A person’s sex is usually determined entirely by the chromosomes you end up with:

The common pathway of sexual differentiation, where a productive human female has an XX chromosome pair, and a productive male has an XY pair, is relevant to the development of intersexed conditions.

During fertilization, the sperm adds either an X (female) or a Y (male) chromosome to the X in the ovum. This determines the genetic sex of the embryo.^[92] During the first weeks of development, genetic male and female fetuses are “anatomically indistinguishable,” with primitive gonads beginning to develop during approximately the sixth week of gestation. The gonads, in a “bipotential state,” may develop into either testes (the male gonads) or ovaries (the female gonads), depending on the consequent events.^[92] Through the seventh week, female and male fetuses appear identical.

At around eight weeks of gestation, the gonads of an XY embryo differentiate into functional testes, secreting testosterone. Ovarian differentiation, for XX embryos, does not occur until approximately Week 12 of gestation. In normal female differentiation, the Müllerian duct system develops into the uterus, Fallopian tubes, and inner third of the vagina. In males, the Müllerian duct-inhibiting hormone MIH causes this duct system to regress. Next, androgens cause the development of the Wolffian duct system, which develops into the vas deferens, seminal vesicles, and ejaculatory ducts.^[92] By birth, the typical fetus has been completely “sexed” male or female, the hormones and genital development remaining consistent with the genetic sex.

This process screws up sometimes:

The final body appearance does not always correspond with what is dictated by the genes. In other words, there is sometimes an incongruity between genotypic (chromosomal) and phenotypic sex. Citing medical research regarding other factors that influence sexual differentiation, the Intersex Society of North America challenges the XY sex-determination system‘s assumption that chromosomal sex is the determining factor of a person’s “true” biological sex.^[93]

How?

example 1: congenital adrenal hyperplasia

The most common cause of sexual ambiguity is congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), an endocrine disorder in which the adrenal glands produce abnormally high levels of virilizing hormones.

In people without a Y chromosome (i.e., XX), this can range from partial masculation that produces a large clitoris, to virilisation and male appearance. The latter applies in particular to Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency, which is the most common form of CAH.

Individuals born with XX chromosomes affected by 17α-hydroxylase deficiency are born with female internal and external anatomy, but, at puberty, neither the adrenals nor the ovaries can produce sex-hormones, inhibiting breast development and the growth of pubic hair.

example 2: androgen insensitivity syndrome

People with AIS have a Y chromosome, (typically XY), but are unable to metabolize androgens in varying degrees.

Cases with typically female appearance and genitalia are said to have complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS). People with CAIS have a vagina and no uterus,cervix, or ovaries, and are infertile. The vagina may be shorter than usual, and, in some cases, is nearly absent. Instead of female internal reproductive organs, a person with CAIS has undescended or partially descended testes, of which the person may not even be aware.

In mild and partial androgen insensitivity syndrome (MAIS and PAIS), the body is partially receptive to androgens, so there is virilization to varying degrees. PAIS can result in genital ambiguity, due to limited metabolization of the androgens produced by the testes. Ambiguous genitalia may present as a large clitoris, known asclitoromegaly, or a small penis, which is called micropenis or microphallus; hypospadias and cryptorchidism may also be present, with one or both testes undescended, and hypospadias appearing just below the glans on an otherwise typical male penis, or at the base of the shaft, or at the perineum and including a bifid (or cleft) scrotum.

example 3: 5-alpha-reductase deficiency

The condition affects individuals with a Y chromosome, making their bodies unable to convert testosterone to dihydrotestosterone (DHT). DHT is necessary for the development of male genitalia in utero, and plays no role in female development, so its absence tends to result in ambiguous genitalia at birth; the effects can range from infertility with male genitalia to male underdevelopment with hypospadias to female genitalia with mild clitoromegaly. The frequency is unknown, and children are sometimes misdiagnosed as having AIS.^[95] Individuals can have testes, as well as vagina and labia, and a small penis capable of ejaculation that looks like a clitoris at birth. Such individuals are usually raised as girls. The lack of DHT also limits the development of facial hair.

example 4: persistent Müllerian duct syndrome

The child has XY chromosomes typical of a male. The child has a male body and an internal uterus and fallopian tubes because his body did not produce Müllerian inhibiting factor during fetal development.

