In message <1qbyfat.klpc3v6db59iN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Wed, 7 Jun 2023 12:38:46, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
[]

No, we seem to have gone completely off track here.

Certainly from discussion of the end of LW (-:

I am talking about transgender people having to live a false life
because society would not let them admit what they really were. The
same thing used to happen with left-handers, who were blamed for all
sorts of things like crop failures, epidemics and stillbirths - so >left-handers were forced to use their right hands and suffered lasting
damage as the result.

It's not _quite_ the same: it's not just society, but biology. A
left-hander _can_ do things the RH way in most cases, though often very
badly (I know, I am LH). Ditto an RH can LH, though equally badly in
most cases.

A female brain trapped in a male body - which I accept as a concept,
though I feel _most_ of such is due to the way society _treats_ the genders/sexes/whatever - cannot, however, get pregnant. Ditto a male
brain trapped in a female body cannot father.

I'm all in favour of research into external wombs, and even male
pregnancy (presumably involving implantation) if there are scientists
wanting to research it and volunteers willing to help. (I'm not sure
what the trapped-male-brain-in-a-female-body equivalent would be, but I
don't think I'd be against research into that aspect either.)

It is only in the last 100 years that some countries have come to terms
with left-handedness being a natural condition which is harmless to
society. As a result we now know there are far more left-handers than
were previously recognised. We also know that handedness is a spectrum
- not every left-hander is completely left-handed at all tasks.

Unfortunately (with the exception of the very few who have one testicle
and one ovary), the _reproductive_ part of the body _is_ binary. I'm
fine with some _brains_ being unhappy with the body they're born into -
and I think the _main_ source of such unhappiness is society's attitudes
- but, for the moment, we're stuck with the binary situation. Yes,
someone can be only 40% left-handed, or even completely ambidextrous -
but (with the rare exceptions) there _isn't_ a "spectrum" as far as the reproductive mechanics are concerned. I'm quite happy with the concept
that the _brain_ _is_ on such a spectrum; I for one (born male) have
disliked much of what is considered male and the expectation that I
would do/behave in that/those way(s).

The same thing applies to transgender people (who are not the same thing
as eunuchs or castrati). They are born with a trait which shows up as
they develop. Until recently they have had to hide it because of
society's reaction; parents have tried to beat it out of them. Now

I repeat I don't think the _brain_ is binary. I find it hard to accept
someone has a complete flip and suddenly wants to be 100% the other -
I'll use the word "group". But I do understand that they may feel they
have to _present_ themselves as if that's how they feel, in order to be
treated anything like how they want to be.

[There's a lot of vocabulary that is loaded - handsome, beautiful,
manly, womanly, pretty, and probably hundreds of others.]

society is coming to terms with the realisation that transgender people
are not all rapists, paedophiles and perverts; most of them are harmless
to society and just want to get on with their lives. (Those who make

Indeed: as with homosexuals (though again, I suspect more people have at
least _some_ attraction to both groups - but in most cases, won't dare
admit it; both the "straight" and "gay" communities have until recently
been very suspicious of "bi", and still are).

the headlines are bad because they are bad, not because they are >transgender.)

Well put. (But you have an uphill task with many of the media.)

There are a few people in the past who were transgender and are admired
by the transgender community because of the battles they fought - but
they are not generally well-known by the public and that is how it

As, indeed, the gay community.

should be. They transitioned, started a new life and left the old one
behind - we accept them as they are now. There are many more who never >managed to live their authentic life because they were killed or were
driven to suicide; they are the ones who should be remembered by the
public because of what society did to them.

There have always been (and I fear will always be) witch-hunts; it's
only too easy - and can be attractive politically - to stir up hatred
against those different from the majority. In many matters, especially
sexual, people join the hate groups because they are afraid of their own preferences coming to light.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Address the chair!" "There isn't a chair, there's only a rock!" "Well, call
it a chair!" "Why not call it a rock?" (First series, fit the sixth.)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]

A female brain trapped in a male body - which I accept as a concept,
though I feel _most_ of such is due to the way society _treats_ the genders/sexes/whatever - cannot, however, get pregnant. Ditto a male
brain trapped in a female body cannot father.

I'm all in favour of research into external wombs, and even male
pregnancy (presumably involving implantation) if there are scientists
wanting to research it and volunteers willing to help. (I'm not sure
what the trapped-male-brain-in-a-female-body equivalent would be, but I
don't think I'd be against research into that aspect either.)

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more
than that. Even if I had been born a woman, I may not have wanted
children but I would still be a woman.

Since transitioning I have felt as though I am in a parallel universe
with completely different social interactions, where I am far more
comfortable. I now see men the way women see them (although I am not
sexually attracted to them) and it shows a very different view from the
one men have of themselves. (I also see women differently, so it's not
all one-sided.)

I didn't have to learn how to interact as a woman, it was there all the
time; all I had to do was unlearn the rubbish I had been taught about
'being a man' and let what was already there come out.

No, I can't explain it but it is real for me.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <1qbz7um.pbsqrs1l0ozecN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:42:42, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]

A female brain trapped in a male body - which I accept as a concept,
though I feel _most_ of such is due to the way society _treats_ the
genders/sexes/whatever - cannot, however, get pregnant. Ditto a male
brain trapped in a female body cannot father.

I'm all in favour of research into external wombs, and even male
pregnancy (presumably involving implantation) if there are scientists
wanting to research it and volunteers willing to help. (I'm not sure
what the trapped-male-brain-in-a-female-body equivalent would be, but I
don't think I'd be against research into that aspect either.)

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more
than that. Even if I had been born a woman, I may not have wanted
children but I would still be a woman.

You might not have wanted to _use_ the equipment you were born with, but
the fact remains it could only have done the job of the parts provided
to one group. After your transition, you still can't do what the parts
of the group you have moved to could (I accept you don't want to).
Please read next paragraph before replying.

Yes, I'm quite happy to accept the concept that you had a female brain*
born into a male body.

*Or at least a brain that wanted to behave, and be treated, as a female
is in our society.
[]

'being a man' and let what was already there come out.

I dislike that "rubbish" too (ditto that for "being a woman"). But you
won't change society - in our lifetime I don't think, probably not this
century (though there is some hope).

No, I can't explain it but it is real for me.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Flobalob" actually means "Flowerpot" in Oddle-Poddle.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:42:42 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more
than that.

Sex is certainly all about reproduction. It evolved because it gave an evolutionary advantage, which is why nearly every lifeform that exists
today uses it. Combining genetic code from two individuals provides
the variation that allows natural selection to work, because if they
were all the same there would be nothing to select.

Without this variation, changes in environments could not cause
adaptive changes in the characteristics of lifeforms, and everything
would have died out long ago. Sex was a major evolutionary event.

However you define gender, it wouldn't exist if sex didn't exist.
Nobody could imagine themselves to belong to the opposite sex if there
was no such thing as an opposite sex because we were all the same.
Gender is based on sex, and sex evolved as a means of reproduction,
therefore gender must have *something* to do with reproduction.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 07/06/2023 22:42, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]

A female brain trapped in a male body - which I accept as a concept,
though I feel _most_ of such is due to the way society _treats_ the
genders/sexes/whatever - cannot, however, get pregnant. Ditto a male
brain trapped in a female body cannot father.

I'm all in favour of research into external wombs, and even male
pregnancy (presumably involving implantation) if there are scientists
wanting to research it and volunteers willing to help. (I'm not sure
what the trapped-male-brain-in-a-female-body equivalent would be, but I
don't think I'd be against research into that aspect either.)

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more
than that. Even if I had been born a woman, I may not have wanted
children but I would still be a woman.

