Abortions? No Men Allowed

So after Trump’s reinstatement of the Mexico City policy, a lot of women are up in arms about it because women have the right to abortion or so they believe. I’ve already made like one and a half posts about the issue so I’m not going to comment on abortions. I’ve pretty much said about all I want to say about the issue. I’m happy to tell you about compromises I would make on that front (and why) but really, that’s not the issue at hand today. Today we’re going to talk about the future and how exciting it is.

So what prompts today’s post? This tweet which flew all over my Facebook feed not too long ago (at the time of writing).

I’m just going to leave out that it’s highly probable (mathematically) that over the lifespan of our species (assuming another few billion years) that we will actually see a photograph of some number of women signing legislation about what men can do with their bodies.

So what do I find so terribly interesting about this? Quite simply, the introduction of transgendered individuals being accepted as members of the sex that they identify with. A man that identifies as a woman is accepted as a woman. With the current political climate, we’re at the point where you don’t even need to make the effort to transition through operation to be accepted as whatever sex you want to be. Hell, you don’t even need the op, you can just say that you’re some other gender and badda-bing. You’re ste. See Lauren Southern’s video just to see how easy it is (in Canada, anyway).

This pressure is coming from the American left, not the right. I only bring up the distinction because it’s relevant to the photo above. When it comes to abortion rights, the left tends to support the woman’s right to choose. (As a side note, what is the woman choosing?) So when we combine the above, (sexual identification) and abortion rights, what we get is the possibility that several of those men actually identifying as women (inwardly) and for all you know it could be 4 men and 4 women signing legislation about what women can do with their bodies. So there’s your first strike, you assumed the genders of the people signing the documents, you bigot.

Let’s ride this train a little further. A person may be born as a woman but identify as a man. We also see from Lauren Southern’s case that there’s no necessity for transgender operation (or chemical castration as Vee likes to call it) for this transformation to be accepted. By that logic, it is conceivable that Lauren Southern could have sex with a man (is it gay?) and get pregnant. Lauren Southern is legally a man now, so would abortion rights still apply to him? It should. Which means that abortion rights are no longer women’s rights, they are human rights. But maybe you want to come at it from the biological women’s rights angle. Sure, that’s cool. So the right to abortion is afforded to only people that are born as women?

But the future is a strange and wonderful place. About two and a half years ago, The Lancet (a reputable medical journal) published an article about a successful birth after a uterine transplant. This is big news. In the case of the article it’s biological woman to biological woman, but let’s imagine the future for a little bit. Suppose the transplant was put into a gay man that identifies as a man because he wants to have a child with his partner. Abortion is no longer a women’s rights issue. You can’t come at it from the biological women’s rights issue anymore because now we have a case of someone born as a man that is pregnant.

So what do we have at the end of the day? We have to call abortion rights human rights, and the left needs to get off their high horse because now they can’t frame it as a women’s rights issue. Anyone that finds fault with anything I’ve said can come at me bro. Thanks for reading.

Artemis Hunt

Abortions? No Men Allowed

Washington Post Please

So it has come to this Washington Post. I can’t believe that it has come to this. I have known for a while that your writers have their own agenda to push and I respect that. I’ll still read it every now and again for a chuckle. Kinda like Salon or Slate, but with writers a bit more serious and to the point and not outrageously biased. But now you’ve come to this? Contradicting yourself in your own articles? Let’s take a look at this article. All quote boxes will come from the article unless otherwise stated.

So one thing to note is the title. “Men say they work more than women. Here’s the truth”. Such a title implies that women would work more than men. Otherwise, the title wouldn’t be worded in such a way. Otherwise, the title would be worded “Men work more than women” or something to that effect. So right off the bat, I’m assuming that this article is going to try to tell me that women work more than men. For people with an agenda of equality, such a statement should still pose a problem but whatever.

Since 2003, when government researchers started collecting the data, men have reported devoting more life to paid labor than their female counterparts. In 2015, employed men recorded working an average 42 minutes per day longer than employed women. Women, meanwhile, said they spent more time on housework: 2.6 hours, compared to the men’s 2.1 hours.