There’s another list of these here.

Also: Sexual differentiation, Intersex: Surgery

Depending on the type of intersex condition, surgery may be performed not for protection of life or health but for aesthetic or social purposes. Unlike other aesthetic surgical procedures performed on infants, such as corrective surgery for a cleft lip (as opposed to a cleft palate), genital surgery may lead to negative consequences for sexual functioning in later life (such as loss of sensation in the genitals, for example, when a clitoris deemed too large/penile is reduced/removed), or feelings of freakishness and unacceptability, which may have been avoided without the surgery. In other cases, negative consequences may be avoided with surgery.

I realise Wikipedia probably isn’t the best source, but it’s great for looking at interesting stuff and finding related interesting stuff, and there’s also plenty of links to other, possibly more reliable web-pages.

KING RAT

WHOA WHOA WHOA THERE. HOLD THE FUCKING PHONE. WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?? IS THAT ROB? OUR BRO? IN A FUCKING SKIRT AND BRA AND SHIT? YOU FUCKING BET IT IS.

DOES THIS MEAN YOU SHOULD STOP USING MALE PRONOUNS, BECAUSE I’VE TAKEN PART IN SOMETHING STEREOTYPICALLY FEMALE? FUCK NO! YOU SHOULD RESPECT MY PRONOUN CHOICE NO MATTER HOW I AM PRESENTING MYSELF, UNTIL I SPECIFICALLY ASK YOU TO CHANGE PRONOUNS!

DOES THIS MEAN, BECAUSE I AM (FAAB)ULOUS AND PARTAKING IN STEREOTYPICALLY FEMALE ACTIVITY, THAT I AM FEMALE? DOES IT MEAN I AM REJECTING MY GENDERQUEERITY OR MAKING MY GENDER IDENTITY ILLEGITIMATE? FUCK NO! IT MEANS I WANNA WEAR A FUCKING SKIRT, SON!

DOES THIS MEAN YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO FEEL COMFORTABLE IN A SKIRT BECAUSE CLOTHES ARE GENDERLESS? FUCK NO! IF IT ISN’T FOR YOU, IT ISN’T FOR YOU!

I like that, but I think this expresses the sentiment much more clearly:

it’s not the feminine stuff that is the problem. the problem is the expectation that anybody who is perceived as a woman dress a certain way, wear a certain kind of clothes, behave a certain way, whatever.

the problem is that feminine things are only for people with vaginas and boobs.
the problem is that feminine things are seen as less valuable than masculine things.
the problem is the enforcement and the shaming when you’re not feminine.

rejecting the feminine can be an important critique of oppressive gender roles so long as that critique doesn’t turn into actual hatred of femininity.

In The Australian’s piece, a couple on $200,000 a year (who admit they pay only 18 per cent tax) complain that they may be forced to get a nanny if their childcare subsidy is reduced.

Now, The Australian itself has called for reductions in ‘middle-class welfare’, so either the editors have changed their mind, or they have a misguided sense of what constitutes a middle income in modern Australia.

I don’t doubt that the family featured in The Australian’s story genuinely thinks they’re more-or-less typical, but they’re wrong. We all tend to judge what’s normal, or typical, with reference to those we work and socialise with. This leads the poor to underestimate the wealth of the rich, and leads the rich to overestimate the wealth of the poor. It also means that a lot of us tend to think we’re ‘middle class’ when we’re not.

Andrew Leigh (before he was an MP) wrote a great little paper on the effect that this misperception has on our public debate, called ‘The Political Economy of Tax Reform in Australia’. In it, he argued that:

Opinion leaders [do] not properly appreciate the distribution of income in Australia. For the most part, the taxation rates applying to most politicians, journalists, business executives and think-tank staffers (and indeed, to academic economists) are not those that apply to the average voter. In all these professions, six-figure salaries are common. Yet only 4.5 per cent of Australian adults have an income that exceeds $100,000 per year, and only 1.5 per cent have an income that exceeds $150,000 per year.

