May Day : Haymarket : 40 hour week no cut in pay

Members of the United Auto Workers courageously fought corporate greed at Ford, General Motors and Stellantis last fall during the historic six-week Stand-Up Strike. Because of their determination and commitment, we won record contracts with the Big Three automakers. After decades of falling behind, UAW autoworkers are finally moving forward again. We made a lot of ambitious demands at the bargaining table. One in particular may not have gotten the same attention as the reinstatement of cost-of-living adjustments or the reopening of the Stellantis assembly plant in Belvidere, Ill.—but it could also prove transformational: We aligned our contracts to expire at midnight on April 30, 2028. We are fully preparing to strike on May Day 2028, which is critically important for several reasons. The first is that, to reshape the economy into one that works for the benefit of everyone—not just the wealthy—we need to reclaim our country’s history of militant trade unions that united workers across race, gender and nationality. May Day has its roots right here in the United States—in 1886, in the streets of Chicago, where workers were organizing and fighting for the 8-hour workday. This demand was met with brutal resistance by employers, who used both vicious mercenaries and the police to violently suppress mass protests led by unions. A bomb exploded in Chicago’s Haymarket Square during a clash between workers and police on May 4, 1886, killing several police officers and others. The result was a sham trial, and seven labor leaders were sentenced to death. The cause of those Haymarket Martyrs became the cause of the working class around the world, and May 1 became an international holiday commemorating the fight of workers everywhere to reclaim their time and the value of their labor. Now, about 138 years later, May Day is celebrated as an official holiday in countries from Argentina to South Africa to Sweden to Hong Kong, just about everywhere—except its country of origin. That’s not a coincidence. The billionaire class and their political lackeys have done everything they can to white out the true history of the working class in our country. They want us to believe that corporate bosses gave workers decent wages, benefits and safer working conditions out of the goodness of their hearts. That justice and equality for people of color, for immigrants, for women and for queer communities were gifts benevolently handed down from above. But we know the truth. Every law passed, every union formed and contract won—every improvement made at the workplace—has been won through the tireless sacrifice of the working class. But if we are to truly reclaim the power and importance of May Day, then it can’t be through empty symbolism. It must be through action. We wanted to ensure our contracts expired at midnight on April 30, 2028, not as a symbolic gesture, but as a rallying cry. We’ve asked other unions to join us in setting their contract expiration dates to May Day 2028 in hopes the labor movement can collectively aspire to building the power needed to change the world. We form unions in our workplaces because we know we have far more power together than we do as individuals. What is true for workers in one workplace is true for workers across all workplaces. When unions organize together across industries and countries, our power is exponentially amplified. The fact is: without workers, the world stops running. If working people are truly going to win on a massive scale—truly win healthcare as a human right, win pensions so everyone can retire with dignity, win an improved standard of living and more time off the clock so we can spend more of our time with our family and friends—then unions have to start thinking bigger. I’ll give you an example. Last summer, during the lead-up to the contract expiration at the Big Three, I had the opportunity to meet with Teamsters General President Sean O’Brien at their headquarters in Washington, D.C. During our conversation, he pledged that no trucks driven by Teamsters would deliver parts to struck Big Three facilities. The power of UAW autoworkers withholding our labor during the Stand-Up Strike was massive. But with the Teamsters supporting our fight, refusing to deliver parts to Big Three facilities, we had even more power. It created another headache for the Detroit automakers. It created more pressure on the Big Three to settle. Now, imagine that type of worker solidarity on a much bigger scale. And because corporate greed doesn’t recognize borders, neither should our solidarity. In the UAW, we’ve seen firsthand how companies pit workers against one another. Workers in Michigan are pitted against workers in Alabama, workers in the United States are pitted against workers in Mexico, workers in North America are pitted against workers in South America. It’s a simple game. Companies shift production—or threaten to shift production—to locations where the labor is cheaper, the environmental regulations more lax, and the tax cuts and subsidies are greater. A united working class is the only effective wall against the billionaire class’ race to the bottom. For the U.S. labor movement, that means grappling with some hard truths. Like the undeniable fact that it is impossible to protect American jobs while ignoring the plight of everyone else. There’s been talk about a “general strike” for as long as I’ve been alive. But that’s all it has been: talk. If we are serious about building enough collective power to win universal healthcare and the right to retire with dignity, then we need to spend the next four years getting prepared. A general strike isn’t going to happen on a whim. It’s not going to happen over social media. A successful general strike is going to take time, mass coordination, and a whole lot of work by the labor movement. As working people, we must come together. We can no longer allow corporations, politicians and borders to divide us. It’s time we reclaimed May Day for the working class. That’s what our May Day contract expiration is all about.

