Little Stub for SRH

 Here's a nice intuitive demonstration of Turing proof that Halting cannot be determined by algorithm.

First thought was quantum theory like that "opening boxes" changes them.

But main purpose is to reconsider this in light of the idea there is really only 1 paradox: the liar paradox. And the conditions for this paradox are the conditions for SRH.

So what you have here is the negation box, and the whole thing encapsulated in an atomic statement.

But its slightly different. It uses the Halting Decision engine H to build a engine which negates and so fails.

But in fact this just says "I am false."

Consider some more when time. So is it really just Liar Paradox and does this give insight to that paradox cos it involved opening the box. 

Simplest Version of Godel Theorem

A while ago I read Smyllan's SELF version of Godel theorem which amounts to just a few lines.

The Liar paradox is universal in paradoxes. In fact there is only one Paradox and that is the Liar Paradox. It has been cleverly adapted to many, many situations but all are essentially the same. You wish to make a statement about the statement so that the statement can contradict itself. Since the contradiction is atomic you are stuck, there is no choice of statements to reject, you must either reject the whole statement making your system incomplete because by obeying the rule you make it True, or you just accept there are false statements making the system inconsistent. Godel's Theorem is so special because it formalises Paradox into symbolic logic providing a rigorous demonstration that is exists.

For SRH this is critical because it demonstrates the issues that lie at the basis of thinking in general. We often like to think that the universe and ourselves are fully rational and that everything is waiting to be uncovered. Or at least could be uncovered with enough searching. But if we ever tried to do this we would run into Paradox for the very reasons spelled out in the Liar Paradox and Godels Theorems.

Here's a simple version that captures Paradox perfectly. Credit to and quoted from Mark Dominus.

We have some sort of machine that prints out statements in some sort of language. It needn't be a statement-printing machine exactly; it could be some sort of technique for taking statements and deciding if they are true. But let's think of it as a machine that prints out statements.

In particular, some of the statements that the machine might (or might not) print look like these:

P*x	(which means that	the machine will print x)
NP*x	(which means that	the machine will never print x)
PR*x	(which means that	the machine will print xx)
NPR*x	(which means that	the machine will never print xx)

For example, NPR*FOO means that the machine will never print FOOFOO. NP*FOOFOO means the same thing. So far, so good.

Now, let's consider the statement NPR*NPR*. This statement asserts that the machine will never print NPR*NPR*.

Either the machine prints NPR*NPR*, or it never prints NPR*NPR*.

If the machine prints NPR*NPR*, it has printed a false statement. But if the machine never prints NPR*NPR*, then NPR*NPR* is a true statement that the machine never prints.

So either the machine sometimes prints false statements, or there are true statements that it never prints.

So any machine that prints only true statements must fail to print some true statements.

Or conversely, any machine that prints every possible true statement must print some false statements too.

On The Nature of Land and Trespass

 UK Government moving towards criminalisation of trespass. Sign the petition to get this discussed in parliament.

This highlights the spread of Capitalism and Ignorance.

Land was here before us;     It will be here after us. We never own it,     But can only put up fences to keep others off. We are only ever just transient visitors.

At the end we are buried and the Land consumes us. We all return back to where we came. Land is a far greater thing than any one of us, We forget this And we forget ourselves.

Are LGBT the most prejudice community?

A train has been launched that is staffed by only people who self-identity with LGBT. This means that 94.6% of the UK population cannot apply for a job on the train and will be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Yet the LGBT community pride themselves in their inclusivity and vocally reject prejudice and discrimination.

Now the ugly side of humans is revealed. LGBT are actually no different from anyone else, and share exactly the same levels of tight, self-protective, exclusive, clique, prejudice behaviour as any other humans.

One good thing to come from this is that the LGBT community should now be able to draw solidarity not just with themselves but with those who are prejudice against them. They will be able to see that the "us and them" distinction is false, and they are no different from the people they have sort to distance themselves from and assume moral superiority to. The stereotypical "gay hater" is actually the same as an LGBT person!

This is where Religions have trod so powerfully before. Jesus says love thy enemy, and most importantly to the crowd ready to stone a prostitute "if anyone is without sin throw the first stone." Humans are joined by their narrow mindedness, their sin, their frailty, ignorance and suffering.

