Do you have any specific examples of what this new/rebooted organization would be doing?

It sounds odd to hear the "even if the stars should die in heaven" song with a different melody than I had imagined when reading it myself.

I would have liked to hear the Tracey Davis "from darkness to darkness" song, but I think that was canonically just a chant without a melody. (Although I imagined a melody for that as well.)

...why did someone promote this to a Frontpage post.

If I'm understanding correctly, the argument here is:

A) ${lim}_{x\to \infty }\left({\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }\right(n{e}^{-\frac{n}{x}}\cos (-\frac{n}{x})\left)\right)=-\frac{1}{12}$

B) ${lim}_{x\to \infty }\left(n{e}^{-\frac{n}{x}}\right)=n$

C) ${lim}_{x\to \infty }\left(\cos \right(-\frac{n}{x}\left)\right)=1$

Therefore, ${\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }(n\ast 1)=-\frac{1}{12}$.

First off, this seems to have an implicit assumption that ${lim}_{x\to \infty }\left({\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }\right(f(x,n)\ast g(x,n)\left)\right)={\sum }_{n=1}^{\infty }\left(\right({lim}_{x\to \infty }f(x,n))\ast ({lim}_{x\to \infty }g(x,n)\left)\right)$.

I think this assumption is true for any functions f and g, but I've learned not to always trust my intuitions when it comes to limits and infinity; can anyone else confirm this is true?

Second, A seems to depend on the relative sizes of the infinities, so to speak. If j and k are large but finite numbers, then ${\sum }_{n=1}^j\left(n{e}^{-\frac{n}{k}}\cos \right(-\frac{n}{k}\left)\right)\approx -\frac{1}{12}$ if and only if j is substantially greater than k; if k is close to or larger than j, it becomes much less than or greater than -1/12.

I'm not sure exactly how this works when it comes to infinities - does the infinity on the sum have to be larger than the infinity on the limit for this to hold? I'm pretty sure what I just said was nonsense; is there a non-nonsensical version?

In conclusion, I don't know how infinities work and hope someone else does.

I think I could be a good fit as a writer, but I don't have much in the way of writing experience I can show you. Do you have any examples of what someone at this position would be focusing on? I'm happy to write up a couple pieces to demonstrate my abilities.

The question, then, is whether a given person is just an outlier by coincidence, or whether the underlying causal mechanisms that created their personality actually are coming from some internal gender-variable being flipped. (The theory being, perhaps, that early-onset gender dysphoria is an intersex condition, to quote the immortal words of a certain tribute band.)

If it was just that biological females sometimes happened to have a couple traits that were masculine - and these traits seemed to be at random, and uncorrelated - then that wouldn't imply anything beyond "well, every distribution has a couple outliers." But when you see that lesbians - women who have the typically masculine trait of attraction to women - are also unusually likely to have other typically masculine traits - then that implies that there's something else going on. Such as, some of them really do have "male brains" in some sense.

And there are so many different personality traits that are correlated with gender (at least 18, according to the test mentioned above, and probably many more that can't be tested as easily) that it's very unlikely someone would have an opposite-sex personality just by chance alone. That's why I'd guess that a lot of the feminine "men" and masculine "women" really do have some sort of intersex condition where their gender-variable is flipped. (Although there are some cultural confounders too, like people unconsciously conforming to stereotypes about how gay people act.)

I completely agree that dividing everyone between "male" and "female" isn't enough to capture all the nuance associated with gender, and would much prefer that we used more words than that. But if, as seems to often be expected by the world, we have to approximate all of someone's character traits all with only a single binary label... then there are a lot of people for whom it's more accurate to use the one that doesn't match their sex.

Fair. I do indeed endorse the claim that Aella, or other people who are similar in this regard, can be more accurately modelled as a man than as a woman - that is to say, if you're trying to predict some yet-unmeasured variable about Aella that doesn't seem to be affected by physical characteristics, you'll have better results by predicting her as you would a typical man, than as you would a typical woman. Aella probably really is more of a man than a woman, as far as minds go.

But your mentioning this does make me realize that I never really had a clear meaning in mind when I said "society should consider such a person to be a woman for most practical purposes." When I try to think of ways that men and women should be treated differently, I mostly come up blank. And the ways that do come to mind are mostly about physical sex rather than gender - i.e. sports. I guess my actual position is "yeah, Aella is probably male with regard to personality, but this should not be relevant to how society treats ?her."

If a person has a personality that's pretty much female, but a male body, then thinking of them as a woman will be a much more accurate model of them for predicting anything that doesn't hinge on external characteristics. I think the argument that society should consider such a person to be a woman for most practical purposes is locally valid, even if you reject that the premise is true in many cases.

Previously, I had already thought it was nuts that trans ideology was exerting influence on the rearing of gender-non-conforming children—that is, children who are far outside the typical norm of behavior for their sex: very tomboyish girls and very effeminate boys.

Under recent historical conditions in the West, these kids were mostly "pre-gay" rather than trans. (The stereotype about lesbians being masculine and gay men being feminine is, like most stereotypes, basically true: sex-atypical childhood behavior between gay and straight adults has been meta-analyzed at Cohen's d ≈ 1.31 standard deviations for men and d ≈ 0.96 for women.) A solid majority of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria ended up growing out of it by puberty. In the culture of the current year, it seemed likely that a lot of those kids would instead get affirmed into a cross-sex identity at a young age, even though most of them would have otherwise (under a "watchful waiting" protocol) grown up to be ordinary gay men and lesbians.

I think I might be confused about what your position is here. As I understood the two-type taxonomy theory, the claim was that while some "trans women" really were unusually feminine compared to typical men, most of them were just non-feminine men who were blinded into transitioning by autogynephilia. But the early-onset group, as I understood the theory, were the ones who really were trans? Your whole objection to people classifying autogynephilic people as "trans women" was that they didn't actually have traits drawn from a female distribution, and so modelling them as women would be less accurate than modelling them as men. But if members of the early-onset group really do behave in a way more typical of femininity than masculinity, then that would mean they essentially are "women on the inside, men on the outside."

Am I missing something about your views here?

Maybe the chance that Kennedy wins, given a typical election between a Republican and a Democrat, is too low to be worth tracking. But this election seems unusually likely to have off-model surprises - Biden dies, Trump dies, Trump gets arrested, Trump gets kicked off the ballot, Trump runs independently, controversy over voter fraud, etc. If something crazy happens at the last minute, people could end up voting for Kennedy.

If you think the odds are so low, I'll bet my 10 euros against your 10,000 that Kennedy wins. (Normally I'd use US dollars, but the value of a US dollar in 2024 could change based on who wins the election.)