AI overviews are experimental. Learn more Scientists and engineers are still debating how the Egyptian pyramids were built, but the most widely accepted theory is that the Egyptians used sledges, rollers, levers, and ropes to move large stone blocks up ramps greased with water or wet clay. The ramps were made of an embankment of brick, earth, and sand that increased in height and length as the pyramid rose. The blocks were then dragged and lifted into position. Britannica How did the Egyptians build the pyramids? - Britannica The most plausible one is that the Egyptians employed a sloping and encircling embankment of brick, earth, and sand, which was increased in height and length as the pyramid rose; stone blocks were hauled up the ramp by means of sledges, rollers, and levers. en.wikipedia.org Egyptian pyramid construction techniques - Wikipedia Most of the construction hypotheses are based on the belief that huge stones were carved from quarries with copper chisels, and these blocks were then dragged and lifted into position. Disagreements chiefly concern the methods used to move and place the stones. National Geographic What are the Pyramids of Giza—and who built them? Dec 20, 2023 — Scientists and engineers are still debating exactly how the pyramids were constructed. It's generally believed that the Egyptians moved massive stone blocks to the heights along large ramps, greased by water or wet clay, using a system of sledges, ropes, rollers, and levers. Here are some other techniques that may have been used: Quarry to construction site: Most blocks came from nearby quarries, but special stones were transported from distant locations. Wetting the sand: The sand in front of the sled may have been wetted to reduce friction. Causeways: The blocks may have been dragged on causeways made of slaked lime or tafla, a local clay. The builders may have first established true north, then worked out the other directions from that. They may have found true north by taking a sighting on a particular star in the northern sky, observing the star's rising and setting, and marking its appearance and disappearance on an artificial horizon.

$15 doesn't cut it anymore. We need more. We need unions! Share to support the Fight for a Union >> http://lil.ms/okf1/82ybj3 Anneisha wFFAU stop2quit

$15 doesn't cut it anymore. We need more. We need unions! Share to support the Fight for a Union >> http://lil.ms/okf1/82ybj3 Anneisha wFFAU stop2quit

British paediatrician Hilary Cass puts the spotlight on Australian gender clinics racing ahead of the safety data

Speed offence

British paediatrician Hilary Cass puts the spotlight on Australian gender clinics racing ahead of the safety data

BERNARD LANE APR 29

READ IN APP Speed comes with risk

Photo by Jo Coenen - Studio Dries 2.6 on Unsplash Into the unknown

Australian gender clinics have been criticised by England’s Cass review for using an experimental fast-track path to puberty blockers for children as young as age 8-9.

This practice could mean Australian minors stay on puberty blockers longer or start cross-sex hormones earlier, with no good data to predict safety or beneficial outcomes, according to a Cass-commissioned research paper reporting a landmark survey of international gender clinics.

“Puberty blockers [which suppress natural sex hormones] are intended to be a short-term intervention and the impact of use over an extended period of time is unknown, although the detrimental impact to bone density alone makes this concerning,” says the Cass report, noting that some patients discharged from the London-based Tavistock clinic were still on blockers in their early to mid-20s.

Australia’s health ministers and gender clinicians have sought to deny the local relevance of the Cass report by making vague claims about different pathways to treatment in the two countries. However, Australia’s gender clinics loom large in research commissioned by Dr Cass, especially in a survey of 15 international clinics and an independent evaluation of 21 treatment guidelines around the world.

In the newly published guideline research, not one of the three reviewers recommended use of the 2018 “Australian standards of care” treatment guideline issued by the Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) Melbourne¹.

