It always amazes me that rather than ignoring a post because it's of little interest, some find the need to be dismissive without review - don't film reviewers get criticised for making a judgement without actually seeing the film?
Anyway, I read the article and it's very interesting. It's primarily about technology and the profound implications for human existance of some of the latest advances. Anyone with a technology background/interest understands the grave risks posed by some of the advances that are being tested in the field, on humans, without proper piloting or being subject to rigorous oversight. That's how we've ended with a lawless territory of cyberspace that is designed by men for men and which silences not only the voices of women but any real critique or examination of what is really going on.
Technology is effectively being adopted wholesale without any oversight and that can't be a good thing. We've seen on a relatively small scale how personal data was sequestered and really the horse has bolted on that one. We see how trafficking of children and child porn is one the increase to fulfil the deviances of many males. This deviant behaviour is nurtured and accelerated by access to hardcore porn from early ages. The police already say they can't contain it. The net encourages these deviants by allowing them to form communities where they normalise their perversions. This is a huge backward step for humanity.
Many of us want to press the pause button and define a system of governance for technology. Particularly concerning is the skewed architecture of machine learning and AI that is based only on male experience and male designers. This is not good enough. We make new drugs go through clinical trials so why not new technolgy?
The article talks in depth about some of the new advances and goes on to observe:
As DIY body hackers trick out their meat machines, technologies such as CRISPR gene editing software and artificial wombs further the intentional biomechanization of the human form. In one lab, human beings will be edited on a genetic level—from the isolation of mitochondrial DNA for the purposes of life extension to the eradication of genetic deformities, diseases, and implementation of parental preferences—and in another, humans will be artificially gestated.
Both of these concepts speak to a dramatic shift in our relationship with both our bodies and our children. Liberating the body from reproduction liberates humanity from our own physical continuation. At first glance, reproductive advocates may tout this as progress, but removing reproduction from our bodily purview does not only liberate us from the body, it also subjects us to the tyranny of the mind. Removing the body from reproduction is primarily the elimination of women from the process of creating human beings. Liberation from reproduction is liberation from sex, both in act and biology. At which point, gender truly becomes fashion with no remaining foundations in the story of human origins.
These experiments should be of concern to anyone critically thinking about their implications. It is these concerns that underlay some of my misgivings around the belief that one can change sex. Not only do I not subscribe to that belief but by allowing it to be normalised without professional impact statements and studies is tantamount to a gross failure of duty of care by all those organsations tasked with oversight imo.
Another quote is:
Contrary to popular perception and much of the transgender movement’s own rhetoric, transgender activism is not about compassion and dignity. Although transgender advocacy is couched in the language of oppression and identity, the idea that it is merely the latest facet of an ongoing civil rights struggle is a misconception. In the current cultural climate, to question the concept of transgenderism is to question the right of trans individuals to exist. This is an extremely effective strategy that deters the skeptical from digging into an ideology by labelling them bigots for doing so. But the implications of transgenderism are so serious and far-reaching that questions must be asked. At issue is not simply societal acceptance of people with alternative views or lifestyles, but the most fundamental aspects of what it means to be human.
It is no anomaly that the movement is hitting its cultural stride in the debate over pronouns. The first step in changing how we think about our bodies and what it means to be human is to change how we speak about these things. Transgender speech codes demand that we renounce our bodies’ basis in biology, and instead consider them constructs of arbitrary (and somehow unjust) societal expectations. We are not to think about ‘mother’ and ‘father’ as reproductive terms, but as culturally specified relationships. This aggressive effort to change and police the use of language, and to redefine terms like ‘male’ and ‘female’ to deny the sexual difference characteristic of all mammals, is designed to uncouple mind from body and humans from evolutionary and reproductive logic. Instead, an ideology of emotion is to be given dominion over biological reality.
Many of these questions do bear close examination and debate. To close down any debate is a red flag that there is something to hide. There's nothing wrong in taking one's time to make informed decisions about the implications of new advances. What's missing is a system of governance to examine the implications of new technology as well as new beliefs - I would make any group based on beliefs go through this process including some organisations like Scientology and suspect churches as well as nefarious NFPs.
Great article - thx for the link. I see parallels with the Heather Heying talk I linked to recently where she is warning that we humans can't cope with the current rate of change and also that childhood development and maturity is being regressed by over-reliance on technology. I'm also part way through the Hypernormalisation documentary. It all makes for interesting discussions and putting more pressure on us to call a halt until we have a better handle on the implications of so-called contemporary "advances".