Many of you know and watch Prof Janice Fiamengo who is smart, sensible, articulate, and anti-feminist, among other qualities.
But because this is a truly intersectional ;-), conservative physics blog (the kind of a website that activists at Google want to eliminate from your searches, despite the huge risk that I will help to liquidate their increasingly evil company and erase $1 trillion of stockholders' paper wealth), and she talked about another, half-hostile intersection last week, I decided it was sensible to encourage some of you to watch her 23-minute-long February 6th monologue, "Meet the New SJW Physics":
Fiamengo started by saying that she had thought that as the ultimate hard science, physics was immune towards the SJW stuff. Well, I have thought so, too. Physics has even kept its independent objective character during the totalitarian communism – at least at almost all times. But I must return a not quite symmetric nicety to her: I have thought that humanities have been completely devoured by the SJW stuff. But for some reason, Janice Fiamengo doesn't have a problem to be a full professor of English at the University of Ottawa in the democratic socialist country of Canada.
She has discussed the unfriendly anti-Strumia Particles for Justice petition and I don't want to frustrate us with it again right now. Incidentally, the counter-petition is doing fine and will be sent to the director of CERN.
As you probably know by now, a particularly unhinged young "progressive" activist (and a quantum-information-in-gravity theorist) Daniel Harlow is the main (or only) author of the "Particles for Justice" diatribe. But she has found some other gems, too.
In Fall 2018, a group of hundreds of people from the physics and astronomy departments signed the following
Also, some letters representing the newly invented sexes and orientations (H,I,J,K, for example) are still missing in your headline, comrades. (Once your movement explodes in China, the list of sexes will be much more diverse because the Chinese distinguish thousands of letters.) Please once you fix the errors, don't forget to add my name in the acknowledgements. (We are very thankful to Luboš Motl's brilliant corrections – but this praise doesn't make him co-responsible for the toxic garbage in this letter if any garbage is left.) That document "calls to action" and urges everyone to support the hypergender, transsupersymmetrically sexual, sexy supersplit, sex-intersex-intercourse students, genderqueer, non-sexadecimal, non-binary, and other students you have never heard of.
They criticize Donald Trump for believing that one's sex is either male or female and claim:
As a community of scientists, we contest that defining a person’s sex or gender is “grounded in science” or is “objective.” We affirm that both gender and sex are not determined at birth, not defined by genitals or genetics, and not exclusively binary. Furthermore, the institution of science, particularly the field of genetics, has a long history of being used to justify the infliction of violence on marginalized communities.The error in the first sentence is that the two parts of that sentence are illogically exchanged and one "not" is missing. The corrected logic reads:
We contest defining a person's sex [as a person's sex, via genes or genitals], and therefore we are not scientists.On the contrary, Ladies, Semiladies, Hyperladies, Queergentlemen, Transgentlemen, Quaternary+ and Octadecimal Ladies, and last but not least Gentlemen, and other groups of signatories.
You may ritually call other signatories of that ludicrous pamphlet "scientists" but this won't make this label less laughable. Not only you fail to be scientists. You can't be considered full-blown alumni of a kindergarten and if you really "contest" these basic facts about life on Earth, you need to return your kindergarten diplomas and especially the kindergarten diplomas summa cum laude. The signatories' parents should retest their kids – whether they still wet their bed.
Sex – the human individual's sexual identity – is determined by the genitals or genes (XY or XX; after all, the genitals are built according to the genes, too) and the gender is a generalized construct that copies the sex whenever the sex is sufficiently well-defined. Any assignment of sex and genders that contradicts the answer from genes and genitals is a fantasy and any claim that this fantasy is on par with – or even superior to – the answer from genes and genitals is a full-blown and self-evident attack on the basics of the scientific thinking. In very special contexts, some people may be left in their fantasy land but no one can expect the whole mankind – let alone the genuine scientists who care about the facts, not fantasies – to cooperate on the construction of that fantasy.