The RCH guideline scored only 19/100 for the rigour of its development, compared with 71/100 for the more cautious and up-to-date treatment advice from Sweden. The RCH guideline—judged untrustworthy by a pioneer of evidence-based medicine, Professor Gordon Guyatt—is used by Australia’s children’s hospital gender clinics and the stand-alone Maple Leaf House clinic.

In the Cass-commissioned survey, the majority of the international clinics that responded said they did not routinely collect outcome data on their young patients. Clinics were listed by country, not name, although clues in survey responses identify some clinics. Australia had the largest number of clinics—five of the 15—in the survey.

The research paper reporting the 2022-23 survey—published in the BMJ’s Archives of Disease in Childhood—highlights the fact that three Australian gender clinics offer a “unique” pathway for “peri-pubertal” children who are given priority on the waiting list for psychological support and access to puberty blockers when eligible.

The paper says the age of entry to this pathway is 8-9, as early as Tanner Stage 1; Tanner Stage 2 marks the onset of puberty.

Answers to survey questions identify the three fast-track clinics as those of the Perth Children’s Hospital², the Queensland Children’s Hospital and RCH (which appears most responsible for entrenching the contentious “gender-affirming” treatment approach in Australia.)

In a 2018 journal article, the RCH clinic authors describe the setting up of its “innovative” single-session nurse-led assessment clinic, stating that this new “system enables those patients who will benefit most from puberty-blocking treatment to be fast tracked into the multidisciplinary assessment pathway to access treatment as required.”

The Queensland gender clinic had the shortest waiting time in the Cass survey, with just two to three appointments over two to three months³.

Writing in the BMJ earlier this month, Dr Cass said: “The rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria and mental or psychosocial health. The effect on cognitive and psychosexual development remains unknown.”

Chart: Puberty by Tanner stage. Credit: Cass report

No outcome data

The survey research paper, authored by University of York researchers commissioned by Dr Cass, notes that the Australian fast-track to puberty blockers is supported by the 2018 RCH treatment guideline for youth gender dysphoria.

But the York paper points out that “the impact of this [fast-track pathway], which might entail longer use of interventions to suppress puberty or earlier commencement of masculinising/feminising hormones, remains unknown⁴ as early studies of outcomes of interventions to suppress puberty mandated a minimum age of 12.”

> “Traditionally, ‘watchful waiting’ has been recommended to observe how gender feelings and any distress develops [in pre-pubertal children], as the evidence suggests that many children’s gender questions or concerns may not persist into adolescence.”

In 2019, RCH head of research Dr Ken Pang advertised a PhD project on the unknown effects of hormone suppression on the brain, stating “this use of puberty blocking medication typically occurs for several years”⁵.

A 2020 journal article, with RCH gender clinicians and University of Melbourne bioethicists among the authors, considers the case of 15-year-old male child “EF”, a hypothetical “non-binary” patient combining features of real cases.

After three years of hormone suppression EF’s bone mineral density has fallen to the lowest 2.5 percentile, “although there have been no fractures,” the authors say.

“EF, whose desire for biological children in the future remains unclear, wishes to continue puberty suppression until they are at least 18 years old [thereby keeping a seemingly androgynous body]. Their clinicians contact the clinical ethics consultation team to ask, ‘Is that appropriate?’”

The paper assumes, contrary to systematic reviews of the evidence, that blockers can be counted on to ease the distress of gender dysphoria and confer mental health benefits. In other words, the paper does not accept that the use of blockers with dysphoria is experimental⁶.

Three of the Melbourne authors suggest the “attractive” option of maintaining EF on blockers while making experimental use of another medication. They say that “selective estrogen receptor modulators” (SERMs) might “theoretically promote improved bone density” without growing undesired breast tissue. It is “attractive”, they suggest, despite this new medication’s side effects including hot flashes, blood clots and possibly cognitive impairment.

Another 2020 paper involving authors from the RCH clinic and the University of Melbourne contemplates the composite case of “Phoenix”, a non-binary adult requesting ongoing puberty suppression (OPS) to permanently prevent the development of secondary sex characteristics, as a way of affirming their gender identity.”

The hypothetical Phoenix is an 18-year-old girl who has mostly identified as non-binary and began hormone suppression at age 11 after she became “extremely distressed” by the appearance of breast buds and the thought of approaching menarche.

