formica

Vakar man uzsita asinis BBC Woman's Hour. Tur bija intervija ar vienu no medmāsām, kura protestē pret to, ka NHS vēlas, lai medmāsas pārģērbtos kopā ar vīrieti. (par to gadījumu šeit vienreiz rakstīju)

BBC žurnāliste bija manāmi labi izskolota lasīt no skripta, lai medmāsu attēlotu kā kaut kādu monstru tāpēc, ka viņa negrib sieviešu ģērbtuvē vīrieti. Proti, kad medmāsa aprakstīja situāciju, žurnāliste sacīja [citēju vārds vārdā]: "you used the word 'male' but what you mean is a trans woman colleague." Vai ne... It kā nosaucot viņu citā vārdā viņš vairs nebūtu vīrietis. Turklāt - nav tā, ka tas kaut ko ļoti mainītu, bet šajā gadījumā ir runa par vīrieti, kuram nav bijusi operācija, kurš nelieto hormonus un kurš ir attiecībās ar sievieti.

Tad nākamais žurnālistes mērķis bija spēlēt uz medmāsas 'ne-empātiskumu', jautājot kādēļ viņa atsakās lietot vietniekvārdus she/her, ja šī persona tādus izvēlas lietot. Protams, ja medmāsa teiktu - ok, labi, teikšu 'viņa' un teikšu 'sieviete', tad viņai varētu brukt virsū par to, ka viņa savā ļaunumā slikti izturas pret citu sievieti, atsakoties pārģērbties ar viņu vienā telpā. Medmāsa atbildēja, ka viņa attiecīgos vietniekvārdus nelieto, jo neuzskata, ka dzimumu ir iespējams mainīt. Tad žurnāliste jautāja vai viņa lietotu attiecīgos vietniekvārdus, ja šis vīrietis ģērbtos sievišķīgāk? [facepalm]

Tad, tāpēc, ka medmāsu atbalsta viena kristiešu organizācija, sākās piečakarēšanās pie tā vai viņas uzskats, ka dzimumu nevar mainīt ir kristietībā balstīts. Medmāsa atbildēja, ka šis uzskats ir balstīts gan kristietībā, gan zinātnē. Tad viņu mēģināja sākt kaunināt par kaut kādiem citiem kristiešu uzskatiem par citu tēmu, bet medmāsa labi turējās pretī, paliekot pie konkrētās tēmas. Domāju vai žurnāliste tā piečakarētos, ja viņai pretī būtu musulmaņu ticības pārstāvis - stipri šaubos.

Medmāsa stāstīja, ka NHS HR nodaļa viņām neesot nākusi pretī, bet likusi būt iekļaujošākām, paplašināt savu domāšanu un izglītoties.

Vēlos piebilst divas lietas. Vajag izbeigt lietot vārdu savienojumu 'biological woman'. Sieviete ir bioloģiska būtne. Ja mēs sakām 'bioloģiska sieviete', tad mēs pieļaujam, ka var būt vēl kaut kāda cita, tas ir līdzīgs absurds kā teikt, ka Everests ir 'ģeoloģisks kalns'.

Otra lieta, ka drīzāk vajag sacīt nevis 'safe spaces' bet 'single sex spaces'. Protams, ka visa ideja atsevišķām vietām ir tieši drošība, taču drošību garantēt pilnībā nevar. Bet, ko vajadzētu garantēt - lai sabiedrība nespiestu sievietēm uzskatīt par normu, ka, ejot uz sieviešu ģērbtuvi/tualeti/etc viņām ir jābūt gatavām tur sastapties ar vīrieti un, ja viņām tas nepatīk un viņas jūtas slikti un neērti, tad tā ir viņu vaina, jo viņas nav pietiekami iekļaujošas, izglītotas un ar pietiekami paplašinātu domāšanu.

Nu jā, processed meats ir slikti tā pat kā jebkas "processed". Visveselīgākā pārtika ir jēla, paša sagatavota gaļa. Ja tiek cepta, tad lopa taukos, nevis augu eļļās vai tml indīgos surogātos. Novārīt droši vien visveselīgāk.

2 slimi beerni un pati slima is my Aquarius retrograde. Neesam bijushi aaraa nedeelju, but i have a new lust for life jo ir atgriezusies garsha un smarzha. Tagad tikai gaidu kad chunky izveseljosies, kad smart pants beigs punjkjoties un kad R turpinaas buut strong male that gets no virus.