(The paper is from 2006, so the figures are a little out of date, but the principle hasn’t changed).

Leigh also, correctly, notes that “reporting of ‘average’ income in Australia focuses on a measure of earnings which is not that of the typical voter”. Journalists often use average weekly ordinary time earnings for full-time adults (AWOTE) as a measure of a typical income. This is misleading for several reasons.

Fatal Familial Insomnia

Fatal familial insomnia (FFI) is a very rare autosomal dominant inherited prion disease of the brain. It is almost always caused by a mutation to the protein PrP^C, but can also develop spontaneously in patients with a non-inherited mutation variant called sporadic Fatal Insomnia (sFI). FFI has no known cure and involves progressively worsening insomnia, which leads to hallucinations, delirium, and confusional states like that of dementia.^[1] The average survival span for patients diagnosed with FFI after the onset of symptoms is 18 months.^[1]

Denial: DARVO

Harassment covers a wide range of offensive behaviour. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset. In the legal sense, it is behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing.

DARVO is an acronym to describe a common strategy of abusers: Deny the abuse, then Attack the victim for attempting to make them accountable for their offense, thereby Reversing Victim andOffender.

Psychologist Jennifer Freyd^[5] writes:

…I have observed that actual abusers threaten, bully and make a nightmare for anyone who holds them accountable or asks them to change their abusive behavior. This attack, intended to chill and terrify, typically includes threats of law suits, overt and covert attacks on the whistle-blower’s credibility, and so on. The attack will often take the form of focusing on ridiculing the person who attempts to hold the offender accountable. [...] [T]he offender rapidly creates the impression that the abuser is the wronged one, while the victim or concerned observer is the offender. Figure and ground are completely reversed. [...] The offender is on the offense and the person attempting to hold the offender accountable is put on the defense.

May Day – Restating the Obvious

But if you live in a city and you don’t understand why taxes are necessary, then you’re just fucking stupid.  When you leave the house, do you prefer to have a sidewalk out there, rather than a sea of mud?  When you shit, do you enjoy having plumbing to flush your crap out of the room and a sewer system to take it somewhere far away so that it doesn’t accumulate outside your house?  When you plug your wide-screen, flat-screen, 7-speaker plasma TV into the socket, do you enjoy have electricity come out?

You get pissy if there’s a power outage, but you refuse to recognize that pretty much the entire public infrastructure of New York needs urgent updating.  You tell racist stories about the clerk at Best Buy to your yuppie friends over brunch, but you don’t seem to realize that sales clerks would be more articulate if the American public education system wasn’t such a fucking wreck.  You demand maximum productivity from the workers you pay minimum wage to churn out profit for you, but you’re too dumb to understand that those workers would be more productive for more hours if they had reliable, quality health care.  I argue for a living and I can teach an undergraduate freshman to read Hegel, but at a certain point even I hit a brick wall when faced with a degree of self-centered density that defies comprehension.

My problem isn’t so much that so much of the world’s wealth is concentrated in so few hands; it’s much more that so much of the world’s wealth is concentrated in the hands of people who are DUMB.

The Real Filth in American Psycho

(14) This was my view upon first reading American Psycho, and part of the reason I was so shocked by that charge of filth on the bus. Once familiar with the controversy, I found this view shared by only a minority of commentators. Writing in the New Statesman & Society, Elizabeth J. Young asked: ‘Where have these people been? … Books of pornographic violence are nothing new … American Psycho outrages no contemporary taboos. Psychotic killers are everywhere’ (24). I was similarly aware that such murderers not only existed in reality, but also in many widely accessed works of literature and film – to the point where a few years later Joyce Carol Oates could suggest that the serial killer was an icon of popular culture (233). While a popular topic for writers of crime fiction and true crime narratives in both print and on film, a number of ‘serious’ literary writers – including Truman Capote, Norman Mailer, Kate Millet, Margaret Atwood and Oates herself – have also written about serial killers, and even crossed over into the widely acknowledged as ‘low-brow’ true crime genre. Many of these works (both popular or more literary) are vivid and powerful and have, as American Psycho, taken a strong moral position towards their subject matter. Moreover, many books and films have far more disturbing content than American Psycho, yet have caused no such uproar (Young and Caveney 120).

