Oh, no you don’t! No-one must hear what you said to them, NO-ONE! I clicked through to read the thread and got this. I would like to hear the resat of the story, so if anyone knows Caractacus, tell her to get in touch and I’ll post it here.
As far as I recall, he was supporting women BIGTIME on there, exasperated with what's going on. I don't think he talked much about the reactions of the LP/WEP reps to his questions, as he was so disgusted with the way women are being treated by these Parties. He had about 10 tweets in his thread tho', all written by him, to which others answered. There was nothing in there that should have caused him to be suspended, other than, of course, Twitter hates anyone who supports and likes women.
You know what is great, you can communicate with your local MP outside of Twitter, and have good conversations with your neighborhood. Twitter doesn't need to know anything about it, because it will only make you feel like you're silenced, when actually, you're not silenced at all.
Yes. You can write to your female Labour MP and she can either a) ignore your letters or b) have her interns write something that is a cut-and-paste response to a transactivist. However, yes, on your broader point, I am not on Twitter but I write a lot of letters: I get engagement from other MP's, Ministers and Lords and Ladies; charities; journalists; a letter from the Prime Minister, and SOME of my friends don't think I am a crazy bigot and are talking to THEIR friends...
Forgot: am in an ongoing monologue with IPSO over their habit of making journalists pretend male criminals are women, and I write a lot of thank you letters. People in power who speak up need a bit of encouragement.
This is true - random sample of about 40 women approached in Axminster yesterday. Over 60% had heard of the Respect My Sex campaign, no-one who we spoke to disagreed. A few didn't engage but there was no pushback. Some were really relieved to see us, esp the mum of a thirteen year old recently diagnosed as ASD attending a school pushing the genderwoo. The genie is out of the bottle no matter what twitter tries to do. We're getting together off line and that's where the real magic happens.
Likewise, twice in fact. The last time for "offending" the "Trans-ish Inquisition". One sincerely hopes Elon Musk does buy Twitter and proceeds to a major house-cleaning there. Though more like the Herculean task of cleaning out the Augean stables ...
🙂 More in the news these days, particularly in Scotland where there seems to be some plans afoot to pardon them for getting themselves burned at the stake ..., if not apologize for doing that to them:
Don't remember where I saw it, but one recent essay argued that a pardon is basically asserting their guilt which might reasonably be seen as part and parcel of the original crime of executing them.
Remember reading Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" - highly recommended - and his description of the treatment of "witches" was simply horrifying:
Absolutely disgusting. Words are totally inadequate to express my rage at this silencing of women but women won't wheesht ,no matter how long it takes. They can't jail us all🦖💪😡🤮💔
Reminds me of a conversation I'd had years ago - with a interlocutor who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty - who had insisted that:
"I think there needs to be some internet law, á lá Godwin and Scopie, whereby invoking a dictionary definition as part of your argument results in forfeit."
Rank insanity - how can we possibly have a productive conversation if we can't agree on the definitions for the terms in question? Why I often quote Voltaire's, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."
Why I also think that the campaign by Kellie-Jay Keen - AKA, Posie Parker - to emblazon the definition for "woman" - i.e., "adult human female" - all across the UK on billboards and buildings in letters 10 feet high was absolutely brilliant. Another shot heard round the world - as opposed to flying a bunch of cows to the other side of the world which qualifies as a herd shot round the world ... 😉
More seriously, that is why I often argue that Kellie-Jay deserves Time's award for Person of the Year if not of the decade. The writing on the wall in more ways than one - which Starmer and company would do well to reflect on. "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin", indeed.
However, there's something of a fly in the ointment, something of a serious if not fatal flaw in many poltical and social policies that supposedly follow from that definition, specifically in the consequential defintion for "female". The standard biological definitions for the sexes are such that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types - which of course excludes a great many of us, about a third of us at any one time, in fact.
Consider this rather remarkably cogent summary from Paul Griffiths - university of Sydney, philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]."
