can read, why don't they upload it so we can read it ourselves?

1. There is absolutely no way in any earlier era in which an Illinoisan who just arrived would have been elected to anything whatsoever in the state.  Yes, that's provincialism, but sometimes provincialism is warranted.

For that matter, Gray couldn't get elected at first either, and in no earlier era would he have been elected Secretary of State.

2. And indeed this has sparked a counter student reaction, as was predictable.

Students can reliably be counted on to support any left wing cause, and pretty much always have.  Communist spies of the 40s and 50s had been recruited out of campuses in the 20s and 30s.  In the 30s, British university youth, who later defended the skies over the UK, publicly declared they wouldn't fight for Britain.  People, who lament the treatment of Vietnam veterans today, protested the war in the 60s.  Shoot, when I was at UW in the 80s nobody would ever say a good word about Ronald Reagan, who is now regarded by many as a hero.

There have been all sorts of students sign petitions on this matter, and not in the way that Ward and the Libertine, um no, the Freedom. . . um no, that doesn't seem right. . . oh, whatever it is, Caucus would like.  And in a recent Trib article students proclaiming unconventional gender orientation, probably some of whom discovered that recently and will find it transitory, stated they were in fear, which if they are is probably because any hype tends to cause fear.

So Schmidt has managed not only to convince, he's done damage, as we said he was doing.

3. There might be a lesson in here in what happens when you convert a building from what was essentially offices, ancillary rooms and a bookstore into one that's a place for loitering of all types.

4.  Is there any word more misused by movements than "freedom"?

5.  A Palestinian protest at UW that occurred only shortly before I went there reportedly received that treatment.  Students simply walked around it.

I don't recall any protests at all while I was there.  While I was in law school, a big march by an out-of-state organization aimed at homosexuals resulted, fairly predictably at that time, in a big counterprotest by local residents who wanted the other group to just shut up and go away.  I recall that surprising non-natives, but not natives, as the ethos of the state at the time was "I don't care what you do, just leave me alone".  When people weren't called on to "celebrate" conduct they didn't support, or even were repelled by, they were pretty tolerant

Lex Anteinternet: A Nature Party and a question. Does this comport with nature?

Lex Anteinternet: A Nature Party and a question. Does this comport w...:   

A Nature Party and a question. Does this comport with nature?

 

Altered from imagine done by Di (they-them) - This SVG flag includes elements that have been taken or adapted from this flag:, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=114863039

All ethics so far evolved rest upon a single premise: that the individual is a member of a community of interdependent parts.The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively the land.

The Land Ethic, A Sand County Almanac.  Aldo Leopold

I wish there was a political party whose first principal was a question; "does this comport with nature?"

And asked that question, as its first principal, honestly.  Not seeking to ask it in some preconceived of manner in which the answer to the question is known before the question is posed.

And not in a way that always aligns with the questioners personal interest and economics.

One that posed it honestly, and went from there.

Such a party would make nearly every political pundit and national politician today squirm.

Senators who come on Fox News every other week, or on Twitter every week, who are from the State of Extraction would disappear behind the dour looking Mitch McConnell rather than answer the question first, and go on honestly from there.

So would left wing politicians who take to the floor in Big Green Rectangle to proclaim allegiance with "gender care", having undergone "gender care" themselves, without answering this question first.

It'd be a step towards sanity in a major way.

Indeed, the very fact that such a question is not the first posed is responsible, in no small measure, for why American politics are as stupid as they currently are.  The rational middle is gone, with the irrational agenda driven extremes in control.

This is why discussions on economics and production are totally divorced from reality on the right and the left.

And this is why discussions on existential biological issues devolve into anti-scientific diatribes that are linked with ill-informed world views rather than reality.

And this is also why those same issues become attached to extremist whose world view is ground not in science, but in ideologies of all type that are of their own fantastical creations, or those whose fantastical creations match a world the way they wish to see it, causing it to become impossible to debate or discuss any issue, as all issues all end up lashed to the philosophy, rather than the science, and reality.

Primum non nocere, first do no harm, we are told, is the first and most ancient rule of medicine.  Perhaps for politics, that branch of philosophy which is applied in the same way that engineering is applied physics, should consider  An hoc pertinet ad naturam?, does this comport with nature. This should be added be added to philosophy of all types, applied and not, as the first principal.