Huh. Actually looks like they forgot their agenda. So men do work more per day than women, and women spend more time on housework. However, men still work more overall. There are 60 minutes in an hour, and 42 minutes is 70% of an hour, or 0.7 hours. Women work 0.5 hours more than men on housework. So the net difference is that overall… men work 0.2 hours more than women (12 minutes). Unfortunately I don’t know what the housework totals are for, weekly or daily. I’m assuming it’s per day. So with men working 12 minutes more (on average) per day, over the course of a year men will work 73 more hours than women. That’s over two full work weeks! Oh, but you know that the author needs to push their agenda in the face of facts. So how do they negotiate this obstacle? Part-time employment.

“This difference partly reflects women’s greater likelihood of working part time,” the authors explained. “However, even among full-time workers (those usually working 35 hours or more per week), men worked longer than women — 8.2 hours compared with 7.8 hours.”

Ouch, do you hear the sound of a crumbling narrative? Part-time jobs are kind of like a double-sided knife. They tend to offer flexible hours but they’re not always a consistent set of hours. So maybe it is better to consider full-time employees. Except when you do that, it seems men still work 24 minutes more per day. Well then it’s open and shut, isn’t it? Oh no, it’s never that simple when it comes to dealing with people pushing an agenda on lies.

Let’s start with a few massive caveats in the Labor Department’s report. First, the researchers asked each respondent to log their own time. Nobody submitted manager-approved work hours, and research tells us one of the sexes generally tends to overestimate. Secondly, the survey didn’t measure productivity or efficiency. Workaholism isn’t necessarily a sign of value.

You know, it’s good that they worded it the way that they did. Otherwise they’d be caught telling a lie. The research they’re referring to suggests that men will overestimate their abilities and performance while women will underestimate their abilities and performance. I have anecdotes which suggest the same; however I believe the implication is that men would lie about how many hours that they worked. But it’s weird. They link to an Atlantic article which doesn’t suggest that men lie about the hours they work, just that men take more chances. Women hold themselves back. Which has pretty much been what the wage gap deniers have been telling people all along but ‘muh wage gap’. Why is the Washington Post trying to imply that men would lie about their hours rather than the more natural conclusion that men just work more? And then it states that the survey didn’t measure productivity or efficiency, which might be true. But that was never the point of the survey. The point was just to get a gauge on how much people work. When the data came out, men worked more. But that runs counter to your narrative, so now you’re stuck in a spot in which you need to find a way around it. So you go to “men lie” and “the quality of goods was never measure, women could be making goods the same quality or with better quality”.

You know, in science when there’s a lack of evidence for a hypothesis, we tend to discard that hypothesis. But not Washington Post. No, they continue to pump out clickbait articles which either try to slither around the truth or just outright lie. And I can’t help but feel that in the war of the sexes in labor, the only person that wins is the employer. With men and women competing harder, they can drive down wages and make promotions more competitive.

In one 2005 study, Carnegie Mellon economist Linda Babcock showed people clips of men and women asking for a raise, following the same script. Male viewers deemed the men’s negotiating style smooth, while women using identical words registered as too demanding.

See, I hate this. They cite ‘studies’ but they don’t cite the study itself, rather someone else reporting on it. They did it with The Atlantic earlier, and now they’re doing it to themselves (oddly enough). When someone tells me the result of a study, I’d kinda like to see the study. Of course the article they cite also just mentions the study, rather than citing the study directly. But it’s actually important that we see the study itself. Which I found here (Bowles, Babcock, and Lai). Though truly, the author of this page should’ve cited it directly if possible.

We also need to see how the negotiations went down. There’s more to communication in requesting a raise than just following a script. We in the educated community often refer to it as ‘acting’. What makes Will Smith a better actor than any arbitrary actor? If you follow the same script, either one of you can get hired for the next big movie, right? Wrong. It’s how you deliver lines. Delivering lines has more to do with tone and body language than it does with the lines themselves. When you look at the study itself, it’s Experiment 3, and the experimenters apparently told the actors to deliver the lines in the same manner.