"Female gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we DEFINE females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972)"
All of which knocks into a cocked-hat the "risible absurdities" of various feminists and "philosophers", including Maya Forstater and Kathleen Stock, to the effect that "biological sex in humans is immutable"; it most certainly isn't.
Given that women do not make eggs - oogenesis ceases in infancy - "DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm" means no woman is female. Seems...unproductive.
But generally, while human "females" [XXers] are born with a million or so "primary oocytes", they don't fully mature into ova that can be fertilized until after the onset of puberty:
"The succeeding phase of ootidogenesis occurs when the primary oocyte develops into an ootid. This is achieved by the process of meiosis. In fact, a primary oocyte is, by its biological definition, a cell whose primary function is to divide by the process of meiosis.[18]
However, although this process begins at prenatal age, it stops at prophase I. In late fetal life, all oocytes, still primary oocytes, have halted at this stage of development, called the dictyate. After menarche, these cells then continue to develop, although only a few do so every menstrual cycle."
So "adult human females" don't PRODUCE actual ova more than once a month.
But what that means is that prepubescent XXers are sexless; they don't acquire a sex until puberty. Same thing with prepubescent XYers. Hardly "immutable". Although it's not really a case of our sexes being "immutable" or "mutable" - such phrasing probably qualifies as category errors:
The issue or point is more to do with "male" and "female" being transitory states - like "teenager". We pass into and out of those categories depending on whether we can pay the "membership dues" - having functional gonads for "male" and "female", and being 13 to 19 for "teenager":
"sex: 2) Either of the two main CATEGORIES (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
Categories are just abstractions, our perception of shared traits; they're not "real" things in themselves. We don't, magically, become 10 pounds heavier when we pass into the category "teenager" when we have our 13th birthdays, and then lose the same 10 pounds on our 20th birthdays.
But what would you think if someone said that "teenager-ness" was "immutable"? You would think them madder than a hatter, or clueless at best. Same thing with "biological sex in humans is immutable".
Little better than the mantra of feminists, scientism-ists, and Lysenkoists to match the transloonies' "trans women are women". Pox on both their houses.
Prepubescent kids might be said or defined to be "potentially male" or "potentially female".
But adult humans are either male or female or neither - i.e., sexless - even if actual category membership might be a bit hard to determine. Why we use genitalia as proxies: adult human vagina-havers are PROBABLY females, but there are cases - complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, for one example of several - where that conclusion does not follow:
Caractacus here. I am indeed a man but no court to speak of! Thank you for all the kind comments. Hopefully there will be an update on the account suspension and my longish rant thread on here soon! 🥰
Two years after 1989, 51% of East Germans said they preferred life before reunification. Is it because you were raised Catholic -- "Kill a commie for Christ!" Howard Fast heard on the streets of NYC during a Mayday parade -- that you wallow in McCarthyism?
I have lots of words and they are all sweary.
This is awful! I am often in Twitter spaces with him and he’s a lovely man.
Why thank you - I’ve found an amazing group of GC people in spaces. 🥰
Like your name. Wonder what Armistead Maupin thinks of all this? We will probably never know
As far as I recall, he was supporting women BIGTIME on there, exasperated with what's going on. I don't think he talked much about the reactions of the LP/WEP reps to his questions, as he was so disgusted with the way women are being treated by these Parties. He had about 10 tweets in his thread tho', all written by him, to which others answered. There was nothing in there that should have caused him to be suspended, other than, of course, Twitter hates anyone who supports and likes women.
You know what is great, you can communicate with your local MP outside of Twitter, and have good conversations with your neighborhood. Twitter doesn't need to know anything about it, because it will only make you feel like you're silenced, when actually, you're not silenced at all.