The anti-prejudice movement may look on the surface to be very noble but it is nothing. There is only one prejudice and that is not respecting The Other. The Devil lies exactly in this tendency to view what is near as more important than what is far, to see oneself before we see others. Perhaps its a natural result of "perspective" that we see what is near before we see what is far. But as Buddha argues at length with Ananda in the Shurangama Sutra such a mind is extremely limited and fails to grasp the truth.

So LGBT like many groups need to be very wary of the Devil walking boldly in their midst. The goal here is to respect The Other, even when The Other is ones enemy and seems to threaten what we hold dear and close. What is close is really very far, like the person unable to leave their treasured possessions and so burning along with their house. To be truly free we must be able to leave what is close when the time is right.

That time has come. People who truly believe in diversity, freedom and respect should weaken their links to the LGBT community. They should not fuel greater divisions and prejudice in the community.

To me the whole thing is a mistake anyway. If any experiences violence or hatred on any grounds that is a crime. There is no need to specify the "type" of prejudice. Perhaps one day I will be prejudiced against by someone with a hatred of people who like snakes (as I do). Perhaps they have a snake phobia after being bitten, or believe that snakes are the devil. Perhaps that irrational fear will lead to me being attacked. So I report it to the police, and find they are snake haters too. So indeed I find the problem is big: the Bible has really made people hate snakes. So I join together with other snake lovers and sympathisers in my cause and begin a long political process to rid myself and others of harm and hatred. Great that is politics.

BUT, I don't enshrine snake loving in law, or form societies of snake lovers that exclude non-snake lovers. Or teach people about snake love in school. And yes "snake love" can be read as a metaphor for penis love too. The point is just to ensure that people are free from harm and hatred and nothing else.

So this train is a big problem and represents the very world it is supposed to be against. Humans 0 : 1 Devil.

Strong Economy is bad for the people!

 UK Fertility against Government (Red = Labour, Blue = Conservative) 

So the Tories argue that strong economy is good for the people. Yet in Biology it's well recognised that fertility rate is the best measure of what is good (Darwinian fitness). Unhealthy organisms do not breed well, and their offspring have lower viability.

It seems then that the Tories are actually bad for fertility which implies strong economy is bad for the people.

That supports the thesis that economics is really just the system that protects the rich and ensures a net transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich (aka Capitalism).

Hard Times are Here apparently. More economic nonsense about the Capitalist Burden.

So the UK chancellor Rishi Sunak is saying "Hard times are here"

What a load of nonsense!

Have people stopped eating, or have suddenly become unskilled?

No the real economy is just fine.

What has failed is that we still have Capitalism and we still need to bleed free wealth into the pockets of the rich at the same rate as before. Or perhaps an even greater rate if the government stupidly sells the public debt to the private sector.

Why not keep enabling demand through Q.E. at the tax payers expense, and collect taxes from tax payers as they rise to meet demand. What can go wrong?

Exactly capitalists never stop extracting rents, dividends and interest so while people and the economy is taking a well earned rest at the moment, the parasitic capitalists are still sucking blood out of the system at the usual rate hence the so called "issues". What after all is Capitalism? Capital-ism is the system that protects and rewards "capital." And what is capital? Its just another word for wealth. So properly understood Capitalism is the system that protects and rewards wealth! Now its obvious what a fraud and insane system it is! So why has any business folded recently? Exactly! the capitalists have sucked it dry over the last few months with rents and interest.

The proof of all this parasitism will be the vast increase in Capitalist wealth we will see as the economy shrinks to supply all that wealth.

Problem with our friend Sunak is his party (the Conservatives) is funded by Capitalists so he's unable to do anything right. "Protect our freebie income" the Capitalists are screaming at him, so he has no choice but to crash the real economy to supply their wishes. Stop voting Tory its what the ruling elite want!

===

Now what can go wrong with this demand led, public economy? Importantly we lose the private financial sector at no cost what-so-ever. We might have more sympathy for them if they were not continuously dependent on the National Treasury for bailouts, and then go on to charge us interest on that debt. And we might have more sympathy for the private financial sector if it didn't make huge profits in the good times, and then huge profits in the bad times, while also asking for bailouts to protect them from the very risk that they are supposed to be managing. They take the risks, reap the benefits and when it goes wrong ask for Q.E. and bailouts. Enough. It is time to drive a stake through the useless banking and financial sectors.

