Apropos of nothing, I found this via Substack. I hadn't previously heard the claim that the GLOBAL population was aging out. Even if true, a degrowth strategy might work? And it doesn't counter ethical arguments to be child free. Anyhoo, https://www.natalism.org
If it appears to be negatively correlated, it might be Berkson's Paradox.
Great discussion #PodcastGoals It helped me articulate some liberal values like "We don't need laws to prevent regret". However, it's pretty clear that some people profit off the naivety and gullibility of others, and I think it's worth penalising that, even in the absence of outrageous harm.
Re: the comments on the bimodal distribution of IQ among gay men:
Yes, I think there’s something to that. Funny that Cori was like “midwit = dumb,” but I suppose from his perspective, it does. 😅
But I wanted to leap off that to my own tangent about intelligence, atypical sexualities, and religion.
In a religiously and socially conservative society, who is disproportionately going to be drawn towards a role like priest, if forgoing a wife and children is part of the job description? Well, homosexual and also the more analloerotic autogynephilic men might be. IMO, there’s a lot to explore in the idea of Catholic priest as a sort of third gender “safe man.”
(We see evidence of this in the pope’s leaked comments about fags in the seminary last year. I’m sorry, your holiness, who do you think wants that job?!)
Not only that, but it seems like it’s in the *best interests* of a religion to select for the cleverest homosexual and autogynephilic men to serve as their priests and religious, and I’d like to posit that allowing priests to marry, coupled with the sexual liberalization of society in general, shifts the candidate pool in the direction of dumber men on average. I can’t speak well for other religions, but in Christendom at least, I suspect our priests have always disproportionately been sexually atypical men (it could be argued that the role itself is inherently gender non-conforming). I think this plays into the metaphysical “stickiness” of the current moment.
Once I started looking past the surface level, it does seem like the trans community in particular has a high level of (mostly latent*) religiosity. We see this in the detrans-to-convert phenomenon, typified recently by Ray Alex Williams. Also, I’d noticed that when transwomen talk about having always existed, they often refer to imagined priestesses of the past; this is something that struck me as simple self-aggrandizing for a long time, but now I think there’s something to it.
*But is it latent, or just redirected towards different, less obviously religious things?
(Edited: words are hard; some additional thoughts.)
That angle about clergy and religious seems to come up occasionally among medievalists, since the topic of sexuality and the personal lives of priests started being taken more seriously by the church during the high middle ages. Clergy as third gender, or do they simply represent a different form of masculinity, a different archetype? And if gender non-conforming, non-conforming against *which* standard? (This often feels arbitrary to me, like gender’s being defined to suit whatever point the speaker wants to make.) And there’s the obvious problem of anachronism when projecting any modern conception of sexuality backward in time, because while certain traits persist, our understandings of them are so culturally constructed. But certainly, if Nina could have been considered queer for being a childfree woman in the 90s, then a priest/monk/nun living under the expectation of celibacy could also be considered queer. Or like the former pastor you discuss in this episode, who started an OnlyFans and wrote a piece about it for Queer Majority. I think there’s an idea that those things very far from each other conceptually, but I see them more as two sides of the same coin.
And as discussed in this week’s episode of Informed Dissent, what careers might appeal to autogynephiles? Well, if we take the tack that the modern conception of “trans” is new, but that autogynephilia has probably been with us for a long time, then set against the landscape of medieval Catholicism, priest or monk seem like likely options among those readily available. Social status for being men of peace and living a life of the mind. I suppose whether that’s considered masculine or not is in the eye of the beholder.
When it comes to CSJ, it’s the attitude of “Well, you have to understand it this one way, and anything else is sinful (racist, transphobic, homophobic…)” that always drove me up the goddamn wall about it. The adversarial style; righteous us versus evil them. But I still hate it now that it’s coming from “my” (ugh) side.
I’ve always preferred a collaborative approach to exploring ideas, which is something I appreciate about Heterodorx. Or on episodes when a different approach was taken (the “Gays Against Groomers” one comes to mind; also part two of Wu-know-who), you allow someone’s words to stand, and let your listeners make up their own mind. Trusting your listeners, what a concept! I appreciate not being treated like an incipient fascist. Which is to say, Cori, I think you’ve met your podcast goals.
I love Queer Majority’s philosophy about sexual liberty - unifying, rather than oppositional.
I out-earn my husband by about 45%, but I’m also nine years older than he is and have a master’s degree, whereas he has an associate’s. So, not exactly amazing career success on my part. Probably one of those midwit jobs.
Are you still am antisemitic terf?
I suppose you are.