…

Yet, the morality of Ellis’s project is evident. By viewing the world through the lens of a psychotic killer who, in many ways, personifies the American Dream – wealthy, powerful, intelligent, handsome, energetic and successful – and, yet, who gains no pleasure, satisfaction, coherent identity or sense of life’s meaning from his endless, selfish consumption, Ellis exposes the emptiness of both that world and that dream. As Bateman himself explains: ‘Surface, surface, surface was all that anyone found meaning in. This was civilisation as I saw it, colossal and jagged’ (Ellis 375). Ellis thus situates the responsibility for Bateman’s violence not in his individual moral vacuity, but in the barren values of the society that has shaped him – a selfish society that, in Ellis’s opinion, refused to address the most important issues of the day: corporate greed, mindless consumerism, poverty, homelessness and the prevalence of violent crime. Instead of pornographic, therefore, American Psycho is a profoundly political text: Ellis was never attempting to glorify or incite violence against anyone, but rather to expose the effects of apathy to these broad social problems, including the very kinds of violence the most vocal critics feared the book would engender.

This article gives an opinion of American Psycho that I very much agree with. The book is clearly a critique of consumerism and materialism, which is demonstrated through several literary devices used throughout the novel such as the ad-like prose in Morning (the second chapter of the book) and the repeated cases of mistaken identity.

I don’t quite understand how ”it doesn’t matter what you look like; it’s the inside that counts” came into existence (and has transcended to the level of morally correct), given that humans evolved by looking for healthy mates through superficial assessment of physical markers.

Prior to the development of language, the most significant way (perhaps the only way) of choosing who to have sex with was just through how physically attractive they were. Language developed as a means of more effective communication (which I hope has obvious evolutionary benefits) and was thus transmitted through successive generations either through genetics or teaching. Language morphed causing, along with many other factors such as the rise of agriculture, the development of culture and society. With this, a range of characteristics (e.g. wealth, charisma, intelligence, mastery of particular skills) other than physical attractiveness developed that could be used to choose who to have sex with. This only happens if a person values another person for reasons other than physical attractiveness, or prioritise these other characteristics over physical attractiveness. As it happens, many people in modern society come to realise that they do indeed value people for characteristics other than physical attractiveness and have a method of expressing this idea (i.e. language). As a result, this idea has transcended to the level of morally correct.

This is speculation and might be entirely incorrect.

Besides, treating personhood as a matter of personal opinion can lead to strange results. Imagine two pregnant women debating prenatal personhood. One says that her fetus was a person at conception. The other says hers will not be a person until birth. Both fetuses were conceived the same day. As the women debate, a drunk driver hits them, killing both fetuses. What wrong has the driver committed? If it is a mother’s choice whether her fetus is a person, then to be consistent, we would have to say that the death of one fetus is a homicide but the death of the other is only, say, destruction of property. This is absurd, of course, for the two fetuses were, objectively, the same kind of being when alive.

The logical conclusion of the given scenario is not absurd because even though the fetuses were objectively the same kind of being, their personhood status differed since the concept of personhood differs between the mothers i.e. it is subjective. (I think this faulty argument is an example of a red herring.) The concept of personhood is a concern of morality, which is clearly subjective to at least some degree – try comparing the moral codes of a typical American and Saudi Arabian male, or try looking at how controversial abortion is – so this is not an unexpected result.

As a result, I believe that everyone should have the right to act on their own opinions about the right of a fetus to personhood and be able to choose whether or not to abort. To me, this seems more in line with libertarian values than a pro-life position on abortion.

“Personally Opposed” to Abortion?

People tell us: “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I think it should be legal.”

Perhaps the notable version of that comes from Roman Catholics abortion choicers: They insist they believe “what Catholics believe” on abortion, but don’t want to force their beliefs on others.

