My Blog

Cognitive scientist. My bio and table of contents are in my pinned post.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

Contents

Personal:

My cognitive-science degree

My bio

Adult images of me (male-female). I am male. Adults only.

Feminism:

Feminism is irrational

Feminism is anti-equality

Feminism’s Offenses

False rape-accusations are ethically equivalent to rape

Debunking Violence

Feminists Methodically Sexually Harassing People

Feminists are overwhelmingly unintelligent, childish, and hostile

100% of feminists demonstrate impaired comprehension

Modern feminism is a mental disorder

Transgender:

“He/she” and “man/woman” refer to sex, not gender

Transgender advocacy is attacking society

Transgender people are trying to coerce us into providing them a free service

Transgender Advocacy’s Attack on the Language of Sex

A significant number of transgender people pester heterosexuals for unwanted homosexual sex and pester homosexuals for unwanted heterosexual sex, trying to demonize both heterosexuality and homosexuality

Mental Illness Co-Occurring with Gender Dysphoria

LGBTQIA:

LGBTQIA Acting Hateful

LGBTQIA Bringing Rejection on Themselves

The LGBTQIA are science deniers

LGBTQ people have more mental illness than normal people

Evolution disfavors homosexuality and asexuality

The asexual movement is a rape-fantasy and spam

LBGTQIA Facts

Leftism:

Leftist Degradation-Tactics

Debunking Anti-AI Dysfunction

“Slur” gets the block

Other:

How to Argue Persuasively

Response-Analysis: Debunking Rebuttals

Debunking “You Cited Your Own Document”

Comments deleted and accounts blocked for irrelevancies, disproved claims, baseless accusations, and ignorant complaining about AI.

On social-media: Substack, X (Twitter), Tumblr, and Facebook.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

“Toxic Femininity”

Over half of violent relationships are violent in both directions. Furthermore:

in nonreciprocally violent relationships, women are the perpetrators in more than 70% of cases;

women are as physically aggressive as men (or more) in their relationships with their spouses or opposite-sex partners; and

18-year-old women are observed to initiate physical aggression at four times the rate of men, and the rate of initiation by 21-24-year-old women is two to three times higher.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

Jenny Ruth's Just the Business (@justthebusinessjennyruth)

No, you are wrong. Cross-dressing women grew up female. They were socialised to care about others. These women are not threatening to rape,

These women are not threatening to rape, bash or otherwise abuse other women standing up for women’s rights.

Rowling and my points are not about violent threats, so your rebuttal about violent threats is irrelevant. Rowling and my points are about leftists calling people “bigots” for being realistic about sex. Rowling is rebutting the bigotry-accusation made here.

I did not suggest that all victims are female. That is your (self-centered and egocentric) assumption. Victims can be male. Imagine ridiculously pretending that every offense in the world is male on female. Imagine your entire output being the expression of one, giant, endless rape-fantasy. The pathetic, ridiculous existence of a feminist.

They aren’t clamoring to join men’s sports teams

Rowling and my points are not about sports teams, so your rebuttal about sports teams is irrelevant.

Being uncomfortable is not at all the same as being physically threatened.

Rowling and my points are not about physical threats, so your rebuttal about physical threats is irrelevant.

It’s the cross-dressing men that are the problem—the evidence suggests these men may be more dangerous to women than other men—they certainly show no respect for women’s boundaries and insist on barging into supposedly women-only spaces….

You are pretending that cross-dressing women showing no respect for men’s boundaries and insisting on barging into supposedly men-only spaces are men offending women, so your pretense is added to my article “TERFs ridiculously pretend female transgender people are male”.

As the saying goes, good men stay out so the bad men stand out.

You are pretending that female transgender people not staying out are male, so your pretense here is also added to my article.

Ridiculously self-centered and egocentric harpies and people who spam my mentions with irrelevancies get blocked. Blocked.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

Another Feminist (TERF) Too Moronic to Comprehend Men’s Right to Speak

TERF-feminist “Danni”, here:

You’re a man. Why do you think you can tell women what is insulting to us?

The government should lock feminists in a ward for the mentally incompetent until they comprehend men’s right to speak.

More about such feminist-stupidity here.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

Transgender identity is delusional

The DSM-5 defines gender as a role:

The public (and usually legally recognized) lived role as boy or girl, man or woman.