Plus muusu eekaa vakar bija ugunsgreeks. Looks like we need to buy a lottery ticket.

To protect and preserve

DNA and its accompanying mechanisms are clearly built to prevent change, to stay the same at all cost. The DNA doesn't just sit naked in the nucleus. It's protected by histones, which split DNA into connected links, protect it from damage, and control its condensation. On a higher level, the DNA is divided into chromosomes, which once again have mechanisms to prevent DNA from corruption. The end sequences of chromosomes are called telomeres and they serve the purpose of a buffer zone, protecting the chromosome DNA from getting damaged at its edges.

When the DNA starts to decondensate for the purpose of replication, the double helix is split into two and each of the strands starts being replicated by DNA polymerase. The polymerase does not just blindly create a complementary chain of DNA, it has a mechanism to control whether the correct nucleotides (smallest units of DNA) are present. If they aren't, the nucleotide is thrown out.

And the show still isn't over. After replication ends there is yet another set of mechanisms that control whether the DNA has been correctly replicated and folded. Topoisomerases control and repair any distortions and loops in the DNA. Nucleotide and base excision repairs once again control and fix any damage.

What I am illustrating here is that the whole mechanism is designed to combat change, which is the supposed driving force of the alleged biological evolution. Notwithstanding that most mutations are either outright damaging or neutral.

What is even more ironic, however, is that the process of small, random mutations slowly changing the genome relies on DNA replication with its elaborate repair mechanisms to begin with. Without these mechanisms, every tenth or so nucleotide would be paired wrongly, therefore the information in the DNA would immediately degenerate and fall apart into nonsense.

How did a completely random and uncontrolled chemical process build a sophisticated network of information based on a coding language (the genetic code with its specific nucleotides etc.) with a whole system designed to control and repair any deviations from the code (not unlike grammar in language or syntax in programming)? Nobody knows, but most biologists will swear up and down that they know it was created by random events. Don't ask them about the specifics though, or they may start to blush.

Sex

As a short addendum, I may add that on the macroscopic level, the division of species into two genders defies any Darwinian explanation and explicitly acts against any change in the species. In an asexual cell that simply creates clones of itself, any mutation will be preserved and passed on to future generations. When it comes to sexually reproducing organisms, there will always be alternative alleles inherited from one of the parents that can mitigate and essentially silence a damaged allele inherited from the other parent. Therefore any idea of new complex systems arising randomly (new organs and so on) by distinct parts unintentionally complementing each other is a thousandfold more unfeasible than in a simple asexual organism.

Yet again, we see in sexuality a system that acts against change. It tries to preserve the species as it is.

While some people may think, especially in the modern world, that sexuality is constructed to bring in "new DNA" this is blatantly false to anyone who possesses some understanding of biology. What it is constructed to do is to bring in the undamaged, original DNA. So yes, if you live in a small community that has an endemic disease in it, it's beneficial to bring in new blood. Not because the foreigner has some kind of a new "super" DNA, but because he carries the original, undamaged allele, whereas your tribe has, through devolution and damage, acquired a mutated one.

I may also briefly mention that animals, humans included, prefer to mate with partners of the same stock, who are not their immediate family but also not too distant. Even in the forsaken land of the USA, most marriages are between people of the same race. The mythological idea of divine incest makes perfect sense from a genetical point of view if we accept that the first, pure humans possessed no diseases in their DNA.

The God of gaps?

The atheist front of biologists, headed by Dawkins, likes to bring up the idea that those who oppose the theory of biological evolution do so only by relying on gaps in knowledge.

"We do not know how this could have arisen, therefore God did it."

While there are certainly religious people who think like this, Dawkins does not realize the irony of his statements. The entire evolutionary biology is based on gaps. Dawkins and his followers essentially say this:

"We do not know how this could have arisen, but since we are materialists, it must have been chance."

He nor any other biologist in the world can construct a sequence of mutations and events that would lead to the creation of complex biological systems, some of which I have described above. Neither is there a fossil record showing slow changes over time. Species appear and disappear suddenly from the fossil record. Animals as we know them with their organs and Baupläne, appeared out of nowhere during the Cambrian explosion.

And dare I mention the fact that sequencing of genomes has complicated the supposed evolutionary relationships between species? So much so that in current biology, there is talk of a web of life or a bush of life rather than a "tree of life".

