Thanks! I hope you pursue it further. It’s a lot easier now than 5, 15 or 50 years ago.

Hirschfeld’s activism was set in motion when he realized the gay bars of Chicago were very similar to the gay bars he knew back home in Germany. Which yes, does suggest way more questions than answers are available. From this, combined with his training in science, he derived a hypothesis of sameyness of humans when it came to sex. (There are gay people everywhere.) He soon extended this to trans people and to many others. After working for a while on reparative therapy, he gave it up as hopeless, falling back on the understanding of Darwinism as alluded to above. If beaks of Galapogos finches can be illustrated as this, it obviously follows sex/gender would be the same:

All this hateful, bigot shit, all of it is man-made. It’s not natural to be ignorant of, or to hate, any kind of person, just as a bird holds no hostility to a beak shaped one way or another. All the shit we deal with is downstream of (admittedly successful) interventions by fascists. They make their hatreds appear natural which is a total lie. GSM have always existed wherever on earth in every population. While understanding that all modern constructs are products of modern material conditions, we can also see ourselves: all kinds, every where, every time.

Per Scientiam ad Justitiam = Through Science, To Justice

I sort of do think mandolins should be banned tbh.

His methodology is explained in Part II: “Homosexuality of Men & Women as a Social Occurrence”, Chapter 24 "The Distribution of Male and Female Homosexuality. Statistical Foundations. Worth reading, to understand the historical context of the OP, which is that this knowledge is subject to continuous questioning and replication for over a century now. Being constantly made to re-prove ourselves is a component of repression; such research is not liberatory. Particular the fascist backlash to the original research itself (this was early 20th C Germany remember), which is described. I can post it, if anyone wants, but not now as I need to get somewhere. And maybe nobody read this long ass comment.

I think further complicating this whole thing is that human sexuality and gender identity is a lot more nebulous than the very rigid, medically-originated terminology we use implies. A lot of the identity labels we use (homosexual, transsexual/transgender, etc) were originally medical diagnoses that were later transposed onto cultural identities, which carries a lot of baggage that I think has been left unaddressed, such as the rigidity of their definition

I have to step in with some historical defense here. Magnus Hirschfeld coined the terms (and initiated the modern understandings of) “transvestite”, then “transsexual” to differentiate between gender and sexual variation. Prior to that, western euro/anglo/american ideas had more nebulous concepts like “urning” (his preference) or “invert” which correspond more to modern term like “queer” (without any of the political/confrontational overtones). Even though we have reasons for also cultivating the general term, the specifics are crucial and their introduction was and remains key.

Hirschfeld took great pains to avoid creating the ideas of any false dichotomies. Below I have a few paragraphs to demonstrate this. They are from Homosexuality of Men & Women (published in German in 1920, finally translated to English in 2000 by Michael Lombardi-Nash). The whole thing is about diagnosing, categorizing, but more importantly conceptualizing sex and gender variation. There are some wacky specific ideas in there; a lot of the more general concepts were very strong and have quite a modern flavor to them but you need to read through the language to see what he is trying to say. I hope these make sense out of context, I didn’t want to paste pages and pages although everything before and after is interesting especially to think it was published over a century ago and was well-known about contemporaneously. This was not obscure ivory tower gender theory, in fact efforts were made in the production and distribution to include broad sections of society. For example Hirschfeld entered into agreements with trade unions and eventually all this led him to despise and reject colonialism and structural white supremacy, which is a whole other story.

In Part I, “The Homosexuality of Men and Women as Biological Occurrence”, Chapter 19, “Human Bisexuality (Hermaphroditism) as Basis for Male and Female Homosexuality (The Theory of Intermediaries)”, describing why sex and gender variation are in concurrence with Darwinian evolution and every other characteristic of life and matter (pg 413):

The knowledge of the hermaphroditic character of homosexuality adds it as a link in a series of related natural phenomena, whose absence would mean a break in an uninterrupted line. It would be very noteworthy if the sex drive were an exception to the fluid transitions that lead from one to the other sex, which can be proven in the case of every organ and every function. If all the male features, occasionally in isolation or in great numbers, can appear in the case of women and in reverse all the female ones in the case of men, of which there is not the least bit of doubt, then it would be quite extraordinary if in this case the sex drive were the sole exception.

Accordingly, the absence of homosexuality would be a greater riddle than its existence, which to many appears more disconcerting and more unnatural than, say, the occasional occurrence of a beard on a woman or milk-producing breasts on a man. Just as people deduced undiscovered elements by studying the atomic weights in the periodical table of the elements; just as the position and the orbit of Neptune w ere discovered before sighting the planet by studying the distance between the other planets; just as people described the intermediary stages between the birds and reptiles before discovering Archaeopteryx embedded in the limestone at Solenhofer. so could any thinking, educated person prove the existence of homosexuals before seeing them face to face.

Dr. Kotscher of Hubertusburg correctly states: "All our phylo- and ontogeny (evolutionary and biological development) and the observation of heredity must lead us to admit that there is no absolute female animal and no absolute male animal, but rather in each individual a mixture of both occurs to produce animals of different kinds, in our case, humans of different kinds.