Parts of the female role include:

being of the biological sex to which heterosexual males and lesbians are attracted;

being treated legally as females in all cases;

being referred to as “females” and as “girls” or “women” under the common-usage definitions; and

having reproductive anatomy and physiology that follow the developmental pathway leading to the production of ova (large, immotile gametes), regardless of whether viable gametes are actually produced at any given time.

The DSM-5 defines transgender:

The broad spectrum of individuals who transiently or permanently identify with a gender different from their natal gender.

So, a male transgender person identifies with the female gender—i.e., with the female role; but a male transgender person can never attain the female role’s parts enumerated above, so his identity with the female role is, at least partly, false and therefore delusional. Therefore, transgender identity meets the diagnostic criteria for delusional disorder.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

The app for independent voices

Drag is misogynistic....

You are pretending that females dressing as males are males dressing as females, so I have added you to my new article “TERFs pretend female transgender people are male”.

Maybe you should focus your critiques on [“trans women” and pro-trans feminists].

You are literally replying to a post in which I linked to a list of my transgender-critical articles and said “see here”, trying to put an end to your hour-long rant delusionally accusing me of advocating transgenderism. But since even that was too difficult for you to comprehend, now I am blocking you. My mentions are no place for accusatory intellectual disability.

I have said it many times before: the only thing oppressing feminists is their lack of an IQ.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

TERFs ridiculously pretend female transgender people are male

[mynameforthiswebsite]

Darian Balcom (@darianbalcom)

“Cis” is a misogynistic slur, for one thing, but secondly, you apparently believe it was necessary to invent it to express a “new concept.”

“Cis” is a misogynistic slur

LOL. Idiot.

you apparently believe it was necessary to invent it to express a “new concept.” What is the new concept it expresses?

Non-transgender.

You seem to agree with one of the core lies of the cult: that the basic human categories are not male and female but “c-s” and “tr-ns. You seem to be saying you agree that a word was needed to disavow people of the notion that every human is either a male or a female.

Nothing I said denies the existence of biological sex, idiot. “Basic human categories” is all in your head. No concept excludes any other. I suggested nothing about “basic human categories” and do not even know its meaning. By your incompetent logic, the (racial) terms “black” and “white” deny the existence of biological sex, simply because they denote different sets from “male” and “female”.

Our one single job, when we’re told to do something whose purpose is to advance an evil agenda, is to NOT DO IT. The cult commands that we use its new words and language because it wants us to be vectors of its “new concepts” - as you say. Our job is to not allow ourselves to be used a vector to spread those new concepts, which are (a) false and (b) catastrophically destructive. Just for starters, they’re used to convince children they must get sterilized and mutilated. They’re also used to end free speech and women’s rights. It’s still sort of a free country so you are free to go ahead and use the language that spreads the new concepts”

Just non sequiturs. Crying about the word “transgender’s” existence is wasting resources and pestering innocent people, not opposing evil.

but I will use my free speech to tell you what you’re doing, when you don’t realize what you’re doing, and to tell you I think you’re an idiot for not understanding this.

Tell it to the block.

Words are like seeds. You’re correct that they express — I would say, they contain and spread —  ideas or concepts. Those ideas and concepts can be false, fictional, propagandistic, intended to manipulate and control, and extremely destructive. 

No definition is false, fictional, propagandistic, able to manipulate and control, or destructive. Definitions do not assert facts / make claims about the external world. They are mere assignments of concepts to words. Naming the set of transgender people asserts zero information about them. More in “Words and Meaning”.

“Cis” as mentioned is a misogynistic slur.

No evidence suggests that “cis” is either misogynistic or a slur. 😭 The word “cis” is not biased toward males or against females in the slightest. 😭 😂 🤣 Cry harder about “misogyny”. 😭 Added to my articles:

Feminism keeps abusing the word “misogyny”,

Feminists Methodically Baselessly Accusing People of Hating Women, and

‘Slur’ gets the block.

Blocked.

It’s deeply offensive to women to suggest that we are a subset of our sex.

Cry harder about the word “cis”. 😭 😂 🤣

The language “tr-ns woman”... suggests, or outright states, that there are some men who are a type of woman.

As if the term “trans men” does not exist, you ridiculous, self-centered imbecile.

And that is not how language works. By your logic, toy guns are guns, model airplanes are airplanes, fake diamonds are diamonds, virtual reality is reality, and straw men are men.

Cry about imaginary misogyny to someone else, mental defective. Blocked.