Since transitioning I have felt as though I am in a parallel universe
with completely different social interactions, where I am far more comfortable. I now see men the way women see them (although I am not sexually attracted to them) and it shows a very different view from the
one men have of themselves. (I also see women differently, so it's not
all one-sided.)

I didn't have to learn how to interact as a woman, it was there all the
time; all I had to do was unlearn the rubbish I had been taught about
'being a man' and let what was already there come out.

No, I can't explain it but it is real for me.

I have no problem with that - save the rather important issue of how you
define "men" and "women". (As a lesbian friend commented, there seems
very often to be no room in the transiverse for women to be beer
swilling, foul-mouthed lumberjacks.)
--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <cu038itaveffv2a7q1c62sr6icr8fqkmud@4ax.com> at Thu, 8 Jun
2023 08:52:56, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:42:42 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more >>than that.

Sex is certainly all about reproduction. It evolved because it gave an

It's not _all_ about reproduction. Even in so-called "straight" couples,
the vast majority of it is for pleasure and bonding: with the exception
of those having difficulty conceiving, the proportion of times it is
indulged in with the specific aim of procreation is tiny; there is an
entire industry allowing it to happen specifically without reproduction
being the result. This applies not just in humans - it's been observed
in other animals too.

evolutionary advantage, which is why nearly every lifeform that exists
today uses it. Combining genetic code from two individuals provides
the variation that allows natural selection to work, because if they
were all the same there would be nothing to select.

Without this variation, changes in environments could not cause
adaptive changes in the characteristics of lifeforms, and everything
would have died out long ago. Sex was a major evolutionary event.

There would be - and are - still variations among species that reproduce
by other means (bacteria and viruses probably being the fastest);
however, you are right that they seem to occur much more rapidly with two-contributor reproduction.

However you define gender, it wouldn't exist if sex didn't exist.

Probably very true.

Nobody could imagine themselves to belong to the opposite sex if there
was no such thing as an opposite sex because we were all the same.
Gender is based on sex, and sex evolved as a means of reproduction,
therefore gender must have *something* to do with reproduction.

Yes and no. Certainly, gender _arose_ for that reason. However, many of societies _attitudes_ to the two genders have evolved - almost entirely
among humans only - into very peculiar things: what we consider
acceptable and expected for the two groups to do, behave, dress, and
many other aspects have little to do with the biological differences: a
few of them may once have had (females _on the whole_ are smaller, males stronger, and of course females _are_ to some extent incapacitated, or
at least inconvenienced, during pregnancy), but - especially in modern technological society - they're mostly no longer valid: and some, I can
see little reason even taking those into account. For example, the fact
that we mostly only let one group wear either conical or colourful
clothes, I see no justification for; and that we expect one group to be
more aggressive (either physically or in behaviour).

I am convinced that a _lot_ of the desire to be part of the other group
is _not_ to do with the _reproductive_ differences (desire for the
ability to give birth or to father), but is to do with how society
_treats_ one group or the other. I'm not saying that is _all_ of what is
behind the desire, nor that one contributor to this group had those
reasons. But it is surely a large part of it. "Boys/girls don't do
that." "That's girly." "Tomboy." On the whole, you expect a nurse to be
female and many jobs - bricklayer, judge, accountant, engineer, even
artist or composer - to be male. (I'm _not_ saying we're _against_ these
being the other way round, just that we have default _expectations_ as
to what gender people with those jobs will be.) And, in practice, we're
not going to change these aspects of society at all quickly: there have
been gradual changes in some societies/countries over, roughly, the last century or so, but some are only legal, not attitudinal.

Rod.

John
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Veni, Vidi, VO5 (I came, I saw, I washed my hair) - Mik from S+AS Limited (mik@saslimited.demon.co.uk), 1998

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:42:42 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more >than that.

Sex is certainly all about reproduction. It evolved because it gave an evolutionary advantage, which is why nearly every lifeform that exists
today uses it.

There are more types of organism that reproduce asexually than sexually.
Sexual reproduction is only an advantage in certain circumstances.

[...]

Without this variation, changes in environments could not cause
adaptive changes in the characteristics of lifeforms, and everything
would have died out long ago.

Not true - see above.

However you define gender, it wouldn't exist if sex didn't exist.

Nobody has successfully defined gender (as far as I am aware) but there
is no doubt that it exists and it is definitely not tied to sex in any hard-and-fast way, despite what society tries to enforce.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 10:50:54 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more >>>than that.

Sex is certainly all about reproduction. It evolved because it gave an

It's not _all_ about reproduction. Even in so-called "straight" couples,
the vast majority of it is for pleasure and bonding: with the exception
of those having difficulty conceiving, the proportion of times it is
indulged in with the specific aim of procreation is tiny; there is an
entire industry allowing it to happen specifically without reproduction
being the result. This applies not just in humans - it's been observed
in other animals too.

I wasn't talking about *our* reasons for enjoying what has evolved,
but *nature's* reason for evolving it in the first place. (The use of
the word *reason* here is not intended to imply that nature has a
purpose, but I can't think of a more suitable one).

If you think about it, we wouldn't need the particular form of bonding
that a sexual relationship creates if there was no such thing as sex.
It all springs from nature's 'discovery' of something that gives an evolutionary advantage.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 08:52:58 UTC+1, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jun 2023 22:42:42 +0100, l...@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more >than that.

Sex is certainly all about reproduction. It evolved because it gave an evolutionary advantage, which is why nearly every lifeform that exists
today uses it. Combining genetic code from two individuals provides
the variation that allows natural selection to work, because if they
were all the same there would be nothing to select.

Without this variation, changes in environments could not cause
adaptive changes in the characteristics of lifeforms, and everything
would have died out long ago. Sex was a major evolutionary event.

However you define gender, it wouldn't exist if sex didn't exist.
Nobody could imagine themselves to belong to the opposite sex if there
was no such thing as an opposite sex because we were all the same.
Gender is based on sex, and sex evolved as a means of reproduction,
therefore gender must have *something* to do with reproduction.

Rod.

Yes but there are aspects of gender that are only very remotely connected to sexual reproduction.
Bill

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 22:44:25 UTC+1, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

A female brain trapped in a male body - which I accept as a concept,
though I feel _most_ of such is due to the way society _treats_ the genders/sexes/whatever - cannot, however, get pregnant. Ditto a male
brain trapped in a female body cannot father.

I'm all in favour of research into external wombs, and even male
pregnancy (presumably involving implantation) if there are scientists wanting to research it and volunteers willing to help. (I'm not sure
what the trapped-male-brain-in-a-female-body equivalent would be, but I don't think I'd be against research into that aspect either.)

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more
than that. Even if I had been born a woman, I may not have wanted
children but I would still be a woman.

Since transitioning I have felt as though I am in a parallel universe
with completely different social interactions, where I am far more comfortable. I now see men the way women see them (although I am not
sexually attracted to them) and it shows a very different view from the
one men have of themselves. (I also see women differently, so it's not
all one-sided.)

I didn't have to learn how to interact as a woman, it was there all the
time; all I had to do was unlearn the rubbish I had been taught about
'being a man' and let what was already there come out.

No, I can't explain it but it is real for me.

You explain these things very well. I hope you use that ability in other places to clarify things for people.
Bill

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 12:00:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

There are more types of organism that reproduce asexually than sexually.

How many of them have advanced sufficiently to have invented clever
things like television?

It does seem to have given us a clear advantage.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 12:00:02 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

There are more types of organism that reproduce asexually than sexually.

How many of them have advanced sufficiently to have invented clever
things like television?

It does seem to have given us a clear advantage.