Yes. You can write to your female Labour MP and she can either a) ignore your letters or b) have her interns write something that is a cut-and-paste response to a transactivist. However, yes, on your broader point, I am not on Twitter but I write a lot of letters: I get engagement from other MP's, Ministers and Lords and Ladies; charities; journalists; a letter from the Prime Minister, and SOME of my friends don't think I am a crazy bigot and are talking to THEIR friends...
Forgot: am in an ongoing monologue with IPSO over their habit of making journalists pretend male criminals are women, and I write a lot of thank you letters. People in power who speak up need a bit of encouragement.
Yes! This is the most important thing to remember. The Twitterati are operating with a false map of the world.
This is true - random sample of about 40 women approached in Axminster yesterday. Over 60% had heard of the Respect My Sex campaign, no-one who we spoke to disagreed. A few didn't engage but there was no pushback. Some were really relieved to see us, esp the mum of a thirteen year old recently diagnosed as ASD attending a school pushing the genderwoo. The genie is out of the bottle no matter what twitter tries to do. We're getting together off line and that's where the real magic happens.
Yup. That was exactly the kind of conversation that my tweet thread was recounting.
Caractacus is a man.
"The ladies of the harem of the Court of King Caractacus"
That's easy for you to say ... 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lj6rCVc-3k
Banned from Twitter, I see?
Likewise, twice in fact. The last time for "offending" the "Trans-ish Inquisition". One sincerely hopes Elon Musk does buy Twitter and proceeds to a major house-cleaning there. Though more like the Herculean task of cleaning out the Augean stables ...
Fascinating witches got a mention!
🙂 More in the news these days, particularly in Scotland where there seems to be some plans afoot to pardon them for getting themselves burned at the stake ..., if not apologize for doing that to them:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/people/bill-to-be-brought-forward-to-pardon-scots-convicted-of-witchcraft-3501871
Don't remember where I saw it, but one recent essay argued that a pardon is basically asserting their guilt which might reasonably be seen as part and parcel of the original crime of executing them.
Remember reading Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World" - highly recommended - and his description of the treatment of "witches" was simply horrifying:
https://archive.org/details/B-001-001-709
Not sure that things have improved greatly since then ...
Didn't know that but well done to him.👏👍
Absolutely disgusting. Words are totally inadequate to express my rage at this silencing of women but women won't wheesht ,no matter how long it takes. They can't jail us all🦖💪😡🤮💔
perhaps they'll just resort to shooting all the ones that overflow the gulags?
Uh oh. Someone spoke about definitions!
You’re banned until Elon cometh!
Definitions? The horror! 🙄😉
Reminds me of a conversation I'd had years ago - with a interlocutor who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty - who had insisted that:
"I think there needs to be some internet law, á lá Godwin and Scopie, whereby invoking a dictionary definition as part of your argument results in forfeit."
Rank insanity - how can we possibly have a productive conversation if we can't agree on the definitions for the terms in question? Why I often quote Voltaire's, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."
Why I also think that the campaign by Kellie-Jay Keen - AKA, Posie Parker - to emblazon the definition for "woman" - i.e., "adult human female" - all across the UK on billboards and buildings in letters 10 feet high was absolutely brilliant. Another shot heard round the world - as opposed to flying a bunch of cows to the other side of the world which qualifies as a herd shot round the world ... 😉
More seriously, that is why I often argue that Kellie-Jay deserves Time's award for Person of the Year if not of the decade. The writing on the wall in more ways than one - which Starmer and company would do well to reflect on. "Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin", indeed.
However, there's something of a fly in the ointment, something of a serious if not fatal flaw in many poltical and social policies that supposedly follow from that definition, specifically in the consequential defintion for "female". The standard biological definitions for the sexes are such that to have a sex is to have functional gonads of either of two types - which of course excludes a great many of us, about a third of us at any one time, in fact.