Related Article: Modern feminism is a mental disorder

[mynameforthiswebsite]

I don't want to attack you but I want to point something out. I looked at some of your articles and saw some of your comments under your posts. Why do you say feminists are irrational, unintelligent, childish, etc? That isn't addressing the issue. Someone can be childish and have a sound argument. Someone can be irrational and be right about something. You know this already. I know you addressed some of the points those feminists make but I honestly think you're arguing against the hateful side of feminism (where the views are extreme, often in online spaces) and calling them names (or pointing out traits that you think they have) is unnecessary. It seems like ragebait, I'd say.

Secondly, you're talking about feminists cherry picking evidence.. aren't you doing the same? At least with the comments you showcased in one of your articles to "prove" feminists are "overwhelmingly unintelligent (...)". You show a couple of screenshots of people being emotional (because well, the topic touches on sensitive matters whether you like it or not) and then proceed to point out what feminists are by generalizing them all. If you believe in logic and rational arguments, you shouldn't take comments that are vicious into account - in a sense that they do not represent the whole movement or people who consider themselves "feminists". If you want to focus on those individuals, so be it but I, myself, have met various feminists; men and women in my life and they don't hold those hateful views against men. They believe women AND men should be equal, while acknowledging their differences (without discrimination). That is cherry picking I'm doing, of course, but I did it to show you how you sound sometimes. I don't deny the existence of feminists who, for example, hate all men or think of them as rapists. The same goes for men who hate women for whatever reason but that doesn't mean all men hate women. Why did you make it your goal to write about feminism in the first place? But also, I think if you didn't insult feminists, they'd be more likely to be polite and maybe you'd have a productive conversation with one. I'm no woman but thing is, listening to the other sides arguments even if you think they have "low intelligence" is important, because it doesn't mean their voice doesn't matter. Have you ever really wondered why they hold those views? Why do they act so hostile? Because there is a person behind it. Sure, I agree that past experiences do not excuse acting like that but some open mindedness doesn't hurt, man. If you don't like them insulting you (even if they're fallacies), why do you insult them? It's a loop. What you're doing attracts folks who are prone to being emotional and react in that way. Internet spaces encourage that, even. Sure you can do whatever you want on your page as long as they don't delete your account but that is why it seems like ragebait. I could go on and on but this is already too long.

I call feminists overwhelmingly unintelligent, childish, and hostile as an analysis of their behavior. For analysis of their argument, you are looking at the wrong article. The article for which you are looking is “Feminism is irrational”.

I am not seeking out any particularly hateful side of feminism. I am analyzing their posts I see on social media.

calling them names... is unnecessary

100% of everything humans do is unnecessary.

“Calling them names” is your slur for my observation and analysis of their behavior.

“Ragebait” = evidence and logic over which you rage. Seek psychiatric support for your rage and encourage everyone else complaining about “ragebait” to do the same.

In “Feminists are overwhelmingly unintelligent, childish, and hostile”, I observe, “The Substack-feminists in my mentions have been overwhelmingly....” That is statistical observation, not cherry-picking.

In the same article, I also observe, “95% of the feminist comments on my article ‘Feminism is irrational’—and 95% of the feminist posts in my mentions....” That again is statistical observation, not cherry-picking.

In “100% of feminists demonstrate impaired comprehension”, I show and analyze the full data-set of feminists in my mentions over a certain time period. That is not cherry-picking.

You show a couple of screenshots of people being emotional

You counted wrong.

because well, the topic touches on sensitive matters whether you like it or not

Mental defectives unable to remain civil while discussing sensitive matters deserve to be denied power, whether you like it or not. Their tantrums would get them expelled from Stanford and dragged out of courtrooms and science-symposiums by security. Adequate males reject females with such poor social skills and low intelligence, leaving rapists and other low-quality males for those females to date. That is why feminists have such a dim view of males: because feminists’ low-budget behavior is repelling adequate males.

There is nothing irrational about my observation and analysis of feminist behavior on social media. You may wish I would ignore their social-media behavior and write about some other aspect of feminism instead, but wishing is all you can do there.

I, myself, have met various feminists; men and women in my life and they don't hold those hateful views against men.

Feminism is dead. The extremely rare sane feminists need to choose whether to distance themselves from feminism or get dragged down with it.

that doesn't mean all men hate women.

I have suggested absolutely nothing about all women.

Why did you make it your goal to write about feminism in the first place?

First, I noticed TERFs on X (Twitter) pretending all transgender people are male. Next, some jealous feminist dumbass threw a tantrum and attacked me for posting an image of an attractive woman. Next, I started reading Substack, and my feed was like half mentally ill women (“feminists”) attacking random people (accusing them of rape, etc.) for being male.