During the rehearsal for the taping, we coached them to enact the script as similarly as possible to one another (e.g., by providing instruction on tone and pace of voice, etc.) – Bowles, Babcock, and Lai

But this apparently had its own host of problems.

For instance, women tend to smile more often than men. […] If the female actors’ behavior differed more between the no ask and ask conditions than did the male actors’ behavior (e.g., they smiled relatively less), then that would suggest an alternative explanation for any findings of interaction effects between the gender of the candidate and the ask manipulation. – Bowles, Babcock, and Lai

Just a note, ‘ask’ and ‘no ask’ refer to

Across the negotiation conditions, the candidates either accepted their compensation offers without comment (no ask) or initiated negotiations (ask). – Bowles, Babcock, and Lai

What do we find?

both male and female evaluators were less inclined to work with female candidates who initiated negotiations as compared to those who did not – Bowles, Babcock, and Lai

Yes. This was observed. However, what they also found that male evaluators were less inclined to work with female candidates initiating negotiations and that female evaluators were less inclined to work with male candidates. Which means there may be more at play here, such as physical attraction. The evaluator likely did not want to feel like they awarded a raise due to physical attraction, which leads to this effect. Which is likely why this was observed:

As shown by the means in Table 7, attempting to negotiate for higher compensation had no significant effect on male evaluators’ willingness to work with male candidates. […] However, the ask manipulation had a significantly negative effect on female evaluators’ willingness to work with male candidates – Bowles, Babcock, and Lai

Precisely. In fact, this effect seems to be higher for female evaluators of male applicants than male evaluators of female applicants! (looking at the table). This effect isn’t drastically higher, however it is higher nonetheless.

The evaluators were asked to evaluate the ‘niceness’, ‘demandingness’, and ‘competence’ of the applicants. They did this on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being ‘extremely’. So a person rated with a niceness of 5 is perceived to be more nice than someone rated with a niceness of 4. And what we do we find? Women were found to be ‘nicer’ to both male and female evaluators for both the ask and no ask situations. This is likely due to that habit women have of smiling more during the interviews, as noted earlier. Men were found to be more ‘demanding’ to both men and women in the no ask situation and in the ask situation. And the ‘competence’ seemed to be rather close with the exception of male applicants where women tend to find men drastically less competent. Weird.

We expected the competence thing (except for that one condition), because male and female applicants were given the same script and a same resume. So strictly speaking, they should be equally competent. The niceness and demandingness would come down to deliver, which, again, comes down to the acting. If we get anything out of this study, I think we should be getting “negotiate with the same sex (if possible)” out of it.

So in short, I don’t buy the fish, at least not wholly. Let’s go back to the Washington Post article

In the United States, women now financially support 40 percent of homes and tend to take on more domestic chores. They typically spend two hours and 12 minutes on daily housework, while men invest about one hour and 21 minutes into the home. – Washington Post

This is odd, because earlier it was stated that in 2015 men do 2.1 hours of housework per day, while women do 2.6 hours of housework per day. So which is it? Are you citing another study or statistic? Because you did not indicate that you were doing so.

It’s strange that in this day and age that I have to ask for quality articles from the Washington Post. I grew up listening to Sousa’s Washington Post March which (I assume) was commissioned for the early days of this organization’s publishing. The Washington Post March is iconic, everyone (well, not really but you know what I mean) can recognize it by its introduction! I’m just really frustrated with the news. I don’t get it all from one place, but what’s happening now is that I’m not looking for where I can get news anymore. I’m looking for where I can’t get news. Because I’m more concerned that the news I read is total BS from some nutter that found an editor to hire them than it being actual news. My time is valuable and even if I waste a lot of it looking at kittens, it doesn’t mean that what’s leftover to read about what’s happening today or what’s happening in science is not important. I’m just really disappointed. Anyway, thanks for reading.