I'm not sure about that. The birth rate is going down and television
might be one of the factors; porn on the Web might be having a
counterbalancing effect. On the other hand, a rising birth rate might
lead to the 'monoculture' effect which wipes out the entire population -
so that may be disadvantageous in the long run.

The results of natural selection are highly unpredictable because they
are affected by so many factors. We think we are doing well but in 10
years time we could all be gone, displaced by a population of stupid,
but incredibly resilient, infection-carrying spiders.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

wrightsaerials@aol.com <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 22:44:25 UTC+1, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

A female brain trapped in a male body - which I accept as a concept, though I feel _most_ of such is due to the way society _treats_ the genders/sexes/whatever - cannot, however, get pregnant. Ditto a male brain trapped in a female body cannot father.

I'm all in favour of research into external wombs, and even male pregnancy (presumably involving implantation) if there are scientists wanting to research it and volunteers willing to help. (I'm not sure
what the trapped-male-brain-in-a-female-body equivalent would be, but I don't think I'd be against research into that aspect either.)

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more than that. Even if I had been born a woman, I may not have wanted
children but I would still be a woman.

Since transitioning I have felt as though I am in a parallel universe
with completely different social interactions, where I am far more comfortable. I now see men the way women see them (although I am not sexually attracted to them) and it shows a very different view from the
one men have of themselves. (I also see women differently, so it's not
all one-sided.)

I didn't have to learn how to interact as a woman, it was there all the time; all I had to do was unlearn the rubbish I had been taught about 'being a man' and let what was already there come out.

No, I can't explain it but it is real for me.

You explain these things very well. I hope you use that ability in other places to clarify things for people.

I have given public talks on this and other (totally unrelated)
subjects. It is very difficult to explain to people who 'know' that the biology they were taught in infant-school or by religion is right. They
have a lot to discard and find it much easier to argue aggressively than
to accept that some of their fundamental concepts might be out of line
with scientifically proven reality.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 08/06/2023 14:22, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

wrightsaerials@aol.com <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 22:44:25 UTC+1, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

A female brain trapped in a male body - which I accept as a concept,
though I feel _most_ of such is due to the way society _treats_ the
genders/sexes/whatever - cannot, however, get pregnant. Ditto a male
brain trapped in a female body cannot father.

I'm all in favour of research into external wombs, and even male
pregnancy (presumably involving implantation) if there are scientists
wanting to research it and volunteers willing to help. (I'm not sure
what the trapped-male-brain-in-a-female-body equivalent would be, but I >>>> don't think I'd be against research into that aspect either.)

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more
than that. Even if I had been born a woman, I may not have wanted
children but I would still be a woman.

Since transitioning I have felt as though I am in a parallel universe
with completely different social interactions, where I am far more
comfortable. I now see men the way women see them (although I am not
sexually attracted to them) and it shows a very different view from the
one men have of themselves. (I also see women differently, so it's not
all one-sided.)

I didn't have to learn how to interact as a woman, it was there all the
time; all I had to do was unlearn the rubbish I had been taught about
'being a man' and let what was already there come out.

No, I can't explain it but it is real for me.

You explain these things very well. I hope you use that ability in other
places to clarify things for people.

I have given public talks on this and other (totally unrelated)
subjects. It is very difficult to explain to people who 'know' that the biology they were taught in infant-school or by religion is right. They
have a lot to discard and find it much easier to argue aggressively than
to accept that some of their fundamental concepts might be out of line
with scientifically proven reality.

I understand your wish to educate people but AFAIK the "scientific
proven reality" is that no one knows the causes. Some people have
chromosomal differences, some hormonal and other environmental factors,
and some no known physical cause at all. And chromosomal differences
which increase the probability may not by any means guarantee it (ie
they don't mean someone is a different sex). As the Cass review noted
last year "it is highly unlikely that a single cause for gender
incongruence will be found. Many authors view gender expression as a
result of a complex interaction between biological, cultural, social and psychological factors."



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <1315858a-a890-4809-803b-99166ee0fce9n@googlegroups.com> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 05:34:29, "wrightsaerials@aol.com"
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> writes

On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 08:52:58 UTC+1, Roderick Stewart wrote:

[]

Rod.

Yes but there are aspects of gender that are only very remotely
connected to sexual reproduction.
Bill

Indeed: Clothing, occupations, and many social attitudes. Some (e. g.
conical clothing, in western culture anyway) I fail to see how they ever "evolved" from the biological requirements.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm too lazy to have a bigger ego. - James May, RT 2016/1/23-29

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <1qc0fdy.1xu0apclgepxwN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 14:22:13, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes

wrightsaerials@aol.com <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

[]

You explain these things very well. I hope you use that ability in other
places to clarify things for people.

I have given public talks on this and other (totally unrelated)

Though I've not attended any of your talks, I've had extensive
discussions with you - both publicly (here) and privately - on your
specialist subject (vintage sound reproduction), and have enjoyed your
sharing of your knowledge. (Both before and since your transition.)

subjects. It is very difficult to explain to people who 'know' that the >biology they were taught in infant-school or by religion is right. They

Well, religion certainly has a lot to answer for (many religions; IMO
few [none that I can think of, but I haven't studied them all, it being
a subject I tire quickly of] have much regard for women's rights). But
...

have a lot to discard and find it much easier to argue aggressively than
to accept that some of their fundamental concepts might be out of line
with scientifically proven reality.

... I fear some of those, especially but not exclusively in the trans community, antagonize by throwing out _all_ knowledge. (Sometimes
claiming _only_ their views are "scientifically proven". Many of these
things are IMO at present _not_ proven - _either_ way. But separating
them from _social_ [including, especially, religious] convention is
_very_ difficult - in practice impossible for most people not willing to
devote their lives full-time to it.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I'm too lazy to have a bigger ego. - James May, RT 2016/1/23-29

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <1qc0l63.1ip0i551c2wjlvN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 16:24:23, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[]

Indeed: Clothing, occupations, and many social attitudes. Some (e. g.
conical clothing, in western culture anyway) I fail to see how they ever
"evolved" from the biological requirements.

Some women's clothing is designed to make it easier to breast feed or to
deal with menstruation. Some men's clothing appears to have been

Yes, but that doesn't explain why it's considered _un_acceptable for men
to wear them.

designed with castration in mind.

(-:
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Why doesn't DOS ever say "EXCELLENT command or filename!"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

In message <1315858a-a890-4809-803b-99166ee0fce9n@googlegroups.com> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 05:34:29, "wrightsaerials@aol.com"
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> writes

On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 08:52:58 UTC+1, Roderick Stewart wrote:

[]

Rod.

Yes but there are aspects of gender that are only very remotely
connected to sexual reproduction.
Bill

Indeed: Clothing, occupations, and many social attitudes. Some (e. g.
conical clothing, in western culture anyway) I fail to see how they ever "evolved" from the biological requirements.

Some women's clothing is designed to make it easier to breast feed or to
deal with menstruation. Some men's clothing appears to have been
designed with castration in mind.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Robin <rbw@outlook.com> wrote:

On 08/06/2023 14:22, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

wrightsaerials@aol.com <wrightsaerials@f2s.com> wrote:

On Wednesday, 7 June 2023 at 22:44:25 UTC+1, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

A female brain trapped in a male body - which I accept as a concept, >>>> though I feel _most_ of such is due to the way society _treats_ the
genders/sexes/whatever - cannot, however, get pregnant. Ditto a male >>>> brain trapped in a female body cannot father.

I'm all in favour of research into external wombs, and even male
pregnancy (presumably involving implantation) if there are scientists >>>> wanting to research it and volunteers willing to help. (I'm not sure >>>> what the trapped-male-brain-in-a-female-body equivalent would be, but I >>>> don't think I'd be against research into that aspect either.)