I think if you didn't insult feminists, they'd be more likely to be polite and maybe you'd have a productive conversation with one.

They were already pretending all transgender people are male and attacking random people for being male by the time I showed up.

listening to the other sides arguments... is important

After all the screenshots of feminists I have posted and all the analysis of their arguments I have published, accusing me of not listening to them is ridiculous.

Have you ever really wondered why they hold those views? Why do they act so hostile? Because there is a person behind it.

The same goes for school shooters, but we move to stop their attacks before getting to the bottom of their feelings.

some open mindedness doesn't hurt, man.

You have shown nothing wrong with my mind.

If you don't like them insulting you (even if they're fallacies), why do you insult them?

I do not mind their insults. You are projecting your own distress.

It's a loop. What you're doing attracts folks who are prone to being emotional and react in that way.

We are mentally stronger than them. We will win.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

Jane Alexander (@songbird57)

What a mean-spirited remark. Of course she includes women who want to dress & ‘live’ as men. But women who do that are not taking other wome

What a mean-spirited remark.

That is irrelevant and unjustified, dumb bitch. Stop spamming, log off, and seek psychiatric support for your borderline personality disorder.

Of course she includes women who want to dress & ‘live’ as men.

Read Rowling’s statement again, dumbass. Rowling thinks all transgender people are male. She is as sexually confused as the most dysfunctional transgender person.

But women who do that are not taking other women’s rights away.

Women already have equal rights, retard. All that remains of the “women’s rights movement” is mentally ill, low-IQ and socially inept, hyper-emotional, loutish, absurd harpies portraying all human failings as male.

If a ‘trans’ identifying woman wants to go in the men’s toilets for example it’s unlikely that she’d be considered any trouble or threat by the men in there.

Rowling’s points were not about toilets, dumbass. They were about freedom of speech and belief, identity-accommodation, validation, comfort, support, “rest home”, and compelled lying—as if female failings in those domains are somehow male, dumbass. Try parsing Rowling’s statements before posting just to hear the sound of your own voice next time. My article here expands on Rowling’s points about transgender failings—yet my article pulls it off without needlessly bitching about males or females once—a skill lying above TERF’s self-centered little heads.

And you are talking out your ass about bathrooms. Female transgender people in male spaces put males at risk for false rape-accusations. You are not the world’s center, vapid idiot.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

Women already have equal rights. All that remains of the “women’s rights movement” is dumbasses who only know how to bitch about men.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

The terf obsession with male failing is unjustified and unnecessary

J.K. Rowling says:

If an adult feels they can only exist comfortably and authentically in this world by dressing in the opposite sex’s clothes, having surgeries and taking hormones, or in adopting one of the many gender labels, I wish them safety, happiness and health, as long as they're not harming anyone else. You, however, seem to think that for a trans-identified man to be ‘comfortable’ and ‘authentic’, everyone in the vicinity must abandon their freedom of speech and belief to accommodate his ‘identity’. Women are not validation props, comfort blankets or support animals. We aren’t a rest home for men who don’t like being men. If a person's happiness and self-esteem resides entirely on whether or not they can compel everyone around them to lie, whether out of fear or pity, I would respectfully suggest they are unlikely to have a very comfortable life, and are about as far from being ‘authentic’ as it is possible to be.

I comment:

Rowling’s points apply equally to both male and female transgender people. Her ignorance of the existence of female transgender people stems from self-centeredness. The terf self-centered belief that all transgender people are male is awkward. Imagine thinking you are the world’s center.

Someone counters:

Of course there are women with the same sense of self loathing. But you don’t see them demanding to be put into men’s prisons or on men’s sports teams.

Rowling’s points are not specific to prisons and sports, yet she still pretends all transgender people are male. Female transgender people do all the things Rowling mentions, despite Rowling’s self-centered, vapid complaining about males in particular.

Female transgender people invade men’s changing rooms and try to coerce us into calling them “men” via law and policy. Here is a list of offenses female transgender people commit along with male transgender people: invisible to terfs, who equate transgenderism with male failing.

The terf obsession with male failing is unjustified and unnecessary. Sports and prison are simply matters of transgender people of both sexes seeking female spaces because females are physically weaker. That is biology, not sexism, misogyny, or any other male failing. Trump is handling transgender people better than terfs with their off-putting, incessant complaining about males.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

🤪

You take inconclusive and insubstantial evidence and assert that it is positive proof of your claim more often than not.

