Sunday, July 14, 2019

An incredible hoax-like multi-gender paper made it to astro-ph

Tom Anderson has pointed out a tweet by Prof Janice Fiamengo:


And indeed, a few days ago, an unbelievable paper was posted to arXiv.org and classified in astro-ph as the primary archive. The title is
The Nonbinary Fraction: Looking Towards the Future of Gender Equity in Astronomy
Well, the list of authors is even more interesting and I copy it from the title page of the PDF file:
Kaitlin C. Rasmussen (she/they), Erin Maier (they/them), Beck E. Strauss, (they/them), Meredith Durbin (they/them), Luc Riesbeck (they/them), Aislynn Wallach (they/them), Vic Zamloot (they/them), Allison Erena (they/them)
Very nice. Note that you not only have to accept many genders to understand this list. You also have to abandon the rules of English grammar because "they" may be a case of "she". Well, all other authors are individually known as they/them which is great. Formally, their problem no longer seems to be the inability to identify and accept their own sex. Their problem seems to be the inability to determine "their" number – most sane individuals can count themselves and obtain the result 1. ;-)



Cornell University, the owner of arXiv.org

By the way, the 19th century Czech had a fancy formal way to refer to other people. Instead of "you" (which exists in the singular and plural form in Czech and the plural form may be used as the polite singular one, too), people were saying "they" ("oni"). This way of conversation was probably inspired by German – where "you" and "they" may be expressed by "Sie" – and was known as "theying" ("onikání").



I am sorry, Paul Ginsparg, but you have an incredible mess in your team of moderators. Some of them clearly fail to do their work. The astro-ph.IM subarchive where this paper was posted is defined in the following way:
astro-ph.IM - Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics (new, recent, current month)
Detector and telescope design, experiment proposals. Laboratory Astrophysics. Methods for data analysis, statistical methods. Software, database design
Does it match the content of the paper?



Let's look at the abstract.
Gender equity is one of the biggest issues facing the field of astrophysics, ...
No, the idea that there should be "gender equity" in astrophysics is just a delusion enforced by a group of mentally unhealthy individuals who encourage each other to live in a fantasy land and lie to themselves about the correlations between the sex and interests or skills – if not about the basic parts of their identity.
... and there is broad interest in addressing gender disparities within astronomy.
The only reason why millions of people are interested in this condition is that people generally want to watch hardcore whackodoodles because they are entertained by it. Aside from those who are entertained by this lunacy, everyone else only pretends to be interested.
As a result, they adopt a normative view of gender as a binary choice of 'male' or 'female', ...
First of all, "gender" is a grammar category. The correct attribute to classify organisms is called "sex". Second, the fact that healthy mammals (and many other species) are split into two sexes – male and female – isn't a "normative view". It is a scientific, empirical fact. Most kids who aren't abused by the adults learn this fact when they're 2 or 3 years old. Astronomers could want to know that the symbols ♀ and ♂, Venus and Mars, are being used for the two sexes – they're taken from the planets whose orbits are adjacent to Earth's. Note that there are two such adjacent planets, one is closer to the Sun and one is further from the Sun. There aren't 26 such planets or signs.

And it goes on and on and on. The declared purpose of the paper is:
This paper aims to address the future of gender equity in astronomy by recommending better survey practices and institutional policies based on a more complex approach to gender.
This sentence really means that the unhinged politically correct ideologues that are doing surveys – with the implicit agenda of encouraging "minorities" and intimidating all the sane colleagues if any such colleagues are left at all; and with implicit if not explicit absurd claims that 50% of astronomers "should" be female etc. – are not sufficiently politically correct yet. They need to upgrade all their writing and reviews to be compatible with the 26 sexes including the she/they and they/them sex. I suppose that only 1/26 of astronomers should be male then.

Is this paper about the detector or telescope design? Read the whole paper and decide! This paper could be a hoax because it's so incredible. But my personal guess – an assumption that I followed above – is that the authors mean the paper seriously.

What's scary is that there isn't any adult left in the room. There is probably no one who has screamed at Paul Ginsparg and demanded to eliminate this garbage from the astro-ph arXiv where it obviously doesn't belong. The Academia has turned into a combination of assorted perverts and cowardly spineless opportunists. I just can't respect this community as a set of humans.

No comments:

Post a Comment