The usual pro-life response is to argue the substance of abortion: Are the preborn human beings with the right not to be killed? If so, should the government defend their rights along with everyone else’s?

Such a response can sometimes produce a profitable discussion, but it misses another point: What do people mean when they say they’re “personally opposed” but claim there is a “right” to abortion that must be protected by law?

Is it so unexpected that it is possible for some people who personally would choose not to abort to recognise that the concept of personhood is subjective? (I think this is a false dilemma.)

13-episode long anime. fucking awesome.

Rashomon: It was, uh, pretty average. The most interesting part of the film, the multiple unreliable narrators, wasn’t all that interesting. I suppose it would be mind-blowing to people who have never encountered stories which feature that.

I Love You Phillip Morris: Whoa. The movie was not great which is unfortunate since the story it was telling was so cool.

Steven Jay Russell (born September 14, 1957) is a U.S. con artist and impostor, known for escaping from prison multiple times. He has received numerous nicknames, including “Houdini” and “King Con.” A film about his life and crimes was produced in 2009, named I Love You Phillip Morris. In 2011, his crimes were featured on the TV show I Almost Got Away with It in the episode “Got a Boyfriend to Support.”

On March 20, 1998, Russell posed as a millionaire from Virginia in an attempt to legitimize a $75,000 loan from NationsBank in Dallas. When bank officials became suspicious and alerted the police, Russell feigned a heart attack and was transported to a hospital. While in the hospital, Russell was placed under guard by FBI agents. However, Russell managed to impersonate an FBI agent on his cell phone and convinced those guarding him that he was no longer a wanted man.

Burrows-Wheeler transform: A well-written Wikipedia article that explains most of the concept in a way that a layperson can understand.

Endangered Ugly Things

This is a slime mold known only as Diacheopsis metallica. Despite appearances, it is a single-celled amoeba. Slime molds spend a large amount of the time as you would expect an amoeba to: gooping around as an individual cell, eating things smaller than itself. When things get rough the individuals band together, Voltron-syle, to search for food or water. This isn’t to say the cells form together into a multi-cellular creature. Instead, they form a gigantic, multi-nucleated cell that is able to pick up and move, slug-like, to a more favorable location. They also use this time to produce spores, which will spread if things don’t get any better.

Scientists have found this aspect of slime molds absolutely fascinating. In this form, slime molds can solve mazes. It will even re-create the Tokyo Rail map when food is placed at junction points. Computer scientists are researching how slime molds solve problems to help programs search, move, and problem solve more organically.

Roman à clef

Roman à clef or roman à clef , French for “novel with a key”, is a phrase used to describe a novel about real life, overlaid with a façade of fiction.^[1] The fictitious names in the novel represent real people, and the “key” is the relationship between the nonfiction and the fiction.^[2] This “key” may be produced separately by the author, or implied through the use of epigraphs or other literary devices.^[3]

(via) also, see this

Mount Salak Sukhoi Superjet 100 crash

In the immediate aftermath of the crash, various experts speculated that the crash could be due to human error, technical failure, or weather conditions. Rogozin said that “primary expert opinion suggests that the technology worked well and it is possibly the human factor”. Ronny Rosnadi, an Indonesian pilot, questioned the crew’s request to descend below the minimum obstacle clearance altitude (MOCA). Anatoly Knyshov, a Russian test pilot, said that the aircraft’s terrain warning systems “apparently did not work”, citing thunderstorm activity and static discharge as a possible reason behind the failure. David Learmount, an aviation writer, said that sometimes during demonstrations “pilots … deliberately take the aircraft right to their limits… Sometimes they push the limits just too far. And that might have happened.”^[13] Jörg Handwerg, the Press Secretary of the association of German pilots Cockpit, suggested that difficult weather conditions and relief played a role in the Superjet crash too.^[27] German and Indonesian pilots also cited difficulties in flights over Indonesia, especially for foreign pilots, due to the technical and organisational problems in work of the ground services and communications with the ground.^[27][28]