Related Threads:

We like everything to be all natural. . . . except for us.

Lex Anteinternet: Mid Week At Work: Realities of the marketplace. Discrimination, the Old Law, Circumstances and Nature

Lex Anteinternet: Mid Week At Work: Realities of the marketplace. ...: 

Mid Week At Work: Realities of the marketplace. Discrimination, the Old Law, Circumstances and Nature

I had one item here I was going to cautiously blog about, and then a second came up by surprise.  I'll start with the second and take it first.

I ought to note that these are both items that figure into the "fools rush in" category of things.

Dissing the Guard

National Guard M88, South Korea, 1987.

A friend of mine called me up mad.

He and I had been National Guardsmen together at about the same time.

"Yeoman, you and I both took basic and advanced training at the same time and you know that we were at Ft. Sill so long that we received discharges from the Regular Army".

"Um, yeah. . .?"

"Then why aren't we veterans?"

"Um, well Phil, we are. . . "

Phil went on. What he meant was that while we are both veterans, with honorable discharges from the U.S. Army, we don't qualify as veterans for Federal employment consideration.

Phil is correct. According to an online Guard publication that's supposed to be in the nature of good news for former Guard members:

ARLINGTON, Va. – A recently signed law gives official veteran status to National Guard members who served 20 years or more. Previously, Guard members were considered veterans only if they served 180 days or more in a federal status outside of training.

Twenty years or more. . . 

Phil lost his job in the oil slide that's been going on over the past year and he's been looking for a new one.  He's not out of work actually, he's a handy guy and one of those people who seems to pick up employment even with things are in the dumps.  Having worked at the same place for now 30+ years I'm not a handy guy, that way, and even though I can do a lot of things, I know that if the same thing happened to me, I'd be doomed.

"Thirty years as a lawyer?  Go apply at the U.S. Attorney's office. . ."

"But sir, I'm the only living person who knows how to plow a field with a California Plow and a mule named Sparky and. . ."

"U.S. Attorney's office. . . "

You get the picture.

California plow.

Or so I suppose.  I haven't seen any job openings for plowmen and for that matter, while I know what a California Plow is, I don't actually know how to plow with one with any sort of equine, let alone a mule named Sparky.

Which raises another point, one touched on below, but I'll get back to that.

I loved being in the National Guard and was in it for six years.  So was Phil.  That is, he was in for six years.  I don't know if he loved the Guard but he didn't complain about it.  Anyhow, we were in during the Cold War, which is significant here as it means that during our six years of service we were trained in, and told to expect, fighting the Red Menace.

It wasn't really obvious at the time that the Red Menace was having serious problems.  Reddit Marxists would claim that's because "real" Socialism has never been tried, but the experiment wasn't working well and Poland left the orbit, followed by the collapse of the USSR.  China was still a menace at the time, of course, but it wasn't acting like Wilhelmian Germany yet and was mostly a menace in its own neighborhood.  Of course there was North Korea, like now, which makes a theme out of menacing.

Anyhow, during the Cold War era reservists didn't see much activation for small wars as, for one reason, there weren't very many small wars that the U.S. directly got into, as once it did, they turned into big wars.  So, while the US messed around in central Africa and in Central America, it mostly did it in the late Cold War stage through proxies or clandestinely.  

Once the USSR collapsed, that changed.  In 1980 going into a war in Iraq would have been dicey with the USSR so near.  In 1990, with the Soviet Union folding up, not so much.

So we drilled and trained and went to war games.  But we never shot at Ivan, or Lee, or Chan.  

Which is just fine.

But apparently that's not good enough for the Federal Government if you are seeking employment.

Cold War reservists can't claim veterans status of Federal employment forms.

My supposition is that post Cold War ones called into active service for various wars we've fought since 1990 can, because they were activated and therefore qualify.

Which is odd as Phil and I are veterans for other things.  Indeed, it was once suggested to me that for some sort of vaccination I ought to go to the VA, which wouldn't have occurred to me otherwise.

Is Phil right that this is unfair?