The authors declare perpetual puberty blockers “ethically justifiable”, because the possible harms would be outweighed by benefits such as “a physical appearance that better matches gender identity.”

“We have also contended that Phoenix’s request can be regarded as substantially autonomous. Arguably, medicine is moving beyond its traditional, narrow goal of promoting health, biostatistically conceived.”

Under the rubric of more ethical work to be done with non-binary adults, the authors ask, “Should a diagnosis of gender dysphoria be required for an individual to be eligible for puberty suppression?”

All this is in stark contrast to the Cass report, which says—“Puberty suppression was never intended to continue for extended periods, so the complex circumstances in which young people may remain on puberty blockers into adulthood is of concern.”

“In some instances, it appears that young adults are reluctant to stop taking puberty blockers, either because they wish to continue as non-binary, or because of ongoing indecision about proceeding to masculinising or feminising hormones.”

But the Cass report warns that “a known side effect of puberty blockers on mood is that it may reduce psychological functioning.”

“Even at Tanner stages 2-3 [roughly ages 9-13], young people have had minimal experience of their own biological puberty, and such experience as they have had may have been distressing for a wide range of reasons.


“Once on puberty blockers, they will enter a period when peers are developing physically and sexually whilst they will not be, and they may be experiencing the side effects of the blocker. There are no good studies on the psychological, psychosexual and developmental impact of this period of divergence from peers.

“However, if a young person is already on puberty blockers, they will need to make the decision to consent to masculinising [or] feminising hormones at a point when their psychosexual development has been paused, and possibly with little experience of their biological puberty.”

Video: Helen Joyce of the UK gender-critical group Sex Matters discusses the Cass report with John Anderson, a former deputy prime minister of Australia

Misguideline

In their paper on the survey of international gender clinics, the University of York authors note that the RCH treatment guideline—used by gender clinicians in Australia’s children’s hospitals and the Maple Leaf House clinic in regional NSW—had abandoned key safeguards of the 2011-14 “Dutch protocol” studies which provide the evidence base for gender medicalisation with puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgery.

Unlike the original Dutch protocol, the RCH guideline does not restrict this medicalisation to patients with gender dysphoria since early childhood who are otherwise psychologically stable. The RCH document says psychosis, depression and anxiety are not necessary barriers to starting minors on life-altering hormonal treatment which can cause sterilisation, sexual dysfunction and other poor health outcomes.

The York researchers contrast the radical RCH guideline with Finland’s more cautious 2020 treatment policy, which returned to the stricter Dutch approach after clinicians noted the poor outcomes for patients with adolescent-onset dysphoria, this being the typical case profile since around 2015. (The Dutch studies, still considered the best available evidence, have recently come under closer scrutiny for their shortcomings.)

Only the Finnish and Swedish 2022 guidelines—which recognise the very weak evidence base confirmed by systematic reviews—were recommended by the Cass report following the evaluation run by the York researchers.

The Swedish guideline was rated 71/100 for the rigour of its development and Finland’s score for rigour was 51, while the RCH guideline scored 19. The rating for the Endocrine Society’s 2017 guideline was 42 and the rigour score for the 2022 standards of care from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) was 35.

For editorial independence, the scores were 14 for RCH, 39 for WPATH and 92 for the Endocrine Society.

Australia’s health authorities typically invoke three guidelines—from RCH, the Endocrine Society and WPATH—when giving public assurances about the quality and safety of care at gender clinics.

Citing the low quality of most treatment guidelines, the Cass report recommends that “healthcare services and professionals” adopt a cautious approach⁷.

GCN put questions to the health authorities responsible for the gender clinics at the Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne, the Queensland Children’s Hospital and the Perth Children’s Hospital

Gender Clinic News is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Upgrade to paid

1 Although the RCH treatment guideline is badged as “Version 1.4 (2023)”, its 70-item reference list does not include any studies after 2018. Since 2019, a number of European countries have published the results of independent systematic reviews of the evidence base—the gold standard for testing the quality of data said to support treatment—for paediatric gender medicine.