People think gender is all about reproduction, but it is about far more >>> than that. Even if I had been born a woman, I may not have wanted
children but I would still be a woman.

Since transitioning I have felt as though I am in a parallel universe
with completely different social interactions, where I am far more
comfortable. I now see men the way women see them (although I am not
sexually attracted to them) and it shows a very different view from the >>> one men have of themselves. (I also see women differently, so it's not >>> all one-sided.)

I didn't have to learn how to interact as a woman, it was there all the >>> time; all I had to do was unlearn the rubbish I had been taught about
'being a man' and let what was already there come out.

No, I can't explain it but it is real for me.

You explain these things very well. I hope you use that ability in other >> places to clarify things for people.

I have given public talks on this and other (totally unrelated)
subjects. It is very difficult to explain to people who 'know' that the biology they were taught in infant-school or by religion is right. They have a lot to discard and find it much easier to argue aggressively than
to accept that some of their fundamental concepts might be out of line
with scientifically proven reality.

I understand your wish to educate people but AFAIK the "scientific
proven reality" is that no one knows the causes. Some people have chromosomal differences, some hormonal and other environmental factors,
and some no known physical cause at all. And chromosomal differences
which increase the probability may not by any means guarantee it (ie
they don't mean someone is a different sex). As the Cass review noted
last year "it is highly unlikely that a single cause for gender
incongruence will be found. Many authors view gender expression as a
result of a complex interaction between biological, cultural, social and psychological factors."

Yes, I agree with that, but I have to explain this to people who are
absolutely adamant that gender is the same as sex and they know there
are only men and women because the Bible/their mother/a Janet & John
book/ etc says so. Starting from that point is like trying to explain
gamma correction to someone who has only ever seen soot and whitewash.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

In message <1qc0l63.1ip0i551c2wjlvN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 16:24:23, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[]

Indeed: Clothing, occupations, and many social attitudes. Some (e. g.
conical clothing, in western culture anyway) I fail to see how they ever >> "evolved" from the biological requirements.

Some women's clothing is designed to make it easier to breast feed or to >deal with menstruation. Some men's clothing appears to have been

Yes, but that doesn't explain why it's considered _un_acceptable for men
to wear them.

There is a huge ongoing discussion about this on the SkirtCafe forum.

The general consensus is that women are still considered inferior to men
and no 'real man' should want to lower himself to the status of a woman.
There is also the pressure from a wife who married a man because of his
macho behaviour and suddenly feals cheated that he turns out to be 'less
than a man'. It's horrible, but probably true.

Having worn all sorts of clothing, I can state that I find some types of 'womens' clothing much more comfortable than men's. Perhaps they don't
want men to discover that.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <1qc0o0r.m6p8z119faw9zN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 17:28:04, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes
[]

The general consensus is that women are still considered inferior to men
and no 'real man' should want to lower himself to the status of a woman.

And (some) people of both groups express that view.

There is also the pressure from a wife who married a man because of his
macho behaviour and suddenly feals cheated that he turns out to be 'less
than a man'. It's horrible, but probably true.

Having worn all sorts of clothing, I can state that I find some types of >'womens' clothing much more comfortable than men's. Perhaps they don't
want men to discover that.

I don't think most of the pressure not to wear "women's" clothing comes
from women wanting to keep that secret!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I admire him for the constancy of his curiosity, his effortless sense of authority and his ability to deliver good science without gimmicks.
- Michael Palin on Sir David Attenborough, RT 2016/5/7-13

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

In message <1qc0o0r.m6p8z119faw9zN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 17:28:04, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes

[...]

Having worn all sorts of clothing, I can state that I find some types of >'womens' clothing much more comfortable than men's. Perhaps they don't >want men to discover that.

I don't think most of the pressure not to wear "women's" clothing comes
from women wanting to keep that secret!

There is a kind of 'club' feeling among women who are happy to discuss
clothing amongst themselves but would be reluctant to mention it if a
man were present. Having crossed that divide, I have had several
interesting and very natural-feeling discussions with women about
clothes that I could not possibly imagine having if they had seen me as
a man. They aren't actively trying to stop men finding out about
clothes, they just feel it doesn't apply to men.

One thing that women envy about men's clothes is the pockets; they will sometimes buy from the men's section just to get some decent pockets. I
have added pockets to many of my skirts and dresses - I feel lost
without them.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 15:57:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

In message <1315858a-a890-4809-803b-99166ee0fce9n@googlegroups.com> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 05:34:29, "wrightsaerials@aol.com"
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> writes

On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 08:52:58 UTC+1, Roderick Stewart wrote:

[]

Rod.

Yes but there are aspects of gender that are only very remotely
connected to sexual reproduction.
Bill

Indeed: Clothing, occupations, and many social attitudes. Some (e. g.
conical clothing, in western culture anyway) I fail to see how they ever >"evolved" from the biological requirements.

These are all consequences of the fact that sex evolved from the
biological requirements. If we were all hermaphrodites it's difficult
to see why a culture of two fundamentally different sorts of people
with all the attitudes and behaviours that we now associate with
'gender' would ever have evolved. There would be no biological
advantage and no reason for it. Therefore these things *are* (even if indirectly) the results of evolution.

We might have developed something like a caste system, and I suppose
the rich and the poor would despise each other just as they do now,
but those are different things.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 14:22:13 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

The results of natural selection are highly unpredictable because they
are affected by so many factors. We think we are doing well but in 10
years time we could all be gone, displaced by a population of stupid,
but incredibly resilient, infection-carrying spiders.

I would be betting on cockroaches or termites as our successors,
rather than spiders, and maybe a few more centuries rather than ten
years, but essentially I think you could be right.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 08:35:50 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

In message <1qc0o0r.m6p8z119faw9zN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 17:28:04, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes

[...]

Having worn all sorts of clothing, I can state that I find some types of
'womens' clothing much more comfortable than men's. Perhaps they don't
want men to discover that.

I don't think most of the pressure not to wear "women's" clothing comes
from women wanting to keep that secret!

There is a kind of 'club' feeling among women who are happy to discuss >clothing amongst themselves but would be reluctant to mention it if a
man were present. Having crossed that divide, I have had several
interesting and very natural-feeling discussions with women about
clothes that I could not possibly imagine having if they had seen me as
a man. They aren't actively trying to stop men finding out about
clothes, they just feel it doesn't apply to men.

One thing that women envy about men's clothes is the pockets; they will >sometimes buy from the men's section just to get some decent pockets. I
have added pockets to many of my skirts and dresses - I feel lost
without them.

Has any of these discussions ever explained why men's and women's
garments button up differently? My shirts and coats have the buttons
on the right and the buttonholes on the left, but all the equivalent
women's garments I've seen are the other way round.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/06/2023 09:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Has any of these discussions ever explained why men's and women's
garments button up differently? My shirts and coats have the buttons
on the right and the buttonholes on the left, but all the equivalent
women's garments I've seen are the other way round.

One theory I've seen is that upper class Ladies who could afford staff
used to be dressed by their maid, and their Gentlemen dressed themselves
after their valet had laid out their clothes for the day. The layouts
are easier to use if the person doing the work is right handed.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/06/2023 09:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 15:57:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

In message <1315858a-a890-4809-803b-99166ee0fce9n@googlegroups.com> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 05:34:29, "wrightsaerials@aol.com"
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> writes

On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 08:52:58 UTC+1, Roderick Stewart wrote:

[]

Yes but there are aspects of gender that are only very remotely
connected to sexual reproduction.