Well, my instinct is that he's right.  We served for six years in a climate which actually was dangerous to some degree.  If there'd been the war we were training for, we would have had to go, and there's a good chance a lot of us wouldn't have come back.  Our combat rating was as high as the Regular Armies, and just because we were also training from home doesn't really make an intrinsic difference in that.  Sgt. Smith serving in the RA at Ft. Sill and Sgt. Smith working at Haliburton in Wyoming both would have seen the same combat experience.  But only one of them is eligible to claim veterans status for Federal employment.

Without knowing for sure, I suspect that some of this is a legacy of really long prejudice in the active military against the Guard, and some of it is lingering prejudice from the Vietnam War.  Thanks to Robert Strange McNamara and his bad of deluded technocrats combined with the bumbling of Lyndon Johnson the Guard was not deployed to the Vietnam War until late.  The irony is that the US used the Guard in every major war of the 20th Century and couldn't have fought any of them, save for Vietnam, without the Guard.

The mishandling of the Army, including its reserve components, during the Vietnam War nearly destroyed the entire Army during the war and didn't lasting damage to the Guard's reputation.  Often missed in the story is that by end of the Vietnam War the U.S. Army was in such bad shape that it was rapidly reaching the point of combat ineffectiveness in the war and it was in a very sorry situation everywhere else.  The Guard had declined during the war as well as it became a haven for those trying to evade active service, although following the war it rapidly became a haven for combat vets that weren't able to adjust back to civilian life, meaning that it had an inordinate number of combat veterans.  By the late 1970s both forces were rebounding and today they're both excellent.

Be that as it may, the intentional decision not to deploy the Guard during the Vietnam War in order to avoid community discontent by removing a large number of men from any one town lead to some prejudice against it that lingered really until the Gulf War.  Never mind that those soldiers who served in it during the Cold War would have been just as likely to die in any major conflict as a soldier of the Regular Army, and also never mind that by and large the US avoided the small wars that its fought since the collapse of the Soviet Union during the Cold War, out of a fear that they'd turn into big wars.  And, as noted, the Regular military has had a prejudice against the Guard that runs back to the 19th Century, even though time and time again its proven unmerited.

So, while I don't know this for certain, I suspect that Guardsmen and Reservists whose Regular service was for training, no matter how long, are dissed in Federal employment due to a legacy of this prejudice.

Or maybe because I was a Guardsmen who holds an Honorable Discharge from the Regular Army, I just think its unfair as Phil does.  A personal connection with things will do that.

I'll note by the way that for some of us, that six years meant a lot more than "drills on weekends and two weeks in the summer".  For one thing, some summer ATs actually run three, not two, weeks in length.  Be that as it may if I include time in which I was simply employed at the armory by the unit in the summer, it's add about eight months of service to my original RA three, which would give me element months.  Add to that actual drill times and training periods outside of the summer, I'm up over that.  I figured once that I had about two years of time, cumulative, serving.

No matter, it wasn't twenty reserve time.  So you can't claim the status for Federal employment purposes.  It doesn't matter if your job was combat arms and the guy you are competing against manned the soft serve ice-cream machine in San Diego. . .he's getting the status and you are not.

Oorah.

The Old Rules on Male/Female Employment remain more than people imagine.

It's really common for articles to appear once per year decrying, and legitimately so, the inequality between the pay of men and women.

It's not that easy of a story, however, as often men's pay is due to their being in occupations that men gravitate towards and women do not, and often they're hard, physical and dangerous jobs.  In Wyoming, where the income inequality is huge, lots of men have in recent decades worked as oilfield roughnecks.

Very few women have.

But it's a well paying job.

Statistics report that women still make less in truly equal positions, such as, supposedly, female lawyers making less then men, but I somewhat doubt those figures and if that was true, it's rapidly ceasing to be true.

The point may be that, in spite of the efforts of the Woke to compel people to believe that all occupations are gender neutral, in reality they aren't, and men and women tend to gravitate towards certain types of employment.

And one of those areas is the home, for women.

I don't mean to suggest that this is a poor choice in any fashion whatsoever, but rather note that this is a reality.

The reason that this came to mind, although I've thought about posting on it before, is also due to a discussion with a friend. The friend just turned 50 years of age and is now really focused on retirement.