In biology, the C-value paradox designates the conundrum of there being no relationship between the genome size and the complexity of the organism. This is another direct contradiction to the Darwinian theory. The evolutionary expectation is that as the genome of the organism grows (how it could even grow is another mystery by the way), there is more and more space for random mutations. The larger the DNA, the bigger the chance for new random mutations to occur. Therefore you would expect more complex organisms to have way larger genomes that enabled the complex organs to arise by chance. Yet this is not what we see. There are simple single-celled organisms that have larger genomes than humans. Is this not in line with the ancient idea of divine forces acting upon and shaping matter as they see fit?

Conclusion

The idea of biological evolution does not hold up. Neither does the idea of the static creation, upheld by many Abrahamists. Really, the Aryan, pagan idea of there being various subtle forces and beings affecting matter throughout ages explains biological findings the best.

I hope you have taken something from my tangent.

Lasu, ka lib.feministes neapmierināti raksta par Trampa un viņa ğenerālprokurora kandidāta sakariem ar prostitūtām. Pareizi. Bet tad tai pašā elpas vilcienā apgalvo, ka 'sex work is work' un tas sievietēm ir 'very empowering'. Ja tā, tad jau viņi dara labu darbu un palīdz sievietēm.

Ja tiešām, kā tiek apgalvots 'sex work is like any other work' tad nevienam nevajag pārmest seksuālo maksas pakalpojumu izmantošanu, neatkarīgi no viņu politiskās piederības vai statusa.

Are we out of touch?

A healthy baby is born.

-Injections administered.
-Ear and other infections develop.
-Baby receives antibiotics and antipyretics.
-More infections and deterioration of health develop.
-Even more and stronger antibiotics and antipyretics
-Allergies and eczema develop
More injections administered
-Asthma and ADHD develop
Steroids and Ritalin prescribed

The mother says thanks to a doctor for helping her baby.

Diezgan sakrīt ar manu bērnību. Hroniskais slimīgums pārgāja pēc tam, kad mani pārstāja "ārstēt".
Sarakstā trūkst
-sexual education administered
-irreversible hormone therapy with later genitalia mutilation op prescribed

Pēc ilgāka pārtraukuma šodien nācās braukt ar pārbāzto, vienmēr pusstundu kavējošo starppilsētu autobusu. Tur, kamēr pieturā stāvēju garu garajā rindā, ievēroju pirmajā sedeklī pa kreisi sēžam, mazu blondu briļļainu puiku, kaut kur uz 8max10g un blakus, kā man no attāluma un uzzmanīgi neskatoties, likās viņa mamma vai tante ar brūnu platu frizūru. Pieejot tuvāk nesanāca neievērot, ka tante patiesībā ir 25-30 gadu vecs vīrietis ar izteikti semītiskām pazīmēm. Lieli skruļaini mati, liels deguns, liela mute/lūpas, neglīta raupja tumsnēja āda. Visu laiku dīda bērnu, smejas, kaut ko stāsta un ik pēc 10 sekundēm ņem šo pilnā prisoskā un skūpsta riktīgā franču veidā. Autobuss bija pilns un nācās uzreiz spraukties uz otru galu, tāpēc nedzirdēju kādā mēlē pedofils runāja un kā atbildēja zēns, bet bija redzams, ka neraugoties uz pubertātes trūkumu, jaunais jau pieradināts pie šādas uzmanības no vecāka, svešas rases vīrieša.

Būtu bijusi iepsēja, pafilmētu tā monstra izdarības un tad ar kameru rokā pajautātu viņam un viņa grūmējamam vārdus un uzvārdus. Te, atšķirībā no simtiem citu gadījumu, kuru notiek kārtējā kretīniskā latvāņu birokrātija, būtu labs pamats iejaukties sociālajam dienestam, bet iespējams, kriminālpolicijai. Diez vai puikas vecāki tāpat vien atdod savu mazgadīgo uzraudzībā kādam mystery meat kverplim un ja arī tā, tad ir krimināli naivi.

Būtu redzams kas tāds uz tumšas ielas - ar ķieģeli pa pakausi, zābaka dzelzs purnu pa sēklinieku, kamēr tā vairs nav.

Kaut kas labs līdzsvaram.