Indeed: Clothing, occupations, and many social attitudes. Some (e. g.
conical clothing, in western culture anyway) I fail to see how they ever
"evolved" from the biological requirements.

These are all consequences of the fact that sex evolved from the
biological requirements. If we were all hermaphrodites it's difficult
to see why a culture of two fundamentally different sorts of people
with all the attitudes and behaviours that we now associate with
'gender' would ever have evolved.

Yay! Hermaphroditism! That'll be the next big thing. But how will we
have sex? Earthworms do it head to toe, and snails too I think.
Vertebrate hermaphrodite species use external fertilisation, which is
rather boring.

--
Max Demian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <fcp58i94lqmubfkeo23ledod9chdl436dc@4ax.com> at Fri, 9 Jun
2023 09:47:14, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 08:35:50 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

In message <1qc0o0r.m6p8z119faw9zN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 17:28:04, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes

[...]

Having worn all sorts of clothing, I can state that I find some types of >>> >'womens' clothing much more comfortable than men's. Perhaps they don't >>> >want men to discover that.

I don't think most of the pressure not to wear "women's" clothing comes
from women wanting to keep that secret!

There is a kind of 'club' feeling among women who are happy to discuss >>clothing amongst themselves but would be reluctant to mention it if a
man were present. Having crossed that divide, I have had several >>interesting and very natural-feeling discussions with women about
clothes that I could not possibly imagine having if they had seen me as
a man. They aren't actively trying to stop men finding out about
clothes, they just feel it doesn't apply to men.

Interesting.

One thing that women envy about men's clothes is the pockets; they will >>sometimes buy from the men's section just to get some decent pockets. I >>have added pockets to many of my skirts and dresses - I feel lost
without them.

I've often wondered _why_ they don't (causing the _necessity_ of
handbags). [As an engineer, from childhood it always seemed an obvious
place for a pocket is front central! Even though as I grew up I
appreciate that might not be desirable in most cases, I continue to be surprised that I've _never_ seen a pocket there.]

Interestingly, the feeling that handbags are effeminate (negative word)
is very variable by nation: in Germany, which you'd not think of as that progressive in such matters, at least in the 1960s/'70s when I was
there, they (handbags for men) were - I can't honestly say common, but certainly marketed and seen. (Whether that's still the case I don't
know; I haven't been back for decades.)

Has any of these discussions ever explained why men's and women's
garments button up differently? My shirts and coats have the buttons
on the right and the buttonholes on the left, but all the equivalent
women's garments I've seen are the other way round.

Rod.

The explanation my Mum (I think it was) gave to me was that one gender
had servants to help them dress, the other dressed themselves, and the
designs favoured the right-handed. (And of course those too poor to
afford servants would still pretend.)

Now, as for anti-lefty prejudice ... (-: [I'm not so much talking about
the past allegations of evil/witchcraft etc., more just the modern
uncaring attitude when it comes to design. Very similar to how much for
the visually-handicapped could be eased with minimal changes, many of
which would improve things for we sighted folk too.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Lebanon is smaller than Wales but they have taken on one million refugees and they don't talk about it as much as we seem to here in this country.
- Hassan Akkad, RT 2017/10/28-2017/11/3

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:13:12 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

On 09/06/2023 09:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jun 2023 15:57:51 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver" <G6JPG@255soft.uk>
wrote:

In message <1315858a-a890-4809-803b-99166ee0fce9n@googlegroups.com> at
Thu, 8 Jun 2023 05:34:29, "wrightsaerials@aol.com"
<wrightsaerials@f2s.com> writes

On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 08:52:58 UTC+1, Roderick Stewart wrote:

[]

Yes but there are aspects of gender that are only very remotely
connected to sexual reproduction.

Indeed: Clothing, occupations, and many social attitudes. Some (e. g.
conical clothing, in western culture anyway) I fail to see how they ever >>> "evolved" from the biological requirements.

These are all consequences of the fact that sex evolved from the
biological requirements. If we were all hermaphrodites it's difficult
to see why a culture of two fundamentally different sorts of people
with all the attitudes and behaviours that we now associate with
'gender' would ever have evolved.

Yay! Hermaphroditism! That'll be the next big thing. But how will we
have sex? Earthworms do it head to toe, and snails too I think.
Vertebrate hermaphrodite species use external fertilisation, which is
rather boring.

Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.

If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:51:54 +0100, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 09/06/2023 09:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Has any of these discussions ever explained why men's and women's
garments button up differently? My shirts and coats have the buttons
on the right and the buttonholes on the left, but all the equivalent
women's garments I've seen are the other way round.

One theory I've seen is that upper class Ladies who could afford staff
used to be dressed by their maid, and their Gentlemen dressed themselves >after their valet had laid out their clothes for the day. The layouts
are easier to use if the person doing the work is right handed.

Curious. I think I'm mostly lefthanded, but the conventional
left-over-right arrangement for buttoned garments would feel awkward
to me if it were the other way round. It doesn't seem to be optimised
for righthanded use at all, or maybe it's just a question of what
you've become accustomed to.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:51:54 +0100, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 09/06/2023 09:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Has any of these discussions ever explained why men's and women's
garments button up differently? My shirts and coats have the buttons
on the right and the buttonholes on the left, but all the equivalent
women's garments I've seen are the other way round.

One theory I've seen is that upper class Ladies who could afford staff
used to be dressed by their maid, and their Gentlemen dressed themselves >after their valet had laid out their clothes for the day. The layouts
are easier to use if the person doing the work is right handed.

Curious. I think I'm mostly lefthanded, but the conventional
left-over-right arrangement for buttoned garments would feel awkward
to me if it were the other way round. It doesn't seem to be optimised
for righthanded use at all, or maybe it's just a question of what
you've become accustomed to.

The 'servants' theory is the one I have heard. As a left-hander who
switches between left and right-buttoning clothes, I haven't found any difficulty after the first few weeks.


--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/06/2023 15:45, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:51:54 +0100, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 09/06/2023 09:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Has any of these discussions ever explained why men's and women's
garments button up differently? My shirts and coats have the buttons
on the right and the buttonholes on the left, but all the equivalent
women's garments I've seen are the other way round.

One theory I've seen is that upper class Ladies who could afford staff
used to be dressed by their maid, and their Gentlemen dressed themselves >>> after their valet had laid out their clothes for the day. The layouts
are easier to use if the person doing the work is right handed.

Curious. I think I'm mostly lefthanded, but the conventional
left-over-right arrangement for buttoned garments would feel awkward
to me if it were the other way round. It doesn't seem to be optimised
for righthanded use at all, or maybe it's just a question of what
you've become accustomed to.

The 'servants' theory is the one I have heard. As a left-hander who
switches between left and right-buttoning clothes, I haven't found any difficulty after the first few weeks.

A girlfriend's explanation was "increases the men'll undo them rather
than rip them off" :)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/06/2023 12:31, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:51:54 +0100, John Williamson <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 09/06/2023 09:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Has any of these discussions ever explained why men's and women's
garments button up differently? My shirts and coats have the buttons
on the right and the buttonholes on the left, but all the equivalent
women's garments I've seen are the other way round.

One theory I've seen is that upper class Ladies who could afford staff
used to be dressed by their maid, and their Gentlemen dressed themselves
after their valet had laid out their clothes for the day. The layouts
are easier to use if the person doing the work is right handed.

Curious. I think I'm mostly lefthanded, but the conventional
left-over-right arrangement for buttoned garments would feel awkward
to me if it were the other way round. It doesn't seem to be optimised
for righthanded use at all, or maybe it's just a question of what
you've become accustomed to.

I suppose the idea is that you insert the button in the hole rather than
put the hole over the button.