Instead, since the tax payer and the Treasury prop the whole system up anyway, we just borrow from the Treasury. The government needs to enter the markets with interest free lending. Unlike the financial sector it has the law to demand repayments of debt in Taxes. And if they do charge interest, since it is Public that money goes back into the Treasury and is owned by the Tax payers, and what we do with it is voted for at election. Light years better than the current antiquated system that essentially just promotes the same aristocratic control of wealth we had in the Feudal System under the Normans.

So the Square Mile has collapsed without tax payer support and all the international capitalists have fled to countries whose tax payer does hand out freebies. An important fact: FTSE dividends alone equal the entire unemployment package in the UK. Put that in other terms: those wealthy enough to own shares in FTSE companies extract as much wealth from the UK economy as the unemployed! By removing the private financial sector we save huge amounts of dividend money that is ploughed instead back into the Treasury to help the tax payers!

And consider that UK Mortgages alone bleed 2.8% of GDP every year into the private banks. The UK economy is like a sieve with money leaking everywhere into the pockets of the ultra wealthy capitalists. Obviously there are small time capitalists like myself who own a pension and some shares but we benefit very little compared with the professional capitalists. We still need to work for an income is proof we are not true capitalists. 80% of wealth is owned by 20% of the people is a very, very conservative estimate. That means at least 80% of Capitalist returns fall into the hands of just 20%. I say at least cos its exponential. The more capital you have the more quickly your wealth increases: that is the Law of Capitalism. The opposite is the rule that us non-capitalists all understand well: the larger your debt the faster it increases.

So I have proposed that the Treasury keeps Q.E. like the "eat out to help out scheme" drawing people into restaurants to eat out, and subsidising 50% of the meal (up to £10 off). This is a fantastic innovation. It takes the tax payers money and directs it to restaurants and food. Perhaps restaurants are not that important but food is. I'm becoming a huge fan of Milton Friedman just removing the elitist capitalist element of his theories. He advocates "meal tickets" and this would have been a better system. But however the government does this the point is to fuel targetted parts of the economy like with any Q.E. But this is better than previous financial sector injections of wealth cos only the rich need the Financial Sector. If you do not have enough money to eat, you most certainly don't need a bank or stock broker. That is unless you borrow, but if you don't have enough to eat tomorrow, you most certainly won't have enough to eat AND pay back interest tomorrow. Banks are for the rich only, those who seek leverage to increase their assets.

Now what do people in the hospitality sector do when they are payed by the government scheme? They spend. This is "trickle along." Now "Trickle Along" works. "Trickle Down" economics was clearly invented as a joke by the rich against the poor. Yeah right. Make us even richer and the scraps under the table will increase. They must think we gullible as hell. All the more reason for just removing the private wealthy elites from the system. Trickle Along creates demand in other sectors, and because people in the hospitality sector are likely to live ordinary lives, they are not going to just blow the wind-fall on stock market speculation or buying up houses (already in short supply) to rent out. They will fuel the real people and real economy. So the economy keeps breathing, and the government claims some of this back in tax.

Does it add up? Well this this where Friedman comes in. If it doesn't and the government debt starts increasing you will get inflation. This could cause a problem cos as prices increase the government would then have to increase the Q.E. amounts. So you could end up with run away inflation. But the fall in the pound would make the UK an attractive investment opportunity for businesses. We are still talking private business, but not private money! So car manufacturers might move car plants to the UK cos the pound is so very cheap. But this is where democracy comes in. The UK population have a vote, and if we don't like the falling pound and rising prices (same thing essentially*) we can vote in a government that seeks to increase taxes and reduce spending and so reduce the debt burden.  

But the beauty of this is that the economy is hermetically sealed. There is no leakage of free wealth to the rich just by virtue of them being rich. If the government creates a debt of $1b that remains on the books until it is returned. No selling into the private financial markets and then having to pay returns on Gilts (in US Treasuries). And no hyper inflating private financial sector with these debt purchases. No stupid derivatives betting market. None of this nonsense, no play ground for the rich, no absurd risks that the tax payer must bail out, and a stable productive economy.