2 Some 2021-22 decisions of the Family Court of Western Australia approving puberty blockers for minors recite the claim that “the effects of this treatment are reversible when used for a limited time for approximately three to four years.” That claim is attributed to the 2017 re Kelvin decision of Australia’s Family Court, which in turn seems to have relied on a draft copy of the 2018 RCH guideline and an affidavit of the RCH clinic director Dr Michelle Telfer. However, the guideline itself does not give a time limit after which the effects of puberty blockers may be irreversible.

3 Whistleblower psychiatrist Jillian Spencer lodged a complaint with Queensland’s Office of the Health Ombudsman when she became aware that a troubled child had been prescribed puberty blockers after only two appointments at the state’s gender clinic. The ombudsman took no action, according to Dr Spencer.

^ 4 The risky lowering of the minimum age for puberty blockers at the London-based Tavistock clinic is a key theme of the Cass report. Under paediatrician Russell Viner, the Tavistock’s “early intervention” study recruited children from age 12. Although preliminary data from the study was not encouraging, the Tavistock in 2014 rolled out early blockers as routine treatment without emulating the more careful patient selection of the original Dutch protocol. In 2016, RCH gender clinic nurse Donna Eade visited Professor Viner in London to learn about the Tavistock model, thanks to the $50,0002 Dame Elisabeth Murdoch nursing scholarship. Ms Eade was accompanied by the RCH clinic director, Dr Michelle Telfer. At the time, full results of the Tavistock’s early intervention study remained unpublished. As for RCH, it had already given puberty blockers to a (physically advanced) 10-year-old child known as “Jamie”, following a 2013 appeal court ruling. The trial judge had noted the reassurances offered by a senior endocrinologist, identified only as “Dr G”. The judge wrote: “Dr G saw no problems in carrying out the first stage of treatment [being puberty suppression]. It is fully reversible. It has no side effects. As he said, ‘Endocrinologists have been prescribing it for years in children much younger than [Jamie], to arrest precocious puberty’. It would enable Jamie’s mental development to proceed ‘normally’, without the ‘terrible impediment’ of gender dysphoria.” None of these reassurances survives scrutiny after the Cass report.

5 A 10-year review at the RCH gender clinic—covering patients first seen between 2007 and 2016—did not report any data on the duration of puberty blocking treatment. The authors of the resulting journal article noted that “pubertal status was not always uniformly documented in the clinical notes and was therefore not extracted or analysed”. The review did not capture the recent dramatic growth in patient numbers. From 2007-2013, the clinic had less than 100 new referrals; from 2014-2020 there were 1,830 new referrals.

6 Public health authorities in Finland, Sweden, and England have concluded, explicitly or implicitly, that the use of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria is experimental and should be confined to ethically controlled clinical trials.

7 The Cass report says it is “imperative” that gender clinic staff be “cognisant of the limitations in relation to the evidence base and fully understand the knowns and the unknowns.”

You're currently a free subscriber to Gender Clinic News. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Upgrade to paid SHARE LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2024 Bernard Lane 548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104 Unsubscribe Get the appStart writing

White supremacy is historically-socio-economically structural. In personal interactions , indivduals can't act "just as they please", but with the white supremacist tradition of dead generations weighing like a nightmare of the brains of the living.

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past. The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living..."

White supremacy is historically-socio-economically structural. In personal interactions , indivduals can't act "just as they please", but with the white supremacist tradition of dead generations weighing like a nightmare of the brains of the living.