--
Max Demian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/06/2023 16:28, Robin wrote:

On 09/06/2023 15:45, Liz Tuddenham wrote:

Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 10:51:54 +0100, John Williamson
<johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

On 09/06/2023 09:47, Roderick Stewart wrote:

Has any of these discussions ever explained why men's and women's
garments button up differently? My shirts and coats have the buttons >>>>> on the right and the buttonholes on the left, but all the equivalent >>>>> women's garments I've seen are the other way round.

One theory I've seen is that upper class Ladies who could afford staff >>>> used to be dressed by their maid, and their Gentlemen dressed
themselves
after their valet had laid out their clothes for the day. The layouts
are easier to use if the person doing the work is right handed.

Curious. I think I'm mostly lefthanded, but the conventional
left-over-right arrangement for buttoned garments would feel awkward
to me if it were the other way round. It doesn't seem to be optimised
for righthanded use at all, or maybe it's just a question of what
you've become accustomed to.

The 'servants' theory is the one I have heard.  As a left-hander who
switches between left and right-buttoning clothes, I haven't found any
difficulty after the first few weeks.

A girlfriend's explanation was "increases the men'll undo them rather
than rip them off" :)

Ah, the "patriarchy" explanation. Men take the lead and undress their women.

--
Max Demian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 09/06/2023 12:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:13:12 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

On 09/06/2023 09:39, Roderick Stewart wrote:

These are all consequences of the fact that sex evolved from the
biological requirements. If we were all hermaphrodites it's difficult
to see why a culture of two fundamentally different sorts of people
with all the attitudes and behaviours that we now associate with
'gender' would ever have evolved.

Yay! Hermaphroditism! That'll be the next big thing. But how will we
have sex? Earthworms do it head to toe, and snails too I think.
Vertebrate hermaphrodite species use external fertilisation, which is
rather boring.

Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.

If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.

I think that binary fission is a really good idea. No need for child
rearing, which parthenogenesis still requires.

--
Max Demian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <b3071060-e89c-1d2a-2574-a67980575f2f@outlook.com> at Fri, 9
Jun 2023 16:28:06, Robin <rbw@outlook.com> writes
[]

A girlfriend's explanation was "increases the men'll undo them rather
than rip them off" :)

That reminds me: Liz, have your newly-accessible discussions clarified
why front-fastening undergarments are still very much the exception? Not
just for the convenience of out-of-control men, but I'd have thought
they'd be more convenient for women too - but they seem still to be very
much in the minority.

(I did once ask my mum, and she says it makes them think of maternity
garments - but surely that [a] can't still be the case [b] shouldn't be negative anyway.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <u5vmar$1v3au$4@dont-email.me> at Fri, 9 Jun 2023 18:08:42,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes

On 09/06/2023 12:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:13:12 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

[]

Yay! Hermaphroditism! That'll be the next big thing. But how will we
have sex? Earthworms do it head to toe, and snails too I think.

Birds do it, bees do it, even complicated fleas do it ... let's do it.

Vertebrate hermaphrodite species use external fertilisation, which is
rather boring.

Though that of the limpet is quite surprising.

Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.

Not everyone has that aim - or, if they do, the degree to which they
feel that urge (or succumb to it) varies a _lot_.

I think that binary fission is a really good idea. No need for child
rearing, which parthenogenesis still requires.

Or external wombs/gestation chambers. Something I continue to be
depressed how little research is given to: the anti-women's-rights folk
(sorry, anti-abortionists) may have something to do with that.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

in the kingdom of the bland, the one idea is king. - Rory Bremner (on politics), RT 2015/1/31-2/6

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 03:38:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.

Not everyone has that aim - or, if they do, the degree to which they
feel that urge (or succumb to it) varies a _lot_.

The primary enterprise of all lifeforms is to make copies of
themselves, by whatever method they can. It's built into everything
that lives. It may express itself to different extents in different
individual lifeforms, or it may be misdirected in some way, or it may
not always succeed, but it's the most fundamental bit of biological
programming that there can be, and everything alive today is the
result of it. A successful copy must also include a copy of the
instruction to make a copy, otherwise nothing would survive more than
one further generation. Anything that didn't follow the program to
completion, for whatever reason, is not represented here today because
it made no copies and therefore had no descendants. You may think some
people don't have 'the urge' but the pattern for it is built into
eveything alive, and the success of the program does indeed vary, but
that is exactly how natural selection works, and there would be no
life at all today without it.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/06/2023 03:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

In message <u5vmar$1v3au$4@dont-email.me> at Fri, 9 Jun 2023 18:08:42,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes

On 09/06/2023 12:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:13:12 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com>
wrote:

[]

Yay! Hermaphroditism! That'll be the next big thing. But how will we
have sex? Earthworms do it head to toe, and snails too I think.

Birds do it, bees do it, even complicated fleas do it ... let's do it.

Actually it's "educated" fleas for some reason. The point is, none of
them use hermaphroditism; the problem is getting your bits in the right position if you want to do it simultaneously. Which I would have thought
would be preferable.

Vertebrate hermaphrodite species use external fertilisation, which is
rather boring.

Though that of the limpet is quite surprising.

I don't know how limpets "do it", but male barnacles have a penis
several times the length of their bodies; but that's the problem if you
live stuck to a rock.

 Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
 If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.

Not everyone has that aim - or, if they do, the degree to which they
feel that urge (or succumb to it) varies a _lot_.

I think that binary fission is a really good idea. No need for child
rearing, which parthenogenesis still requires.

Or external wombs/gestation chambers. Something I continue to be
depressed how little research is given to: the anti-women's-rights folk (sorry, anti-abortionists) may have something to do with that.

Why make life more complicated?

--
Max Demian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <upa88i9rtvh0os338ou6de2enll1d8m669@4ax.com> at Sat, 10 Jun
2023 09:12:59, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 03:38:35 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.

Not everyone has that aim - or, if they do, the degree to which they
feel that urge (or succumb to it) varies a _lot_.

The primary enterprise of all lifeforms is to make copies of
themselves, by whatever method they can. It's built into everything

I could say that a lot of civilisation involves overcoming primal urges,
but I won't go directly there (as I sense I'd not get anywhere with
you): I will say instead that in a small - but arguably very important - proportion, the urge to make copies comes out as doing things for the
benefit of the hive/species/whatever, rather than personal copies. I was thinking mainly of inventors and the like, but it occurs to me that it
also covers those who go off to war (including those who have _not_ done
any fathering before they go).

that lives. It may express itself to different extents in different >individual lifeforms, or it may be misdirected in some way, or it may

(As for "misdirected", see above.)

not always succeed, but it's the most fundamental bit of biological >programming that there can be, and everything alive today is the
result of it. A successful copy must also include a copy of the
instruction to make a copy, otherwise nothing would survive more than
one further generation. Anything that didn't follow the program to

Unless it helps the rest of the species.

completion, for whatever reason, is not represented here today because
it made no copies and therefore had no descendants. You may think some
people don't have 'the urge' but the pattern for it is built into
eveything alive, and the success of the program does indeed vary, but
that is exactly how natural selection works, and there would be no
life at all today without it.

Rod.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Sometimes I believe we made up god just to have someone to blame for our mistakes - "Sarah Sidle" (Jorja Fox), CSI

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <u61i6o$296l9$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 10 Jun 2023 11:10:31,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes

On 10/06/2023 03:38, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

In message <u5vmar$1v3au$4@dont-email.me> at Fri, 9 Jun 2023
18:08:42, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes

On 09/06/2023 12:40, Roderick Stewart wrote:

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:13:12 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> >>>> wrote:

[]

Yay! Hermaphroditism! That'll be the next big thing. But how will we >>>>> have sex? Earthworms do it head to toe, and snails too I think.