It also means that suppose the population just gets tired of working and shopping. Perhaps they find a new enjoyment of family life and the beauty of nature. People would rather take a walk in the park than spend money to go to the gym. All the things that cost nothing and don't involve the economy. The economy would start to contract. In this Friedman view its a simple matter of the government taking money out of circulation. Clearing debt if it exists, and then just burning it. A clean way to shrink an economy to match the wishes of the people, rather than driving the people to always supply wealth for the rich.

Unfortunately at the moment the Capitalist driven economy needs growth to (1) encourage returns on investments (i.e. allow the rich to steal more) (2) pay back the existing debt that has been created in bailouts and other hyper-charging of the economy to attract investors and pay them their freebies. If the Planet is under threat it is not to do with population (there is plenty of room for us all) it is to do with this toxic economic system that seeks to line the pockets of the wealthy for free.

I respect David Attenborough in every way he has been the man at the forefront of awareness and appreciation of what we have in this world. A man not interested in the fantasies of economics and the future and what we may be able to achieve but a man who takes enormous pleasure in what we already have and has spread this awareness globally. But I think someone needs to take him aside and give him an economics lesson, for only that way will he see that humans alone are not destructive, we can only eat so much and use so much land. What is destructive is when we are forced by an economic system to work all the days of our lives to ever more exploit new markets and resources to create wealth for the rich. Then humans become these monstrous beasts of burden that just churn up the world in a desperate attempt to overcome the weight of the Capitalist aristocracy on their backs that means they have barely enough to live on despite working perhaps 100,000 hours in their lifetime or more. No other animal does this. Gorillas can survive on just 4 hours work a day. Yet with all our fossil energy and machines we are still unable to survive. It is capitalism not population that is the problem, and times are only hard because of the Capitalist Burden.

iSpy/Eyespy/Pokemon recording app idea

 In the UK there used to be identification books for kids in the eyespy range. You got points for seeing various things.

Following this idea a platform should be created that enables developers to quickly set up content for an eyespy of interest.

The obvious target is wildlife and citizen science.

Some ideas on how to make the platform engaging for users.

(1) A game like a Captcha where you try and identify a list of images. This is the backbone of identification and user ratings.
(2) A scoring system for users to measure their skill at identifying. Users who correctly identify lots of images get a high score. Users who agree with high scored users get a higher score. The system should quickly settle on clear identifications off images and determine who the experts are.
(3) A parallel scoring system for number of sets completed (see 6) and for the value of ones records i.e. average rareness of species seen.
(4) Options to add content, suggest identification. This will be moderated by (1) as user content goes through the game.
(5) Options to add new content and ask for identifications.
(6) Score things according to their frequency of uploading in the system. You get more points for rare things.
(7) Create and Select ID lists like Pokemon with the challenge to see everything in a list.
(8) Content is shared with existing recording databases. Updates on scientific research done with the data.
(9) A historical record of ones activity.

Existing platforms do rate users. But none create a Pokemon like, or Eyespy like game from it.

SRH inside/outside

So the SRH originates from ideas like inside/outside.

Are we confused? There are 2 formations:

A) a system isn't "big enough" to encode itself within itself. A crude reading of this leads to the Quine which apparently can produce itself. But a Quine must be "read" or "run"; it exists in a context. To take care of this suppose we have a Quine in ARM logic. We still need to know the ARM chip to make sense of the code. Perhaps the best quine would output an ARM emulator that runs on an ARM chip, with a hardcoded memory containing a quine that outputs the whole thing. When run on an ARM chip it emulates an ARM chip and runs its memory to create the source machine state. This way the Quine is at least isomorphic with the hardware. But the machine state and the emulator state are not identical. The machine is running an emulator, while the emulator is running a quine. I'll need to think whether there is a way out of this. But the point here is that we are saying that a true self-representation, a true mirror, is impossible because you can't mirror the mirror itself. There cannot be complete isomorphism between the system in situ and the system encoded because the "in situ" is too big.  

B) a system with self-reference must code an outside the "+1", "Horatio" formulations of the SRH.

Actually isn't this Godel's 2 theorems. "A" is the first theorem saying that if you try to take the whole system you will fail to account for everything. And "B" is the second theorem saying that if you have a system with self-reference it will create a contradiction.