Humans aren’t inherently selfish – we’re actually hardwired to work together

There has long been a general assumption that human beings are essentially selfish. We’re apparently ruthless, with strong impulses to compete against each other for resources and to accumulate power and possessions. If we are kind to one another, it’s usually because we have ulterior motives. If we are good, it’s only because we have managed to control and transcend our innate selfishness and brutality. This bleak view of human nature is closely associated with the science writer Richard Dawkins, whose book The Selfish Gene became popular because it fitted so well with (and helped to justify) the competitive and individualistic ethos of late 20th-century societies. Like many others, Dawkins justifies his views with reference to the field of evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology theorises that present-day human traits developed in prehistoric times, during what is termed the “environment of evolutionary adaptedness”. How The Conversation is different: All our authors are experts. Learn more This is usually seen as a period of intense competition, when life was a kind of Roman gladiatorial battle in which only the traits that gave people a survival advantage were selected and all others fell by the wayside. And because people’s survival depended on access to resources – think rivers, forests and animals – there was bound to be competition and conflict between rival groups, which led to the development of traits like racism and warfare. This seems logical. But in fact the assumption it’s based on — that prehistoric life was a desperate struggle for survival — is false. Prehistoric abundance It’s important to remember that in the prehistoric era, the world was very sparsely populated. So it’s likely there was an abundance of resources for hunter-gatherer groups. According to some estimates, around 15,000 years ago, the population of Europe was only 29,000, and the population of the whole world was less than half a million. With such small population densities, it seems unlikely that prehistoric hunter-gatherer groups had to compete against each other or had any need to develop ruthlessness and competitiveness, or to go to war. Indeed, many anthropologists now agree that war is a late development in human history, arising with the first agricultural settlements. Contemporary evidence There’s also significant evidence from contemporary hunter-gatherer groups who live in the same way as prehistoric humans. One of the striking things about such groups is their egalitarianism. As the anthropologist Bruce Knauft has remarked, hunter-gatherers are characterised by “extreme political and sexual egalitarianism”. Individuals in such groups don’t accumulate their own property and possessions. They have a moral obligation to share everything. They also have methods of preserving egalitarianism by ensuring that status differences don’t arise. The !Kung of southern Africa, for example, swap arrows before going hunting and when an animal is killed, the credit does not go to the person who fired the arrow, but to the person who the arrow belongs to. And if a person becomes too domineering or arrogant, the other members of the group ostracise them. ǃKung woman making jewellery next to a child. ǃKung woman making jewellery next to a child. Staehler/wikimediacommons, CC BY Typically in such groups, men have no authority over women. Women usually choose their own marriage partners, decide what work they want to do and work whenever they choose to. And if a marriage breaks down, they have custody rights over their children. Many anthropologists agree that such egalitarian societies were normal until a few thousand years ago, when population growth led to the development of farming and a settled lifestyle. Altruism and egalitarianism In view of the above, there seems little reason to assume that traits such as racism, warfare and male domination should have been selected by evolution – as they would have been of little benefit to us. Individuals who behaved selfishly and ruthlessly would be less likely to survive, since they would have been ostracised from their groups. It makes more sense then to see traits such as cooperation, egalitarianism, altruism and peacefulness as natural to human beings. These were the traits that have been prevalent in human life for tens of thousands of years. So presumably these traits are still strong in us now. Of course, you might argue that if this is case, why do present day humans often behave so selfishly and ruthlessly? Why are these negative traits so normal in many cultures? Perhaps though these traits should be seen as the result of environmental and psychological factors. People protesting. There are lots of examples of humans working together for the greater good. Halfpoint/Shutterstock Research has shown repeatedly that when the natural habitats of primates are disrupted, they tend to become more violent and hierarchical. So it could well be that the same thing has has happened to us, since we gave up the hunter-gatherer lifestyle. In my book The Fall, I suggest that the end of the hunter-gatherer lifestyle and the advent of farming was connected to a psychological change that occurred in some groups of people. There was a new sense of individuality and separateness, which led a new selfishness, and ultimately to hierarchical societies, patriarchy and warfare. At any rate, these negative traits appear to have developed so recently that it doesn’t seem feasible to explain them in adaptive or evolutionary terms. Meaning that the “good” side of our nature is much more deep-rooted than the “evil” side. Psychology Evolution Anthropology Racism Primates Early humans Evolutionary psychology Modern humans Selfishness Try our weekly podcast Enjoy The Conversation? Now you can listen to us as a podcast. Each week, scholars from around the world provide informed context on the biggest news headlines and explain fascinating new research on everything from new particle physics to Brazil's militarized democracy. Listen to a new episode of The Conversation Weekly every Thursday. Save for later

Trumpy has adopted KKK policy that racism against white people is the predominant racism in America

Trumpy has adopted KKK policy that racism against white people is the predominant racism in America

Trumpy has adopted KKK policy that racism against white people is the predominant racism in America

Rolling Stones gather no moss

Passage of harsh anti-LGBTQ+ law in Iraq

Ancestor piety , original culture and language, is using things and words to represent people who no longer exist.