Consider this rather remarkably cogent summary from Paul Griffiths - university of Sydney, philosophy of science, co-author of Genetics and Philosophy:
"Nothing in the biological definition of sex requires that every organism be a member of one sex or the other. That might seem surprising, but it follows naturally from DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm. Some organisms can do both, while some can't do either [ergo, sexless]."
https://aeon.co/essays/the-existence-of-biological-sex-is-no-constraint-on-human-diversity
Likewise:
"Female gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we DEFINE females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972)"
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
All of which knocks into a cocked-hat the "risible absurdities" of various feminists and "philosophers", including Maya Forstater and Kathleen Stock, to the effect that "biological sex in humans is immutable"; it most certainly isn't.
Given that women do not make eggs - oogenesis ceases in infancy - "DEFINING each sex by the ability to do one thing: make eggs or make sperm" means no woman is female. Seems...unproductive.
Gametogenesis has to be one of the most complex and intricate biological processes going, maybe more so in females than in males:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gametogenesis
But generally, while human "females" [XXers] are born with a million or so "primary oocytes", they don't fully mature into ova that can be fertilized until after the onset of puberty:
"The succeeding phase of ootidogenesis occurs when the primary oocyte develops into an ootid. This is achieved by the process of meiosis. In fact, a primary oocyte is, by its biological definition, a cell whose primary function is to divide by the process of meiosis.[18]
However, although this process begins at prenatal age, it stops at prophase I. In late fetal life, all oocytes, still primary oocytes, have halted at this stage of development, called the dictyate. After menarche, these cells then continue to develop, although only a few do so every menstrual cycle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oogenesis
So "adult human females" don't PRODUCE actual ova more than once a month.
But what that means is that prepubescent XXers are sexless; they don't acquire a sex until puberty. Same thing with prepubescent XYers. Hardly "immutable". Although it's not really a case of our sexes being "immutable" or "mutable" - such phrasing probably qualifies as category errors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
The issue or point is more to do with "male" and "female" being transitory states - like "teenager". We pass into and out of those categories depending on whether we can pay the "membership dues" - having functional gonads for "male" and "female", and being 13 to 19 for "teenager":
"sex: 2) Either of the two main CATEGORIES (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sex
"category: 1) A class or division of people or things regarded as having particular shared characteristics.
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/category
Categories are just abstractions, our perception of shared traits; they're not "real" things in themselves. We don't, magically, become 10 pounds heavier when we pass into the category "teenager" when we have our 13th birthdays, and then lose the same 10 pounds on our 20th birthdays.
But what would you think if someone said that "teenager-ness" was "immutable"? You would think them madder than a hatter, or clueless at best. Same thing with "biological sex in humans is immutable".
Little better than the mantra of feminists, scientism-ists, and Lysenkoists to match the transloonies' "trans women are women". Pox on both their houses.
I guess "adult human who was observed at birth as likely to become female" would require several extra pounds....or a very creative hatter.
🤔😕 What?
Prepubescent kids might be said or defined to be "potentially male" or "potentially female".
But adult humans are either male or female or neither - i.e., sexless - even if actual category membership might be a bit hard to determine. Why we use genitalia as proxies: adult human vagina-havers are PROBABLY females, but there are cases - complete androgen insensitivity syndrome, for one example of several - where that conclusion does not follow:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(statistics)
I guess "adult human vagina-havers" is PROBABLY a case of some kind of insensitivity.
He correctly sexed Susie Green's child. He also expressed concern about children being castrated. Absolute monster! Obviously he had to go.
Caractacus here. I am indeed a man but no court to speak of! Thank you for all the kind comments. Hopefully there will be an update on the account suspension and my longish rant thread on here soon! 🥰
Elon Musk and tweeting on a volcano
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/tweeting-volcano-twitter-elon-musk-weimar/amp/
Love this article on this subject 😉
Two years after 1989, 51% of East Germans said they preferred life before reunification. Is it because you were raised Catholic -- "Kill a commie for Christ!" Howard Fast heard on the streets of NYC during a Mayday parade -- that you wallow in McCarthyism?