Anyway the point of this post was to note that all these issues can be encoded at root with just a binary distinction. The inside is the 0 and the outside is the 1.

When Tarski argues that Truth and Falsehood cannot be encoded within a logic because then you have the statement "Sentence n is false." If you list all the possible statements (Diagonalisation) so that each has a number than this statement becomes a problem. What does this statement say about the 'n' that is its own number in the list? It says that this statement is false. Its the classic Liar Paradox. Essentially the problem lies in trying to order ALL the statements into a binary classification. Russel's Paradox is the same, and Godel's Theorem is exactly the same: Provable and Non-Provable (function Beq). When we take a language that enables self-reference even obliquely like with Diagonalisation (e.g. Godel Numbering) then we have a problem splitting it in half so that the system is isomorphic with the set {0,1}. By oblique "self-reference" we mean we have an isomorphism between the statements of that language and the entities that those statements are about x (x is always natural numbers) so that we can say things about numbers which are understood to also be the position of statements in a list, thereby making oblique reference to oneself e.g. "I am sentence 5".

At its simplest level the SRH lies in the problem of encoding the distinction between {0,1} in a system itself. A system simply cannot be perfectly divided, some parts will always fail to classify under any decision algorithm. Or if we succeed in dividing it then the system becomes isomorphic with the 1 and so the 0 implies that there is more (an outside) to the system which isn't encoded.

As an aside the kind of systems we are talking about are things like a map being placed within the territory that is isomorphic with the map. It means we can put a point on the map that corresponds with the position of the map itself. Such self-reference is what causes all the problems and why SRH is called "Self-Reference Hypothesis" although we do not yet know what that hypothesis is.

Its a bit like Hofstadter's observation that self-reference always seems to be self limiting. One needs to be very careful with such statements as like with Quine's which seems impossible at first glance turns out to have a trick. But once we have isomorphism with oneself and we introduce a division then this division can be applied to oneself and this is where all the internal contradictions come from. This is what Godel really showed. But going the other way up the tree, once we have a distinction and we have self isomorphism then we can show that the division must hold outside the system so the system becomes a part of a greater division. We can put the real position of the map on the map, or we can look at the position of the map and see what lies outside the map in the world. The difference between working out where you are on a map from the surrounding features, and finding the "you are here" arrow and then working out what is around you. In fact the 2nd formulation of SRH I will now term "You are Here" this is the "+1", "Horatio" or "Proof of God" versions previous mentioned in the blog. The "Proof of God" comes from the ability to always induce a greater context to any system with self-reference. God in Godel language are those statements that cannot be proven with the existing axioms. All systems have an "outside." Interesting that Godel himself searched for a proof of God but never accepted this as proof?

So indeed SRH does seem to have 2 versions. The "inner contradictions" from applying the divisions within oneself, and the "outer implications" from induction into the world outside the system.

On one level there is the search for a solid proof or at least formal description of this whole family of issues.

On another level suppose we already have such a formulation of the SRH. What would it say about itself? As mentioned before in this blog is there a fundamental problem with the SRH itself?

Transgender where is the issue?

 It's a simple provable fact that there are two sexes. Cells carry two slightly different versions of their DNA and through sex organisms combine one copy with that of their partner. This is the definition of sex.

Organisms package their DNA in either mobile or stationary cells called gametes. By definition the male carries the mobile gametes and the female the stationary gametes.

This is the definition of sex and all organisms including humans are either male or female according to this.

Despite much political wrangling no one has ever suggested a 3rd sex. There are just 2. People like to fact check: this is a fact and any other suggestion is nonsense.

It is well understood in Gender studies that sex should not be confused with gender. Gender unlike sex is fluid and changeable. The key genders are feminine, masculine and neuter. Many languages directly encode the idea of gender but there is no agreement. In French La Lune for feminine moon, while Der Mond in German for a masculine moon.

It is plainly evident that a male organism can have feminine thoughts and behaviour. Being of male sex does not limit you to a stereotypical masculinity. Masculinity has different meanings in different cultures also. Is for example the masculine loving and caring, or warring and powerful? Is the feminine? As archetypes we have strong cultural  ideas about the masculine and feminine but it is complex, fluid and personal.