Birds do it, bees do it, even complicated fleas do it ... let's do
it.

Actually it's "educated" fleas for some reason. The point is, none of

I felt I'd got the line wrong.

them use hermaphroditism; the problem is getting your bits in the right

Yes, I thought that as I was typing - but I really only inserted the
reference as a bit of levity after you'd mentioned worms and snails,
since I find any reference to Mr. Coward's song adds a smile to my day.
(As does reference to Ms. Wood's one of a similar subtitle.)

position if you want to do it simultaneously. Which I would have
thought would be preferable.

Vertebrate hermaphrodite species use external fertilisation, which is >>>>> rather boring.

Though that of the limpet is quite surprising.

I don't know how limpets "do it", but male barnacles have a penis
several times the length of their bodies; but that's the problem if you
live stuck to a rock.

OK, that's the one I was thinking of. (Limpets may be similar.)

 Or perhaps the next big thing could be parthenogenesis. No need to
bother with all that clumsy business of finding a partner at all.
 If it really happened, I think society would be unimaginably
different. Just think of what what motivates nearly every long term
aim everyone has, related to settling down and raising a family etc.

Not everyone has that aim - or, if they do, the degree to which they
feel that urge (or succumb to it) varies a _lot_.

I think that binary fission is a really good idea. No need for child >>>rearing, which parthenogenesis still requires.

Or external wombs/gestation chambers. Something I continue to be
depressed how little research is given to: the anti-women's-rights
folk (sorry, anti-abortionists) may have something to do with that.

Why make life more complicated?

Why preserve the ancient mechanism that makes women suffer an increasing incapacity for nine months? If the embryo could be transferred to such a chamber at an early stage, just think how much more productive we could
be. (Not that pregnant women haven't contributed enormously to
progress.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Who is Art, and why does life imitate him?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 10/06/2023 13:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

In message <u61i6o$296l9$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 10 Jun 2023 11:10:31,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes

I don't know how limpets "do it", but male barnacles have a penis
several times the length of their bodies; but that's the problem if
you live stuck to a rock.

OK, that's the one I was thinking of. (Limpets may be similar.)

Limpets reproduce through a behavior known as **broadcast spawning**.
Several females release eggs and several males release sperm into the
water at the same time. This method increases the likelihood that eggs
will become successfully fertilized and that fertilized eggs will not be
eaten by nearshore egg predators¹. The Common Limpet spawns once a year
during winter months².

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Source: Conversation with Bing, 10/06/2023
(1) Common Limpet - Oceana. https://oceana.org/marine-life/common-limpet/.
(2) . https://bing.com/search?q=limpets+reproduction.
(3) Limpet - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limpet.
(4) Frontiers | Methodologies for Patellid Limpets’ Aquaculture: From
.... https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2022.884262/full.
(5) Reproduction and larval development of the limpet Lottia persona
.... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1134/S1063074011030072.

--
Bing AI

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 17:26:12 +0100, Bing AI <bing_ai@example.com>
wrote:

On 10/06/2023 13:58, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

In message <u61i6o$296l9$1@dont-email.me> at Sat, 10 Jun 2023 11:10:31,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes

I don't know how limpets "do it", but male barnacles have a penis
several times the length of their bodies; but that's the problem if
you live stuck to a rock.

OK, that's the one I was thinking of. (Limpets may be similar.)

Limpets reproduce through a behavior known as **broadcast spawning**.
Several females release eggs and several males release sperm into the
water at the same time. This method increases the likelihood that eggs
will become successfully fertilized and that fertilized eggs will not be >eaten by nearshore egg predators¹. The Common Limpet spawns once a year >during winter months².

And in the dark I think. Some pelagic fishes use the same method of
spawning.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 13:47:02 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

The primary enterprise of all lifeforms is to make copies of
themselves, by whatever method they can. It's built into everything

I could say that a lot of civilisation involves overcoming primal urges,
but I won't go directly there (as I sense I'd not get anywhere with
you): I will say instead that in a small - but arguably very important - >proportion, the urge to make copies comes out as doing things for the
benefit of the hive/species/whatever, rather than personal copies.

Darwin's theory on its own doesn't fully explain altruism, but this
was the insight of Professor Richard Dawkins as explained in his book
'The Selfish Gene'. He realised that lifeforms don't act in their own individual interests, but in the interests of the genetic code that
created them.

Effectively he allowed the phrase "survival of the fittest" to prompt
the question "survival of the fittest what?" and the answer was not
survival of individual lifeforms as we had previously assumed.

Suddenly, the behaviour of creatures that will fight to the death to
support others makes perfect sense. If all members of an insect colony
have the same genetic code, it doesn't matter from the point of view
of preserving the code if a few individual creatures are lost. It's as
if the colony acts as a kind of super lifeform that does act in its
own self interest, being prepared to sacrifice parts of itself if this
becomes necessary to ensure its survival.

It makes you look again at altruism wherever it appears.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <30f98itpns4ser4ac4mr8jl3o2eaaj9eob@4ax.com> at Sat, 10 Jun
2023 19:21:12, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]

Darwin's theory on its own doesn't fully explain altruism, but this >Effectively he allowed the phrase "survival of the fittest" to prompt
the question "survival of the fittest what?" and the answer was not
survival of individual lifeforms as we had previously assumed.

Of course, when Darwin used the word "fittest", he did NOT mean fit in
its modern use (as in what you can do at the gym); he meant "most
suited", best _fitted_ to each specific environment. Definitely not the biggest and/or strongest: there are many situations where those are a _dis_advantage evolutionarily.

Suddenly, the behaviour of creatures that will fight to the death to
support others makes perfect sense. If all members of an insect colony
have the same genetic code, it doesn't matter from the point of view
of preserving the code if a few individual creatures are lost. It's as
if the colony acts as a kind of super lifeform that does act in its
own self interest, being prepared to sacrifice parts of itself if this >becomes necessary to ensure its survival.

Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best
thought of as an overall single organism.

Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th century
- I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in some oriental societies than in some western ones.

It makes you look again at altruism wherever it appears.

Rod.

Indeed.

Vaguely getting back on-topic, at least to some engineering, some hive situations with clouds of drones - or nanobots, if those ever escape
from the realms of science fiction - may need to include altruism.
(Probably only will be relevant once replication is real.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Beatrix Potter was a bunny boiler.
- Patricia Routledge, on "Today" 2016-1-26

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 01:52:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best >thought of as an overall single organism.

Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th century
- I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in some oriental >societies than in some western ones.

Yes, if you can brainwash individuals from birth you may be able to
subvert some of their natural instincts, such as the instinct for self preservation. They may be persuaded to sacrifice their own interests
in favour of those of their glorious leader Kim No Fun if they have
been 'educated' to regard him as more important than themselves.

It's scary.

Vaguely getting back on-topic, at least to some engineering, some hive >situations with clouds of drones - or nanobots, if those ever escape
from the realms of science fiction - may need to include altruism.
(Probably only will be relevant once replication is real.)

They will all act in accordance with Azimov's Third Law from the very
start. In fact, we might suggest a Fourth Law, as follows-

4. "A robot must sacrifice itself if required to do so".

This would particularly apply to battle robots. In fact, we already
have sacrificial or 'kamikaze' drones whose sole function is to carry
bombs to their targets, after which their missions are over, as it
wouldn't be worth the trouble and expense to bring them back.

It's scary.