Are the unsubstantiated claims in the room with you now? 🤡

😭

🙄

😴

[mynameforthiswebsite]

I don’t trust [AI] at all. Always always double check sources

Occasional inaccuracies do not justify the blanket dismissal of everything AI says. If they did, the same logic would require you absurdly to dismiss everything humans say.

The anti-AI fanatics compare AI against an infallible God—thinking they have shown something important when they show AI is imperfect—, while normal people compare AI against humans, finding that AI often outperforms humans, which is what matters in practice.

The anti-AI fanatics apply a double-standard, forgiving humans for occasional inaccuracies while taking any AI-error as an excuse to dismiss everything AI says.

AI presumptively gets things right—more so than humans. When anti-AI fanatics dismiss AI’s claims simply because they were made by AI, the fanatics fail to challenge its claims in the minds of normal people, effectively conceding AI’s claims. The fanatics do not mind they are losing debates; all they care about is getting their little protest in.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

Dummy dum go choke on a dick and die

With whose mental illness am I speaking, feminist or transgender?

[mynameforthiswebsite]

Biard MacGuineas (@biardmacguineas)

Rowling’s points apply equally to both male and female transgender people. Her ignorance of the existence of female transgender people stems

Rowling’s points apply equally to both male and female transgender people. Her ignorance of the existence of female transgender people stems from self-centeredness. The terf self-centered belief that all transgender people are male is awkward. Imagine thinking you are the world’s center.

Sex Reality Bites (@sexrealitybites)

I disagree. JK Rowling, along with many other women—including survivors of domestic abuse (such as JK herself) women who have relied on dome

JK Rowling, along with many other women—including survivors of domestic abuse (such as JK herself) women who have relied on domestic violence shelters and services, and women like myself who regularly use public amenities such as swimming pool change rooms, subway and bus station washrooms with our small children, or who have lost breastfeeding and postpartum mothering groups after they became mixed-sex spaces....

As if men are not targeted by domestic violence. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women are the perpetrators in more than 70% of cases.

If men even had domestic violence shelters and services, they would be invaded by female transgender people.

As if men do not regularly use public amenities such as swimming pool change rooms, subway and bus station washrooms with their small children.

As if spaces organized around male biology—if such spaces even existed—would not be invaded by female transgender people.

In other words, our activism stems from defending the rights of females to have spaces separate from males

I know. You and terfs’ care only about female interests but not male interests, like white supremacists’ who care only about white interests. Self-centered, cringe, and awkward.

Females who identify as trans aren’t Rowling’s focus because she doesn’t object to them as a category.

Similar to white supremacists objecting to black-on-white offenses while not objecting to white-on-black offenses.

The issue she’s raising is about male people being included in spaces that were created on the basis of sex

As if there are no male spaces. Bizarre how self-centered Rowling, terfs, and other feminists are. Far from normal human behavior.

That’s especially relevant because males, as a class, commit the overwhelming majority of violent and sexual offences.

As if females, as a class, do not commit the overwhelming majority of false rape-accusations.

Females commit crimes too- but statistically they aren’t often violent or sexual in the same numbers at all.

Like white supremacists taking a statistic like Blacks-commit-crime-at-a-higher-rate to justify their totally exclusive focus on Black-crime. If feminists gained enough power, they would change the law to criminalize violence only when committed by males, because of statistics.

Sex-based spaces... were created because of the realities of male violence, female vulnerability, privacy, and dignity.

As if false rape-accusations are not real and as if males are not vulnerable and do not deserve privacy or dignity.

[mynameforthiswebsite]

Debunking “Objectification” and “Dehumanization”

Auréle (@aurelebeyondsleep)

The ones whining about objectification don't seem to have a problem with "bicep pics" or women placing themselves as high value on the basis

The ones whining about objectification don’t seem to have a problem with “bicep pics” or women placing themselves as high value on the basis of appearance, through clips such as “the girl he rejected”. Care to explain the double standard? Perhaps objectification is a problem only when you don't like it.

And what are their criteria for deciding whether an act “objectifies” or not? I have seen them suggest that merely depicting females (but not males) in images somehow “objectifies” them, as if photography and painting inherently are moral crimes.

Related are their claims about “dehumanization”. Here one claims that porn depicting humans somehow “dehumanizes” females (but not males).

Seems they are generating random accusations in the hopes that one eventually makes any sense.