CB: Symboling is ,as I like to explain it , using something to represent something it is not. Imaginary beings are using something ( words or drawing or sculpture ) to represent something that doesn't exist or nothing. Math is all that. Numbers don't exist except in the imagination . Lines in geometry are infinitely long, but there are no infinitely long lines in reality , only in imagination.

Ancestor worship , original culture and language, are using things and words to represent people who no longer exist.

Kelly Smith: "Hmmmmmm I dig this concept. It reminds me of the a priori/a posteriori knowledge distinction, which I am a big fan of thinking about. In this vein, Stanford has a great philosophy site but this seems to be a pretty nice article too: http://www.iep.utm.edu/apriori/". Just for those who want more info cuz it's super fucking fascinating shit"

CB: Yes , I have an interest in a priori / a posteriori knowledge since my philosophy 101 teacher had us thinking about it ; Kantian issues .

Knowledge from ancestors is from experiences that are a priori to the living generation's experiences ; it  is  not spun out of thin air by the living individual.

As far as scientific knowledge, Newton said he stood on the shoulders of giants. The Giants were his dead scientist ancestors .

CB: For me , original human society (at least , 200,000 ya) is given qualitatively greater wisdom about the struggle for existence than any other species, even close species like chimps, because to a significant extent the living generation is able to share the experiences of many, many past dead generations. Instead of 50 living heads only , there are 1000 heads from the past inside the living 50 heads as language and culture.

YESS!!!!!! I think about this constantly!!! And the internet is such a fantastic bridge to the past and the future even, like whaaaattt

CB: Yes the Internet is a leap; as writing was a leap from the Stone Age.

Todd L. VanPool: Relevant article talking about the universality of ancestor worship...

Steadman, Lyle B., Craig T. Palmer, and Christopher F. Tilley. "The universality of ancestor worship." Ethnology 35.1 (1996): 63-76.

Emotions don't exist except in the imagination, correct?

Well, they often correspond to physiological changes. Changes in breathing, hormonal changes, and so forth. If someone hits your system with a lot of adrenaline or suppresses your thyroid hormone production, it will have consistent impacts on emotions for example. "Love" likewise corresponds to certain physiological responses. So, emotions are not completely imaginary, even if something like "love" exists in the mind.

We can track "love" through chemical changes to different areas of the brain.  As well as fear, anger, lust and a host of basic human emotions.

Part of the emotion is memory, memory of a past sensation and accompanying memory then, no ?

Emotions are not imaginary. They are sensations and memories , both of which exist in the brain; are material . Memories correspond to past sensations. They are "images", drawings , recordings of past sensations.  They are semi-symbols of those past sensations, the way a drawing is semi-symbolling

to represent what it depicts. A drawing is not what it represents , but it imitates, is not arbitrarily related to what it represents; not the way full symbols, like most words , do not imitate in anyway what they represent.

A major proportion of human memories are of symbols , especially words. Many memories of Culture as material, not mystical,  "soul" transcending generationally  the mortality of all individual Selves; cultural immortality, eternity , symbolized as gods.emotions are of words or concepts of emotions.

Since 6,000 years ago there is a lot of what you are talking about, Devin Boyd, I must agree with you completely on that.

I'm trying to use science to get to how human society was 200,000 years ago when our 23 chromosome pairs were set : original human nature in our genes. I'm thinking it was super peaceful among everybody in the 25 to 50 person bands, and peaceful between bands . They were organized based on kinship , family relations connecting everybody. The kinship was organized based on ancestor worship , tradition to dead ancestors of family .

Comeback Joe Biden Mahomes coming back some more

Right wing motive for opposing abortion is that it reduces the _white_ population , not an honest moral objection.

Wednesday, June 29, 2022 Racist motive of opponents to abortion revealed by Freudian slip "And GOP Rep. Rodney Davis, one of the last moderates in the Republican caucus, fell to Trump-backed Rep. Mary Miller, who at a rally with the former president this weekend described the Supreme Court decision as “a victory for white life.” A spokesman said she meant to say “right to life.” Right wing motive for opposing abortion is that it reduces the _white_ population , not a moral objection.