What is interesting is that again despite all the political wrangling people have been very uncreative. LGBTQQIP2SAA sounds all very impressive but its really just politics. Almost no thought or creativity has been done. There are still only 3 genders, and one of these is really just an absence of the other two. However to be fair a new gender has emerged that is called "Camp". The "Camp" is now mainstream and adopted by many but interestingly its usually adopted by those of male sex. In fact I can't think of ever seeing a Camp female? But its not ground breaking just a slightly feminine version of masculine. Nothing has really changed, and as is almost always the case with politics there is no intelligence just sectarian division. This whole movement is little different from a fashion, and it needs to be understood as so.

This is not to say there is no future in the gender debate, but some work needs to be done. Our ancestors were incredibly creative creating the masculine/feminine distinction and everything so associated. Since then there has been little more than teenage tantrums about not wanting to accept this, but no actual work to develop it.

So what are the arguments?

There is the argument that certain sexes are forced into gender roles, and these gender roles are not equal. Especially the feminine gender roles traditional dominate the "home" space, while the masculine gender roles dominate the "world" space. This was fine, but in the modern world we are seeing the destruction and loss of the home. Both parents now live in the "world" space, and everyone spends their private time watching media that streams the world into their homes. Children are now born into the "world" there is no "home" any more. Capitalism is behind this as markets now dominate every aspect of our lives like a Vast Dominating Big Brother. Every aspect of our existence is now monetised and everything we do and think is just part of financial calculations. It will not be long before we think about ourselves in just these terms: what financial values does this though have?, how much money can I make from doing this? This is the worst dictatorship so far devised in history and beyond any level of imprisonment we could ever have imagined. Cutting through this is the gender argument, which when put in these terms seems like just a side show, an irrelevant side effect of the massive changes occurring in human society and thought.

Then there is the sexual preference argument. Traditionally males breed with females and vice versa. In UK 93.2% of people say they conform to this model. Certainly as a keen observer of nature, the annual nesting of birds and mating of insects is a constant reminder of the processes that surround sex and mate choice. However this is certainly not the whole picture. 6.8% of UK nationals do not conform to this. However the options are rather limited. As an individual carrying mobile gametes you can either engage in sexual activity with someone with mobile or stationary gametes. There are no other options. The only other thing you can do is not to engage in sexual activity at all. In a truly inclusive free society the option to not engage in sexuality, perhaps "non-sexual", should be an option. But its incredibly simple and non one has come up with anything else currently. Even Transgenders when they go to the surgeon still pick from a male/female menu, and even then they cannot really change their sex their gametes don't change. A transgender woman does not creates stationary eggs, she creates mobile sperm: she is actually still male! All that has happened is a bit of skin folding to hide this fact and persuade her that a change has happened! Sex is not skin deep, it goes into every cell in our body. We can run but we can't hide from it, and just changing the appearance shows how superficial the Transgender mind is. A sex change is essentially just a clothes change and no more. 

If Transgender we serious in their body-dismorphia why not change into something new. Perhaps a fin that erects when aroused, or a swelling on the back or head that has blood pumped into it. Be creative this is about freedom after all! But they don't they are as trapped in the male/female prison as much anyone else. But they would still need DNA therapy to insert the genes for this change. Perhaps in the future, but one has to start asking to what end? What psychological need does all this hassle and change really serve?

That is the incredible conservativeness of the sexual world. But the Gender world is pretty limited also. LGBTQQIP2SAA is actually very uninclusive and prejudice. It rejects the vast majority of people, the 93.2% of Heterosexuals to be precise and is far more prejudice than what went before which only didn't missed out 6.8%, and it rejects the Non-Sexuals. It is worse than what it set out the combat. This is important to understand, It is neither free, no a moral improvement on what went before.

I suggest HLGBTQQIP2SAANO with H representing the Heterosexuals, N the Non-Sexuals and O for others not specified. This is vastly vastly more inclusive and less prejudice than the current situation.

So a quick fact check shows what a complete mess and nonsense this movement is. I wish it luck in the future, but some serious content providers are required to actually create something for the movement to rally around. At the moment it is little more than fashion and pop music and it will die away without some substance. A new radical gender is needed at the very least, and ideally a new sex to prove the concept that the existing framework is not enough. Otherwise we are stuck with masculine and feminine and most certainly with male and female.