Diezgan neglaimojoši pēdējā laikā izsakos par Guardian, bet nevaru noliegt, ka tur ir arī brīnišķīgas lietas

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/nov/18/poem-of-the-week-renacuajos-by-michael-schmidt

La Leche League ir 1956. gadā dibināta britu labdarības organizācija, kas domāta sievietēm, kurām nepieciešama palīdzība tajā dzīves posmā, kad viņas zīda savus bērnus. Šo organizāciju nesen pameta viena no tās dibinātājām un viņai sekoja citas.

( ... )

Atkal par Guardian

( ... )

Visa Amerika ar tām rebēm liekas mazliet "fake news". Tur burtiski visi personāži, ieskaitot tos, kas man imponē, ir feiki.
Nu nevar normāli pieauguši cilvēki tā uzvesties. Un tad vēl sajucina masas, visus tos bērnus, prātā.

Ļoti īss stāsts:

Es esmu vīrietis-feminists. Es uzskatu, ka sievietes ir vienlīdzīgas ar vīriešiem un drīkst dzīvot savu dzīvi kā vien viņas vēlas. Izņemot tās, kurām garšo bekons. Tās ir jāmet laukā no mašīnas un publiski jākaunina cik vien iespējams. Planētas un visu dzīvo būtņu labā.

Es arī esmu vīrietis-feminists. Man nav īsti skaidrs kāpēc sievietes grib savu sporta kategoriju, krīzes centrus, ğērbtuves un nebūt aiz restēm kopā ar vīriešiem, kāpēc viņas vispār par to cepās..droši vien tāpēc, ka nav tik pieredzējušas feminismā un tik racionālas kā es.

Kurš no mums ir lielāks feminists?

Foršs īss diskurss par džeza evolūciju. Kopumā ļoti interesants onkulis un džezs nav vienīgā viņa tēma. Erudīts vecis, kuram, patīk interesanti rantot par visādiem pet peevies. :D

jā

Sliktas ziņas vīriešfeministiem kā mūsu Boriskam (kurš gan jau tāpat sen ir pederasts, kurš sapņo par "bērnu seksuālo izglītošanu" tā kā lost cause).

jā

Hei, mankurti, hej!

Was there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate? On putting the probing knife carefully to that kind of abscess one immediately discovered, like a maggot in a putrescent body, a little Jew who was often blinded by the sudden light.

"Firstly, it’s a coherent response if - as seems to be the case for many liberal women - you really believe abortion is about to be banned in totality across the entire USA. This isn’t actually true, as far as I can make out, but let’s say you believe this. In this context, for ordinarily fertile women who don’t want to be pregnant the most prudent response is to exit the normative post-Pill libidinal economy of low-cost, no-strings sex altogether.

It doesn’t really matter how you frame your decision; the bottom line is that in this hypothetical world the safest option of all is abstinence. The predominant reaction so far from the culture-war Right to 4B announcements has been variations on “lmao, look at the state of you, it’s not like they were queueing round the block as it was”. But this strikes me as mistaken, given that (once you look past the culture-war posturing) for conservatives encouraging sexual continence was the whole point. Why not just take the W?

More fundamentally: 4B is irreducibly anti-leftist, because it rests on deliberate disciplining of desire. And the whole raison d’être of the modern Left is the abolition of all constraint, the destruction of all form, and the unchaining of desire. It follows that there can be no willed imposition of order, and especially of sexuality - not even in service to nominally progressive goals - that is not structurally reactionary. Again: why not take the W?

And I’ll add further: for all that 4B includes no marriage or babies in the pledge, as well as no dating or sex, you can colour me less than 100% convinced that women will, in aggregate, follow through on this. On the contrary: in the context of sexuality, the outcome of deliberate self-restraint is less likely to be lifelong childless singledom (though this is, of course, still a possibility for some) than opening space for romance. A rocketing rate of lifelong childless singledom is, after all, increasingly obviously the aggregate outcome of re-ordering sexuality to individual amusement, in the context of tech-enabled sterility. But anyone who assumes abstinence would have the same effect across the board is underestimating physis or - to slightly misquote Khalil Gibran - “life’s longing for itself”."


Labs raksts no Mērijas Heringtones


https://www.maryharrington.co.uk/p/4b-is-magnificently-reactionary?r=1czei&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedredirect=true

Baidens perfektā formā pēdējās publiskās parādēs. Ne miņas no demences. Laikam pareizi daži saka - perfekta varas nodošana no monarha nākamajam monarham minimonarhu ķēdē.