TERF Alert

The American Anthropological Association and Canadian Anthropology Society recently canceled a session from their joint annual meeting.  The title of the session was “Let’s Talk about Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology”.  It was canceled as being anti-trans and contrary to current research without being supported by countervailing research.  Of course the panel members immediately started screaming, "Help, help, we're being oppressed," and Reich Wing media jumped all over it.

Let's take a look at the panel and their topics.  Silvia Carrasco was going to talk about how violence against women can't be properly addressed without focusing on biological sex.   Kathleen Richardson was going to talk about how including trans women is erasing gender disparity in IT (Apparently arguing the number of trans women in IT is statistically significant.  Right.).  Michèle Sirois was going to talk about how the Canadian surrogacy industry exploits poor women (OK, trans women can't be included in this group, but a large number of cis women can't be included as well, whether biologically because they are not reproductive, or economically because they are not poor.  Frankly, the problem she is studying is far less biologically based than economically based.  Surrogacy is another of a broad range of mechanisms for exploiting disadvantaged groups.).  Also on the panel was Elizabeth Weiss of the Heterodox Academy, an "advocacy" group founded to combat the sham issue of conservatives being excluded from academe (It was cofounded by Jonathan Haidt and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz.  Haidt co-authored The Coddling of the American Mind, a by-the-numbers rant decrying the "suppression" of free speech on college campuses and trotting out the usual Reich Wing straw men of "trigger words" and "safe spaces" while conveniently ignoring the real message of "You no longer get to shovel hate just because you're a cishet, white, Christian male, and if you try, you're going to get blowback."  Rosenkranz testified to Congress against the nominations of Loretta Lynch as AG and Sonia Sotomayor to SCOTUS and is regularly cited by Alito and Thomas.).  Carole Hooven of the American Enterprise Institute was supposed to speak but withdrew prior to the cancelation.

Organizing this panel was Kathleen Lowrey, whose recent publications include "Trans Ideology and the New Ptolemaism in the Academy", an extended whinge about her sacking as undergraduate programs chair in the Department of Anthropology at the University of Alberta for her anti-trans views (or as she puts it, her "gender critical feminist views") masquerading as intellectual commentary, and "Gender Identity Ideology Conquers the World: Why Are Anthropologists Cheering?", an extended whinge about cancel culture.  She is routinely platformed on the anti-trans Canadian site Gender Dissent, and she was principal organizer of the anti-trans hate group Women's Declaration International (fka Women's Human Rights Campaign).

It is quite apparent, then, the panel was canceled because it was platforming political rants and not scholarly research.  This is a problem in the social "sciences" that is only getting worse (For nearly a half-century I've been of the firm opinion that "social science" is an oxymoron.  There is no meaningful way to apply the crux of the scientific method, control and variable experimentation, to any significant issue in any of the social studies.  Being degreed in two such fields [history and political science] and regularly called on to work in another [economics/finance], I have some idea.  One of the purposes of scientific research is to predict how things will behave.  Put X load on this material, it will break.  Combine these chemicals, and you will get a reaction producing Y.  While data in the social studies can be used successfully to create occurrence models ["This is what happened."], they are far less successful at creating causation models ["This is why this happened."] and abysmal at creating predictive models ["This is what is going to happen."].  For example an economist will say, "If price goes up, demand will go down.  Unless there are other, not terribly measurable factors at work such as elasticity, utility, oligopoly and collusion, logistic disruption, etc., etc., etc.").  "Scientists" in the social studies sound increasingly like "creation scientists" (speaking of oxymorons), decrying their research being "canceled" while conveniently omitting mention of their research ignoring or misrepresenting all current work while clinging to anachronistic theories, methods, and data (and nondata).  People like those on this panel push their political agendas while ignoring actual research by actual scientists.

Meanwhile, if you want a thorough takedown of Women's Declaration International, I suggest you check Susan Duffy's blog.  And if you want to see what real scientists are discovering in gender research, you might want to start here.

The Banking Scam

If you're wondering what's going on with the Fed jacking rates beyond the usual "crapitalism crushing normal folks", it's that banking is a rigged game that works only by socializing risk. Banks raise funds by assuming demand liabilities (deposits, investor funds). They invest that money in relatively long term financial products (loans, mortgages). Banks are required by law to hold a certain amount as cash or cash equivalents (typically Treasuries). Typically a bank can fund demand withdrawals out of its cash reserve. If too many withdrawals are made, the bank needs to sell some Treasuries. No problem normally, but if interest rates have risen, the bank's old Treasuries aren't worth as much as new Treasuries with higher rates, and it has to sell its old Treasuries at a discount. Which means it’s much more likely to be facing a cash crunch, become illiquid, and need the FDIC to step in. So when the Fed jacks up rates, it not only makes future loans cost more, it makes existing loans (such as government securities) worth less.

So why would banks, which in one form or another are the main holders of loans and government securities, put up with the Fed doing this? Now you get to see how deep the rabbit hole goes. Think of the Too Big To Fails as sharks, except they don’t feed on smaller fish, they feed on smaller banks. Or more accurately, smaller banks’ balance sheets. Or more accurately still, smaller banks’ balance sheets after they’ve been purged of all “inconveniences” at public expense. Tons of assets flow onto the TBTF’s balance sheet to make it look like it actually, you know, balances, as opposed to being a Dumpster fire of catastrophic proportions. The 2008 Crash required the sacrificing of many balance sheets on the TBTF altar (Take a look at Jamie Dimon’s maneuvering to force Washington Mutual under so Chase could grab its balance sheet.) including what had been known as The Greatest Balance Sheet on Earth, AIG.

Hence the pump-and-dump cycle. The TBTFs and their allies pump the markets, soaking up obscene salaries, commissions, bonuses, and capital gains in the process. On their signal, the Fed jacks rates, and the dump begins, but the TBTFs and their allies don’t care because they have cash and new balance sheets, and they use those to snap up dumped assets on the cheap. Rinse, repeat.

So at the core of the financial industry is a system not only to privatize profit and socialize risk but to protect an oligopoly and enhance the wealth and power of its members. You knew it was bad. It’s actually worse. Much worse.