Just checking.
https://open.substack.com/pub/marlowe1/p/sweet-my-name-is-on-the-cover?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=sllf3
Apropos of nothing, I found this via Substack. I hadn't previously heard the claim that the GLOBAL population was aging out. Even if true, a degrowth strategy might work? And it doesn't counter ethical arguments to be child free. Anyhoo, https://www.natalism.org
If it appears to be negatively correlated, it might be Berkson's Paradox.
Great discussion #PodcastGoals It helped me articulate some liberal values like "We don't need laws to prevent regret". However, it's pretty clear that some people profit off the naivety and gullibility of others, and I think it's worth penalising that, even in the absence of outrageous harm.
Re: the comments on the bimodal distribution of IQ among gay men:
Yes, I think there’s something to that. Funny that Cori was like “midwit = dumb,” but I suppose from his perspective, it does. 😅
But I wanted to leap off that to my own tangent about intelligence, atypical sexualities, and religion.
In a religiously and socially conservative society, who is disproportionately going to be drawn towards a role like priest, if forgoing a wife and children is part of the job description? Well, homosexual and also the more analloerotic autogynephilic men might be. IMO, there’s a lot to explore in the idea of Catholic priest as a sort of third gender “safe man.”
(We see evidence of this in the pope’s leaked comments about fags in the seminary last year. I’m sorry, your holiness, who do you think wants that job?!)
Not only that, but it seems like it’s in the *best interests* of a religion to select for the cleverest homosexual and autogynephilic men to serve as their priests and religious, and I’d like to posit that allowing priests to marry, coupled with the sexual liberalization of society in general, shifts the candidate pool in the direction of dumber men on average. I can’t speak well for other religions, but in Christendom at least, I suspect our priests have always disproportionately been sexually atypical men (it could be argued that the role itself is inherently gender non-conforming). I think this plays into the metaphysical “stickiness” of the current moment.
Once I started looking past the surface level, it does seem like the trans community in particular has a high level of (mostly latent*) religiosity. We see this in the detrans-to-convert phenomenon, typified recently by Ray Alex Williams. Also, I’d noticed that when transwomen talk about having always existed, they often refer to imagined priestesses of the past; this is something that struck me as simple self-aggrandizing for a long time, but now I think there’s something to it.
*But is it latent, or just redirected towards different, less obviously religious things?
(Edited: words are hard; some additional thoughts.)
That angle about clergy and religious seems to come up occasionally among medievalists, since the topic of sexuality and the personal lives of priests started being taken more seriously by the church during the high middle ages. Clergy as third gender, or do they simply represent a different form of masculinity, a different archetype? And if gender non-conforming, non-conforming against *which* standard? (This often feels arbitrary to me, like gender’s being defined to suit whatever point the speaker wants to make.) And there’s the obvious problem of anachronism when projecting any modern conception of sexuality backward in time, because while certain traits persist, our understandings of them are so culturally constructed. But certainly, if Nina could have been considered queer for being a childfree woman in the 90s, then a priest/monk/nun living under the expectation of celibacy could also be considered queer. Or like the former pastor you discuss in this episode, who started an OnlyFans and wrote a piece about it for Queer Majority. I think there’s an idea that those things very far from each other conceptually, but I see them more as two sides of the same coin.
And as discussed in this week’s episode of Informed Dissent, what careers might appeal to autogynephiles? Well, if we take the tack that the modern conception of “trans” is new, but that autogynephilia has probably been with us for a long time, then set against the landscape of medieval Catholicism, priest or monk seem like likely options among those readily available. Social status for being men of peace and living a life of the mind. I suppose whether that’s considered masculine or not is in the eye of the beholder.
When it comes to CSJ, it’s the attitude of “Well, you have to understand it this one way, and anything else is sinful (racist, transphobic, homophobic…)” that always drove me up the goddamn wall about it. The adversarial style; righteous us versus evil them. But I still hate it now that it’s coming from “my” (ugh) side.
I’ve always preferred a collaborative approach to exploring ideas, which is something I appreciate about Heterodorx. Or on episodes when a different approach was taken (the “Gays Against Groomers” one comes to mind; also part two of Wu-know-who), you allow someone’s words to stand, and let your listeners make up their own mind. Trusting your listeners, what a concept! I appreciate not being treated like an incipient fascist. Which is to say, Cori, I think you’ve met your podcast goals.
I love Queer Majority’s philosophy about sexual liberty - unifying, rather than oppositional.
I out-earn my husband by about 45%, but I’m also nine years older than he is and have a master’s degree, whereas he has an associate’s. So, not exactly amazing career success on my part. Probably one of those midwit jobs.
Hope that didn’t come off as besmirching my husband. Once he has his BA, I’m sure it’s all over for me.