November 27, 2024: Our X/Twitter account (@threadreaderapp) got hacked and unrolls aren't working right now. We appreciate your patience until this is resolved.
This new peer-reviewed paper in the a @SpringerNature journal, uses "feminist blue posthumanities to reimagine...how brine shrimp are perceived in science, culture, and art."
The paper "introduced the concept of hydrosexuality" to enrich "feminist blue posthumanities and feminist biology through art-based practices and queer advocacy." Its use of the "hydrosexual perspective challenges settler science by exploring the connections between the reproductive system of brine shrimp and the economy, ecology and culture."
Its analysis "draws inspiration from low trophic theory and Queer Death Studies" to "gradually alter white humans' perceptions and understandings of brine shrimp."
I gotta say, this might dethrone the classic Feminist Glaciology paper for Most Insane Paper Ever. I am convinced that @ConceptualJames, @peterboghossian, and @HelenPluckrose are behind this!
"Ewelina Jarosz (she/they) is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Media and Cultural Research at UKEN, Poland. Her current research explores the intersections of environmental art, queerfeminist blue posthumanities, queer ecologies, and activism of pleasure. They are also transdisciplinary collaborative artist working in cyber_nymphs art research duo with Justyna Górowska and they launched the hydrosexual movement in arts."
The author describes brine shrimp as having "swirly sexuality" and claims they can reproduce by "pathogenesis," which isn't a thing and she/they meant parthenogenesis.
This paper was queer-reviewed, not peer-reviewed.
The term "hydrosexuality" emphasizes the "more-than-human sensuality and sexuality emphasizing fluidity and relationality" and "deploys watery thinking to dissolve" the "hegemonic notion of the autonomous and bounded human subject."
@SpringerNature The paper includes a section near the end where the author claimed, via performance art, "to challenge the dominant scientific, industrial, and cultural use of brine shrimp by responding to them as lovable objects."
🚨BREAKING: The @nytimes and @business killed stories at the 11th hour covering new research on DEI pedagogy and its negative psychological impacts.
The study showed that certain DEI practices increase hostility, authoritarian tendencies, and agreement with extreme rhetoric. 🧵
The study was conducted by the Network Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) in collaboration with Rutgers University. It investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically trainings that draw heavily from texts like How to Be an Antiracist and White Fragility.
The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Using carefully controlled experiments, researchers found that exposure to anti-oppressive rhetoric consistently amplified perceptions of bias where none existed.
🚨BREAKING: Laura Helmuth has resigned as Editor-in-Chief of Scientific American after over four years in the role. During her tenure, she transformed @sciam from a widely respected, objective popular science magazine into a science-themed, woke political publication.
Her resignation follows a series of (now deleted) unhinged posts she made on Bluesky on election night. She has since apologized for the posts, and assured readers that her political views do not compromise the "editorial objectivity" at Scientific American.
Yeah, right.
Scientific American is a leading "science" magazine pushing sex spectrum pseudoscience.
I demand an explanation from the @NIH and @genome_gov as to why I was just kicked out of their public event "Exploring the many dimensions of sex and gender in the genomics era," which I had registered for in advance and was quietly attending.
About 20 minutes into Dr. Tucker Pyle's session titled "Sex and Gender in the Clinic," a window popped up stating, "The host has removed you from the webinar."
When I tried to rejoin the webinar, I was told I could not rejoin.
According to the event description, this is a "public two-day National Institutes of Health (NIH) symposium" that "brings together experts from the biological and social sciences to clarify and contextualize – but not resolve - the complexities around sex, gender, and genomics by considering them in their scientific, ethical, and historical contexts."
I was not disruptive and could not have been, even if I had wanted to, because the webinar was view-only. I did not submit any questions in the Q&A chat window either. I was just quietly watching.
I signed up for the webinar because, as a scientist involved in influencing policy on sex and gender, I wanted to gain a deeper understanding of how these concepts are being applied in medicine and genomics. If anyone should be attending this event, it's me.
The event claims to be an "interdisciplinary conversation," yet the speaker lineup consists entirely of ideologically aligned sex and gender activists who promote radical and pseudoscientific views of sex and gender.
Additionally, @TomasBogardus, an academic who has also voiced dissent from activist orthodoxy on sex and gender issues, was removed from the event around the same time I was.
This is completely unacceptable.
I demand that Eric D. Green (@NHGRI_Director), the director of the @genome_gov at the @NIH, who gave the opening remarks, explain why Dr. Bogardus and I were kicked out of the event.
I wrote about this event shortly after it was announced in May. See my article below for the details. city-journal.org/article/nih-ho…
After emailing the Communications Director, I was told that they did not know why I was removed. I am suddenly now able to rejoin the webinar. 🤔
🚨A new study explored the most effective way to brainwash children into accepting gender ideology.
Researchers had kids watch either a story video of Jazz Jennings, who is said to have "a girl brain but boy body," or of a marker named Blue who has "a blue inside but a red outside."
They found that "a direct, realistic story was the only effective means of teaching children about transgender identities and reducing the belief in gender immutability."
These are some excerpts from the scripts of the story videos with screenshots. The stories are nearly identical except for "boy" and "girl" in Jazz's story being replaced with "red" and "blue" for Blue's the marker's story.
The videos were stopped periodically to ask the children 3 questions about the video they were watching:
▫️What is different about Jazz/Blue?
▫️Why is Jazz/Blue sad?
▫️Why is Jazz/Blue happy?
Regardless of the child's response, the researchers responded with set answers ⬇️
Racial "inequity" is literally measured, according to DEI ideology, by the magnitude of disparate outcomes between racial groups in any given context. This idea forms the foundation of Kendi's and other DEI proponents' entire worldview. They are explicit about this. To achieve racial "equity" therefore entails eliminating those group outcome disparities. Achieving equity is synonymous with achieving equal outcomes.
Mark is absurdly naive if he does not understand this yet.
I literally clicked on the first result of a Google search for "racial equity" and got this
🔗raceforward.org/what-racial-eq…
Second Google search result:
🔗
"This site defines racial equity as 'the condition that would be achieved if one's racial identity no longer predicted, in a statistical sense, how one fares.'"
Kareem is forwarding what is essentially a "racism of the gaps" argument. It's everywhere we don't look and don't understand. As soon as you look for it in a specific place and don't find it to be predictive of outcomes, it suddenly moves to a new obscure location.
"You can't control for education, because education is racist!"
Okay, then demonstrate the effects of racism in education. Oh, we didn't find any when we controlled for hours spent studying.
"You can't control for hours spent studying, because racism is responsible for disparities in hours spent studying!"
Round and round we go in the CRT carousel.
The woke view of racism is something similar to (but much stupider than) Dark Energy in physics. It can't be viewed directly, but it's assumed to exist because they see its effects.
They've convinced themselves they see its effects because they're committed to the nonsensical idea that the existence of group disparities can only be explained by racism.