The one thing that is cited to give this movement content is the psychological suffering of those with gender issues. They have very high suicide rates. Its interesting however to note that suicide rates are substantially higher in males as well. Being male makes you more likely to commit suicide. Yet non-one suggests we should all become female to reduce the male suicide rate. But sex is apparently indeed linked to suicide rates anyway. But first a quick careful unpacking of that.

Its very unlikely that being male makes you more likely to commit suicide. What it means is most probably that people who are male sex are likely to adopt masculine gender roles and in a society that is slowly eroding the masculine gender role and making it part of the feminine gender role, it is no surprise that people identifying with masculine might be under threat. Society is literally excluding the masculine gender role and all those linked to it. We are seeing the removal of gender all together in the West, because once everyone has the same role then there is no gender. Sex of course will still remain as eggs need sperm. But technology can easily replace this and we can have children using DNA from cells using eggs from rabbits or similar. A womb is still needed but we could use sheep wombs or maybe in the future grow children in nutrient rich test tubes with heart bypass machines processing their blood. The options are endless. But we aren't really changing anything. People are still engaging in sexual activity, breeding and forming sexual partnerships. Nothing is really being challenged or changing. And given that this question keeps coming back to me: so why bother? What is the gain from all this hassle? But anyway its not the male sex that commits suicide but most probably the masculine gender in a society hostile to masculinity.

Now Transgender may say the same. Its a society hostile to Transgender that causes the high suicide rates. But Transgender is not a thing, its a derivative of the male/female distinction. And to be accurate its really a Transsexual. A transgender is just someone who rejects washing up as a feminine role and goes out to work as a masculine role. Or perhaps does the washing up with power tools to put a masculine gender spin on it. If you want to change your "sex" then you are transsexual. It is very concerning that people at the heart of this issue don't even understand it! How many people have had a sex change thinking its a gender change. How confused are they! But as mentioned a Transsexual still chooses between male and female. They are trapped in the same binary closet as the rest of the living world from mosses to fish and elephants.

Now can a woman really be born in a mans body? As said above a woman by definition is an individual that carries the stationary gamete. You may wish to carry sperm, but your body is either carrying sperm or eggs. In objective terms you are just a sex, there is no room for sperm inside a female, or eggs inside a male. You just have whatever gonads you have, like you are tall or short. How does a male transsexual prove they are female either to themselves or other people? If they fancy men they are homosexual, that doesn't change their sex. If they want to wear dresses and have long hair that makes them feminine gender but doesn't change their sex. I imagine the only way they can prove they are female is by desiring to get pregnant and give birth. Unfortunately a sex change won't give you this. Having a sex change is very superficial. And its the superficiality of it that suggests that transgender is also superficial. Anyway this is for transsexual people to resolve, but as already said a lot more work needs to be done because at the moment there is painfully little content, and spins completely within the established conservative world.        

A quick word on identity in general. So no-one is really anything. I've been told I have "white" skin. But I never thought about it before and I certainly don;t identity with it. I have "blue eyes" but there isn't a political movement about that yet to join up to. It seems to me that "identity politics" is just like joining societies in your 1st university year. what do I like, which sort of people should I hang with. So I chose Pot-Holing and made lots of friends. Other people joined the Gay Society and made lots of friends. Other people joined the Muslim Society and made lots of friends. But there is no difference between being Gay, Muslim or being a Pot-Holer from an "identity" perspective. You can identity with it, or not is up to you. Like I said I don't seem to have the political option to join a "blue eyed" society and make friends with lots of blue eyed people. But it seems that if I was Black I could join any number of societies that identity with this feature. "Identity Politics" is a dead end, something for teenagers but something to be dropped once third years and real life and living starts.

Probably should end this post. But in summary what a load of noise about something we can't really change anyway. And how confused and what wasted lives people have in the West. The more I live in the West the more I sense the "End of the Roman Empire" once again. Loss of direction, no thought, no inspiration just a herd of people running around a field like cows. Time for real change is long over due  and ending Capitalism with its monolithic fascist world view would cut the root of all this nonsense in one fell swoop.