Artemis Hunt

Washington Post Please


I promised that I would do this topic soon, I may as well do it now. Especially since I’m in the mood after my raging debate on Facebook about it. Allow me to set the stage. My friend posted this image:


After which her friends chat about their side of the issue. And I’m reading this Tumblrism and I notice something… the Tumblr post, the “Fun fact” never addresses the original question. It never addresses whether or not it’s one body or two. In fact, it skips that step altogether, and calls it one body on an assumption that the fetus, embryo, child, whatever you want to call it (I shall henceforth call it ‘the entity’) isn’t a human life. So because I’m an instigator, I have to get my hooks in and make some people mad. Over the course of some 20 or so messages, I could not get a straight answer out of the other individual as to why the being inside was not human and was not alive. So here’s my take on the issue. And before I start I’m just going to point out that I’m not a doctor, I have no medical background, I’m just a random blogger here.


First – is it human? Don’t be ridiculous, of course it’s human. On what grounds? It’s the offspring of two humans, it can only BE a human. If you mate a horse and a donkey you get a mule. A mule isn’t a horse, and it isn’t a donkey, and it can’t mate with either one. Or other mules for that matter, it’s completely sterile. If two horses generate offspring, that offspring will reliably grow up to a horse that could (in theory) mate with one of its parents. Chickens mate with their species, generate another chicken. So what you’re telling me when you say that this fetus isn’t a human is either that one of its parents isn’t human (unlikely) or what I think you’re really saying is that it’s not a human yet.

If you want to say that the entity isn’t a human yet, then that means you have the define a point in the development cycle in which the entity does become a human. How do you set that point? Obviously when the big bulge is on the mother, the entity is about to make its exit, it’s probably ‘human’ by that point. In fact, I think ‘abortion’ at that point may take the name ‘birth’ (sarcasm). But what about… say 2nd trimester? Hmmm… Maybe not then. The child’s hair has developed and we come from apes so… probably a bit too far in the cycle. The sex of the child can be determined. Probably safe to call it a human at that point. So how about we go further back. How about middle of the first trimester? The second month, the neural tube is distinguishable from the rest of the body. The fingers and toes are forming, the bones are forming. Is that human yet? Why?

I’ve asked this question several times and the discussion suddenly shifts from what makes the entity a human and turns into the rights of the mother. But we’re not worried about the rights of the mother just yet. We’re worried about whether or not the entity is a human and whether or not it should be afforded human rights. So how far back can we go?

I would argue that the entity becomes human at fertilization, or perhaps shortly after. The reason being eggs and sperm separately aren’t necessarily human. Why? Well, if they are, it presents a great problem because if eggs by themselves are humans, killing a woman is like a forty-thousand homocide or something. Women would be, by natural design, killing one human a month or so. Sounds like a dangerous path to go down for philosophy and law. On the flip-side if sperm were humans, we’d have to take a lot of guys downtown for killing humans regularly. Really, the main reason I argue that egg and sperm aren’t human by themselves because what happens if the host abstains? (Let’s just ignore Mary) In the female host, she will continue to have her period until menopause and no life will spring forth from her. In the male host, sperm will get reabsorbed by the body and the male will continue to produce sperm until he dies. No new life will spring forth from the male host either. Nothing you could count in the United States Census would be brought into this world. Let’s take the case of the newly pregnant female. If she maintains her healthy lifestyle, the entity will be born in 9 months-ish. The entity will be human assuming human parents.

I’m sure someone has noticed the problem with my definition of human. Evolution. If a human is the offspring of human parents, and I’m a human then my parents have to be human, and so on, until we get to our great ape ancestors which were not human by any definition of the word. So how do we resolve this issue? We run into the same issue of when is the entity a human versus when it is not a human. Hmm… How about this. Humans and chimps have a common ancestor. We stop there. So we can pick me, and go up through my parents and their parents and so on. When we meet a parent that can mate with me and chimps, we’ve gone too far.