Sucheta’s womanifesto

“Trying to explain anything to a bunch of hostile post-modernists whose only argument against a dissenting opinion is to send dissenters to gulags is sort of useless, but at least I can say I tried. Sex is biological and gender is an oppressive patriarchal construct that attributes certain behaviour and roles on the basis of sex. Trying to bring in the question of people with genital defects, ambiguous genitalia and other biological defects which are very rare is a mere distraction. It's like saying that having sight isn't a normal, biological feature because some people are born blind.

Gender is oppressive because it has been used to restrict, confine and oppress women by mounting certain expectations on them and forcing various restrictions on them. Biology also plays a major role in the oppression of women. Women are often subjected to sexual violence, attempts to control their reproductive choices and they are vulnerable on account of their biology too. Scientific research has proved that there's no difference in male or female brains. The only difference between men and women lies in their reproductive functions.

Gender roles are oppressive even for men, to an extent. If a man chooses to discard masculinity and do whatever he pleases...wearing dresses or makeup, learning how to knit, etc., well, more power to him. Wearing dresses or makeup doesn't make someone a woman because being a woman isn't a feeling, it's a biological fact. In fact, there is no such thing as "feeling like a woman". If you subscribe to that line of thought, then you're actually validating gender roles, you're actually saying that gender is not a construct, that women feel and act a certain way, and men feel and act a certain way. It is this notion of gender essentialism that feminists have fought against. Women have fought for the right to work outside of their homes, to wear what they want to and behave however they want.

The transgender movement isn't breaking down gender. It's actually reaffirming gender stereotypes when men say they "feel like a woman". There's no such thing as feeling like a woman. Being a woman is not a feeling, unless you affirm gender roles and femininity. Liking things that are stereotypically associated with women doesn't make you a woman, it makes you a gender non-confirming man.

It is also ridiculous that having lived lives steeped in male privilege, men now tell women how to be feminist. In many feminist conferences, "trans women" have prevented women from discussing periods, childbirth, contraception, even breast feeding because they find it triggering. They insist on not respecting the right of women to organise independently. Anyone who criticises them is threatened with violence, rape etc. which is typical male behaviour. This movement runs parallel to the MRA movement. When trans people complain about violence and oppression, let me point out that that violence is committed against them by men, not women. Yet they spend all their energy fighting feminists. The MRAs love this!

Does this somehow mean I hate so-called transpeople? I don't. I want all people to be free from all oppression and violence. But I will not have a man tell me what a woman is. Patriarchy has done that for thousands of years and the trans movement is its glorious descendant. It's interesting to note that most trans people are "male to female" and mostly white.

The trans movement has effectively moved the left away from issues like labour rights, workers' movements etc. We are making a huge mistake by co-opting post-modern politics. We know have trans-racial people, trans-disabled people and trans-species people. This has opened up Pandora's box and the only people who have benefited are the powers-that-be.

If I'm banned for this post, so be it.”

On May 5, 1862, the Mexican army defeated the French in the Battle of Puebla. This prevented French Emperor Napoleon III from supplying weapons to the Confederacy during the Civil War. Napoleon III had planned to trade weapons for cotton with the Confederate states during France's invasion of Mexico.

On May 5, 1862, the Mexican army defeated the French in the Battle of Puebla. This prevented French Emperor Napoleon III from supplying weapons to the Confederacy during the Civil War. Napoleon III had planned to trade weapons for cotton with the Confederate states during France's invasion of Mexico.

How Cinco De Mayo Prevented the Confederacy's Win in the Civil War (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-cinco-de-mayo-prevented-the-confederacys-win-in-the-civil-war-2022-

On May 5, 1862, the Mexican army defeated the French in the Battle of Puebla. This prevented French Emperor Napoleon III from supplying weapons to the Confederacy during the Civil War. Napoleon III had planned to trade weapons for cotton with the Confederate states during France's invasion of Mexico. https://www.businessinsider.com › ... How Cinco De Mayo Prevented the Confederacy's Win in the Civil War (https://www.businessinsider.com/how-cinco-de-mayo-prevented-the-confederacys-win-in-the-civil-war-2022-5#:~:text=On%20May%205%2C%201862%2C%20the,during%20France's%20invasion%20of%20Mexico.)

UAW renaissance