It's an odd focus in his case as he has five children and none of them are out of school yet.  None. That means that he has years and years to go in which they'll be in school, and then in university.  I don't know the ages of his younger kids so I don't really know how that plays out, but it would mean that he'd be at least 60.

I'd also note that his wife opted to stay home to raise the five.

In our conversation, he mentioned age 55, but that's not realistic in his case at all  Be that as it may, it turns out to be the case that at age 55, or maybe 55.5, a person can start drawing on their 401K in some fashion.

Now, this isn't retirement advice as I haven't studied this and I don't know what the parameters are, but I hit 55.5 over two years ago and that therefore was an interesting fact.  It was an interesting fact right up until it dawned on me, which was pretty quickly, that my long suffering spouse is a little over ten years younger than I am.

That's significant as when people look at retirement they ought to be looking at the burn rate of their retirement savings.  Will you have enough, that is, to last until you die? 

Nobody really knows when they're going to die, of course, but a person retiring at age 55 probably ought to expect to live at least to their point of life expectancy, if not longer, even though they very will might not.  It'd be the pits to burn through retirement by 65 and then be waiting for the Social Security check to arrive to buy groceries.  Of course, that may well mean that a person in that position may die by 57 and never have retired.  That may sound extreme but my father died at age 62 and he never retired.  For that matter, his father was in his 40s when he died, and my long lived mother's father was 58 when he died.  He was medically retired, however, at the time, not a pleasant situation either.

Anyhow, if you are happily figuring "hey, I'll have enough to retire at 55 if I plan on living until 80, when the last drop of my savings runs out", but your wife is 45. . . . , well perhaps you better rethink that.

And here's where the basic nature of the sexes comes back in.

At least in my generational cohort, a lot of women aren't as well educated as men, and their employment choices are therefore much more limited. They aren't absent, but they're limited.  My wife's a good example.  She has some post high school education, but not at the same level that I do.  

Now, lots of professional men I know have a wife that's also a member of the same profession. They probably met at school or work.  But here's where the difference comes back in again.  I've known a fare number of women who have dropped out of their professional employment in order to stay home with children.  I've known exactly one man, and only one, who has done the same.

Why is that?

Well, that's because its a feature of The Old Law.  It may be the case that society holds that men and women should each have equal employment, but in reality, biology makes this a different matter.  Men can father children, but they can't give birth to them, they aren't physically equipped to feed them when they are infants, and they aren't really emotionally equipped to nurture them when they are young.  They just aren't.  Women are.

Which is an application of biological reality and therefore, fine.

It also means, however that the iron law of male employment is always at work.  

Men have fewer options on employment than women, in existential terms.  Sure, by nature men can be roughnecks and by biology and temperament they're suited to be soldiers, which women are not, in my view.  But they can't just drop out of the work force and stay at home like their wives can.  They cannot.

They also at some point are not only pulling the freight, but for a lot of them are pulling it after they probably shouldn't be, as they have no choice.

Is that unfair?  Well, probably some people reading this, if anyone does, are assuming I'm endorsing unfairness.  Rather, what I'm doing is noting the way of the world.  We may deem it personally unfair in all sorts of ways, but that's the way of the world.  The fact that I have to wear glasses may strike me as unfair, or that the prior two generations of my male ancestors died young and diverted the agricultural directions of our family into the office, twice, may strike me as unfair. But universal fairness isn't part of the deal.

Basic biological reality, i.e., the difference between the sexes, isn't unfair, however.  It just is.  The fact that we ignore this to the extent that we do is because; 1) in an a period of unprecedented societal wealth we can get away with ignoring that to some extent, and 2) in the advance stage of the industrial revolution we live in, we've forced, for a bunch of reasons (many just societal) women into the work force full scale the way we did with men in the late 20th Century and 3) with really advanced technology and outsized industrial might, we haven't had to fight and evenly matched wars or quasi evenly matched wars since the end of the Vietnam War (which was evenly matched in part due to the competence of the NVA, and in part due to the fact that we also had to worry about full scale wars in Europe and South Korea, and elsewhere, the entire time).

So what of that?  Well, not much.  Just that the old existential laws are never far from the surface, no matter how much we might imagine that we're exempt from them.