So there’s my human definition and since the entity has two human parents, it’s a human. Now how about whether or not it’s alive? Well now we need to define life. There’s no good way to answer the question “what is life?” According to wikipedia, this is life:

“the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death.” – Wikipedia

I tend to use an input-output definition of life. If an autonomous being requires sustenance from outside its being to survive, grow, and reproduce, it’s alive. If it can die, it was alive. This might get me into trouble when it comes to the robot revolution, and the question as to whether or not true AI self-replicating robots are alive, but that’s a problem for another day. And I’m not entirely sure I could argue that these robots wouldn’t be alive. I mean, think about it. If your issue with robots is that they can just chop-shop fix themselves, WE ARE GETTING TO THAT POINT TOO. How long before you can just go into the store and pick up a new arm? Holy smokes.

By my definition, the entity has to be alive, because it’s a parasite on its host. It eats the host’s resources to grow.You can’t use an autonomous self-providing definition because let’s be real here – babies are really useless for like two years. They can’t feed themselves, they can’t walk, they can’t do jack. So if you require mobility and the ability to provide for oneself for something to be alive, newborn babes are just as alive as the entity within. Which, if abortion is legal, would make the… neutralization of newborns also legal. It’s a natural extension.

Doctors have several types of life and death. When your heart stops being, you’re not really dead. We could bring you back through CPR, or the use of defibrillation. I guess most people go by brain death, where you can still have blood pumping through you, but you cannot be brought back… yet. If you go by the beating of the heart, you have 3 weeks to discover that you’re pregnant and then get your abortion. If you wait for the brain to partially develop, same deal, the beginning of the nervous system forms in the timespan it takes to form a heart. End of the first trimester the entity will have a functioning circulatory system. If you’re waiting for the brain to form, that would be in the second trimester. So if you require a fully developed brain, to call something alive, the entity is alive in the second trimester. But I don’t like the requirement of a brain for life. Single-celled organisms don’t have a brain, but they’re ‘alive’.

When are most abortions performed? CDC stats say about two-thirds in the first 8 weeks (first two months) and let’s just round about the last third done between 8 and 13 weeks (the third month). Because I was given a range of time, I’ll assume a Gaussian distribution of when the abortion was performed (though strictly speaking, I should probably assume a Laplacian distribution). That means most of the abortions were performed in the 3 week to 5 week range. But wait, that’s when the baby’s heart was formed. That’s when the neural tube, what would become the nervous system was formed. That’s when bones are forming. If we accept my definition of life and human, the entity will be a human and it will be alive. the removal of it would then be murder.

How about this, how do you determine what is the host’s body compared to the entity’s body? You can’t, if you accept the entire system as the host’s body. So how do you know how much host to remove? You have to accept that there is knowledge of the entity and its scope, so you remove the entity alone and not the host. But that assumption itself implies that the entity has a body, in which case, it is no longer just the host’s body.

Now understand, my issue with abortion is pretty much entirely the murder part. And not because I have some preconceived notion of the value of human life. My problem is with the consistency of law. A legal abortion would be legal murder by the logic presented. What you’re proposing is a condition under which murder would be legal. Which makes it a target for setting precedent. Precedence is a very dangerous thing when applied to topics which you might find rather invasive. I’m not entirely sure that I would argue that slippery slope doesn’t apply. I can just imagine the future in which doctors shrink themselves to operate inside a patient. A patient could, while the doctor is inside have the doctor removed and killed on the premise that it was the patient’s body. How much of the entity must the host contain for the removal of the entity to be fair. I hate to get gross here, but what if a couple is having sex and the female suddenly decides to chop of the male’s penis. It was inside her, was it ‘her body’? Bear in mind this example is arguing from the ‘is is not alive and it is inside my body’ point of view.


 So you see, I’m at a bit of a pinch. Because I don’t think the government should pass two contradicting laws. And I don’t very much like the idea of setting a precedence like this on something which in its best case is mutilation and in its worst case is murder. The safest option is to outlaw it altogether and file it under murder. And it’s not like non-human things don’t get rights. You can’t up and kill your dog, that’s animal cruelty. The murder of threatened species like Bald Eagles will net you fines and jail-time. And I wonder if this does anything to the rights of people in vegetative states. I don’t know. Legal abortion could open up it’s own can of worms. Until we agree on what’s human and what’s alive, we should avoid permitting abortions. That’s just my take on it.

Artemis Hunt