Then there are the extra capabilities that robots can have by
networking them together, or controlling them centrally. We currently
do this sort of thing with lots of little drones with coloured lights
in lieu of firework displays, but if a thing can be used for evil,
it's only a matter of time before somebody does it. A particularly
chilling fictional example of how this might be done is an episode of
'Black Mirror' about a robot dog. (The episode is called 'Metalhead'
if you want to look it up). Not a single piece of technology depicted
here would require the invention of anything we don't already have. We
already have robot dogs. We already have guns. We already have radio.
We already have networking. We already have tracking devices - in the
drama depicted as lots of tiny objects embedded in the target by means
of an explosive that is thrown into the air and detonates a few feet
from the ground. We already have explosive devices that can be thrown
ito the air and detonate a few feet from the ground. Worst of all, we
almost certainly already have people with the will to put all this
together without realising or caring about the possible consequences.

It's even more scary.

Rod.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <ggua8ilujics8ss8t8qlhuubk2b3mh3k7u@4ax.com> at Sun, 11 Jun
2023 09:14:32, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes

On Sun, 11 Jun 2023 01:52:15 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver"
<G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best >>thought of as an overall single organism.

Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th century
- I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in some oriental >>societies than in some western ones.

Yes, if you can brainwash individuals from birth you may be able to
subvert some of their natural instincts, such as the instinct for self >preservation. They may be persuaded to sacrifice their own interests
in favour of those of their glorious leader Kim No Fun if they have
been 'educated' to regard him as more important than themselves.

(I like the name!) I wasn't thinking so much of that particular state -
more Singapore and Japan, where (certainly a lot of) people seem better behaved.

It's scary.

North Korea, and to some extent China, I'm not clear - and have no way
of finding out - whether it's a matter of hive mind, or just
suppression. There are many states and societies where people
individually _do_ want to look after their own affairs more but can't
because of the way the society is run (which is not always for the
benefit of society, often just a ruling elite or even individual). [I'm somewhat concerned that laws _here_ - in the UK, not sure about USA -
are being passed that are excessively suppressive.]

Vaguely getting back on-topic, at least to some engineering, some hive >>situations with clouds of drones - or nanobots, if those ever escape
from the realms of science fiction - may need to include altruism. >>(Probably only will be relevant once replication is real.)

They will all act in accordance with Azimov's Third Law from the very
start. In fact, we might suggest a Fourth Law, as follows-

4. "A robot must sacrifice itself if required to do so".

I think that's already inherent in laws 0-3. (The good doctor's name is
spelt with an s, by the way, not a z.)

This would particularly apply to battle robots. In fact, we already
have sacrificial or 'kamikaze' drones whose sole function is to carry
bombs to their targets, after which their missions are over, as it
wouldn't be worth the trouble and expense to bring them back.

So far, most drones are controlled by a human, rather than having
autonomy. We've had such for some time - the old cruise missiles are
probably more autonomous than what are in effect "guided munitions" (as
seen to great extent in the gulf wars).

It's scary.

Then there are the extra capabilities that robots can have by
networking them together, or controlling them centrally. We currently
do this sort of thing with lots of little drones with coloured lights

Yes, and they're very impressive.

in lieu of firework displays, but if a thing can be used for evil,
it's only a matter of time before somebody does it. A particularly

As Tim Berner's-Lee put it (I may not have the words exactly right): you
can't invent a piece of paper on which only good things can be written;
you can put an engine in an ambulance or a tank.
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I don't like activity holidays. I like /inactivity/ holidays.
- Miriam Margolyes, RT 2017/4/15-21

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/06/2023 01:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

In message <30f98itpns4ser4ac4mr8jl3o2eaaj9eob@4ax.com> at Sat, 10 Jun
2023 19:21:12, Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> writes
[]

Darwin's theory on its own doesn't fully explain altruism, but this
Effectively he allowed the phrase "survival of the fittest" to prompt
the question "survival of the fittest what?" and the answer was not
survival of individual lifeforms as we had previously assumed.

Of course, when Darwin used the word "fittest", he did NOT mean fit in
its modern use (as in what you can do at the gym); he meant "most
suited", best _fitted_ to each specific  environment. Definitely not the biggest and/or strongest: there are many situations where those are a _dis_advantage evolutionarily.

The phrase "Survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer; I'm
not sure Darwin used the term. Actually it's a bit of a tautology, as
"fit" means able to survive.

I'm not "refuting Darwin" as c19 clerics boasted, it's just that the
phrase "only the fittest shall survive" doesn't properly describe
natural selection.

Suddenly, the behaviour of creatures that will fight to the death to
support others makes perfect sense. If all members of an insect colony
have the same genetic code, it doesn't matter from the point of view
of preserving the code if a few individual creatures are lost. It's as
if the colony acts as a kind of super lifeform that does act in its
own self interest, being prepared to sacrifice parts of itself if this
becomes necessary to ensure its survival.

Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best thought of as an overall single organism.

Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th century
- I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in some oriental societies than in some western ones.

It stops working when people become self conscious individuals.

--
Max Demian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]

Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best thought of as an overall single organism.

Humas are thought of as a single organism but we are actually a
collectio of organisms. Without gut bacteria and, much more
primitively, cell components subsumed from simpler organisms, we would
not be able to function.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <1qc5v0p.bwwku3muhhc6N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> at
Sun, 11 Jun 2023 12:39:48, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> writes

J. P. Gilliver <G6JPG@255soft.uk> wrote:

[...]

Insect colonies (or at least several of them) are indeed sometimes best
thought of as an overall single organism.

Humas are thought of as a single organism but we are actually a
collectio of organisms. Without gut bacteria and, much more
primitively, cell components subsumed from simpler organisms, we would
not be able to function.

Yes, but we're in control - the bacteria are "along for the ride",
though we actually need them. An insect colony/hive is much more a
collection.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In message <u647nb$2m0hq$3@dont-email.me> at Sun, 11 Jun 2023 11:30:03,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes

On 11/06/2023 01:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

[]

Of course, when Darwin used the word "fittest", he did NOT mean fit
in its modern use (as in what you can do at the gym); he meant "most >>suited", best _fitted_ to each specific  environment. Definitely not
the biggest and/or strongest: there are many situations where those
are a _dis_advantage evolutionarily.

The phrase "Survival of the fittest" was coined by Herbert Spencer; I'm

I didn't know that.

not sure Darwin used the term. Actually it's a bit of a tautology, as
"fit" means able to survive.

Not as Darwin (or Spencer) used it. He meant "most suited". Those less
suited can still survive, just not as well. Though in the long run, see
next point.

I'm not "refuting Darwin" as c19 clerics boasted, it's just that the
phrase "only the fittest shall survive" doesn't properly describe
natural selection.

Long-term, it describes the idea.
[]

Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th
century - I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in
some oriental societies than in some western ones.

It stops working when people become self conscious individuals.

No - see altruism.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Knowledge isnt elitist - that's rubbish! Why are we embarrassed by the idea that people know things? It's not a conspiracy against the ignorant. Knowing things is good!" - Jeremy Paxman, RT 14-20 August 2010

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/06/2023 22:16, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

In message <u647nb$2m0hq$3@dont-email.me> at Sun, 11 Jun 2023 11:30:03,
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> writes

On 11/06/2023 01:52, J. P. Gilliver wrote:

 Some human societies likewise. At present (at least in the 20th
century  - I'm not so sure about now), this seemed more the case in
some oriental  societies than in some western ones.

It stops working when people become self conscious individuals.

No - see altruism.

If altruism comes from an evolved trait intended to benefit the group
rather than the individual, as soon as people start to think of
themselves as individuals they may reject the altruistic impulse as
irrelevant to themselves, while still feeling that it has some meaning
due to their inheritance.

--
Max Demian

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)