The only real exceptions from the simply defined male (XY) and female (XX) beings are true XX+XY hermaphrodites (0.005%) and then those with the Klinefelter syndrome (XXY, 47 chromosomes in total) which are usually labeled "men" for obvious reasons (in between the legs) although they're infertile, usually lack the proper beard, and develop some breasts and wide hips (about 0.1% men; I forgot these men's most terrible defect is the absence of frontal baldness LOL); and XXYY and XXXXY groups which are 20-50 times or 80-100 times rare than XXY, respectively. Note that e.g. Down's syndrome is also a chromosomal disorder but it affects the 21st (out of 23 pairs), sex-unrelated, chromosome (which comes in a triplet instead of a pair).
I have looked at the list of signatories in this LGFEDCBA+ letter. The percentage of the people who are known to me is much smaller than in the letter of "100 scientists against Strumia". But make no mistake about it: even this totally insane LGFEDCBA+ letter contains names such as Daniel Harlow, Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Amanda Peet, Matthew Buckley, and Kyle Cranmer, among others.
Fiamengo has also analyzed a man named Moses Rifkin (an aßhole from some preparatory school where he was allowed to brainwash students by his extremist ideology and intimidate, blackmail, and offend students for their being white) and a lady whose name I have already forgotten because unlike Rifkin's, that name is no longer in any window I see. All these people have criticized science for being an important player in the oppression of their privileged groups. They are demonstrably anti-science activists, among other things, and it's puzzling why the people with these attitudes were ever "welcome" to science.
Malcolm Fialho – a "senior diversity officer" from a šithole that I don't remember – has reframed astronomy as a "white heterosexual anglo Christian cisgender male privilege of astronomy" – you can see that the poor good old astronomy also stands for all the successful adjectives that the radical activists viscerally hate. Fiamengo adds that some astronomers etc. loved to be shamed in this way – proclaiming ximself to be oppressive junk is how you become a moral leader (=another mindless sheep in the herd) in this sick postmodern religion.
She divides the elements of brainwashing to four different processes: indoctrination of the youth, rituals of conformity, persecution of dissenters, and the new pledges of allegiance to social justice. People who are really not SJWs – e.g. those who are SUVs or SIWs instead (Social Injustice Warriors) – face increasingly tall hurdles.
Similarly, elements of faith are: white hetero-normative cisgendered male privilege, female disadvantage, unconscious bias, systemic discrimination, violent history of science, scourge of sexual harassment, safe spaces, and path to restitution.
Dear folks in institutionalized physics who feel that you should perhaps be the one who has balls – but you also know that you're hiding them: Indeed, you should have the fudging balls, or at least a fudging dick powered by the balls, whatever. You simply need to inhale and scream the aß out of nasty bullies and kooks such as Daniel Harlow. If you increasingly fail to do anything, the Academia will deteriorate into the type of cesspool with parade sticks to beat the heretics whose hopeless status will be self-evident and irreversible. As Fiamengo correctly says, being apolitical was fine in physics until recently but this radical movement wants to make sure that being apolitical will no longer be "enough". If they will face no tangible opposition, this will actually take place.
Throughout her monologue about the SJW physicists, she has used the religious language – including "heretics" – because the analogies are clear and because the SJWs are similarly excited as the fundamentalist believers in the religions of the conventional or derived types. In this way, they undermine the values of the Enlightenment.
Maybe I overlook something but if I tried to define a meaningful high-quality scholarship in social sciences and humanities, this video by Janice Fiamengo would be my textbook example. Everything she says is spot on, somewhat insightful and originally organized, and she's conveying these facts in perfect English. Can folks in social sciences and humanities do even better? What's "easier" about social sciences and humanities is that products of the good scholarship are comprehensible to largely untrained but intelligent readers and listeners.
Her final sentence: Meanwhile, in [Asian countries], physicists are doing physics, leaving the West behind. Very true. By failing to scream at assorted Harlows and to make them cry at least for a month so that they won't try to screw science and the society in their life again, we are destroying the Western civilization.