Then he asks “What is a woman?” and “What is a man?”, providing a stereotypical response to each in detail. Starting with the production of ova and onward. So nobody can mistake what he says next for ignorance of quote-unquote-biology (pg 417):

According to this, a completely feminine, “absolute” woman would be one who not only produces egg cells, but would also correspond to the female type in every other respect; an “absolute” man one who produces sperm cells but at the same time also exhibits the average male type in all remaining areas. Such kinds of absolute representatives of their sex are constructed abstractions; in reality, up to now they have never been observed in such an extreme combination. More likely, people have been able to prove that there are remnants, no matter how small, of female characteristics in every male and correspondingly, remnants of the male in every female. However, let us assume that there exist people who, to express it in numbers, are 100 percent male or 100 percent female. There is still no question—and here, too, we are still adhering to simple facts taken from experience—there would often be a great number of persons who, in spite of carrying egg cells, showed features that in general approach the male sex and, on the other hand, there would be persons who, in spite of issuing sperm cells, showed features which in general are suited to the female. Because in our usage of language we usually define possessors of egg cells simply as women and the bearers of sperm cells simply as men, then it follows that there are women with male, men with female features, and these mixed forms are precisely what is understood by the expression “sexual intermediaries.”

Then he spends a few pages setting out his scheme of categorisation (four categories, mentioned below). Worth reading for historical interest, nerds, but not required here. Then comes a (relatively) famous passage where he tells you how many (basic!) categories of gender/sex there are:

page 419

Of further importance is that all these features can appear in isolation or in combination. Every conceivable blend of male and female characteristics can occur, if we take as a basis each of the four main groups as a whole for the calculation of the number of possible combinations; thus, if we imagine that first, the sex organs, second, the remaining physical features, third, the sex drive, and fourth, the other psychological characteristics can be male, female, or mixed, then simply from that, you can obtain eighty-one basic types of sexual intermediary stages.

However, the number of possible variations is much greater when we consider that, indeed, many individual attributes are combined within each of the four groups, attributes which can appear in combination with any other one you like, with as many as you like, with as many of the others as you wish, and each, in addition, of different intensity. Let us take only four different attributes in each group, for example, in group II, hair covering, larynx, chest, pelvis, etc. (in reality there are many, many more), then that already furnishes four times four, or sixteen individual characteristics, which can bear male female, or merged features, which produces three to the sixteenth power, 43,046,721 combined possibilities or intermediary types.

And this is only in consideration of a limited subset of characteristics, not the whole range. So at the very beginning, we have the most rudimentary count of genders to be 81, or a slightly more sophisticated at 40 million, and even this is understood as an almost unforgivable over-simplification which a scientifically-minded person should not succumb to. Elsewhere, by way of carefully explaining the diagnostic criteria, he is careful to make sure the reader understands that sexuality and gender are unmoored from one another and can present in any combination. He presents vignettes of gay/bi trans people, warning doctors not to allow one aspect to mislead them regarding another.

It is very important to understand that all the people who formed the non-erased history of sex and gender studies were colleges with Hirschfeld. Harry Benjamin for example, was taken on a tour of Berlin gay bars by Hirschfeld, who hoped to influence him to a friendly feeling towards gender/sexual variant people. (He also did this with the Chief of Police, which I find suggestive of the impression made by Benjamin, but that’s very speculative.) Benjamin did have access to a view of gender and transition which is remarkably in step with the more enlightened jurisdictions here in 2026, which re-frames any apologia about “being a man of his times”. In fact he chose run things the way he did, even though he had a better framework available. And Freud, fucking Freud, was a direct contemporary. Hirschfeld was a founding member of Berlin Psychoanalytic Society. They disagreed on fundamental issues = divergent conclusions. Hirschfeld wanted the largest most diverse sample size possible, and also favored conducting talk therapy outside + walking rather than in a closed room reclined on couch.

As to the original subject of the thread, a little earlier in the same chapter (pg 361), Hirschfeld answers:

----reached wordcount limit for comment + no time to edit to fit. see reply for small rest of it

libertarian

The top level comment is now deleted. But the thread reminds me the Promise software. It was an early tool to integrate and analyze information about court activities nationally for “patterns”.

Canada came knocking on the developers door to enforce their language equality rules and have the thing translated. They were like “who sold you this?” Turns out DOJ was reselling it worldwide (with some back doors).

To fuck with Canada you should not forget the French. If he started talking about a Muslim ban he could probably get a bunch of support there.

literally millions of people are doing this. the platforms are set up to incentivize it.

while there is clearly a genocide, and the attacks on the flotilla were probably illegal, I don’t easily see how the flotilla attacks were genocidal.

so far the fash appear to be stable, no matter how miserable and immiserating their actions may appear from the outside.

well if you merge with the US military I’m sure that helps

the rest is just social housing

they want to be divine nobles who are worshiped.

that is historically the norm (for the vitor cultures who wrote history)

I find the concept of breeders very intuitively icky. But if we are going to continue to live with dogs (and there’s no reason to think that will stop anytime soon) they need to come from somewhere. Where? Assuming you don’t have a feral dog community, which most places don’t want to have.

And doesn’t it seem better to be able to get a small dog that’ll be happy in an apartment without a lot of space to run around if that’s where you find yourself? I’ve seen situations of dogs that are obviously mismatched to their environment and it is miserable. I don’t see the whole “breeder” concept would be needed if people would be flexible about the exact details of what they end up with.

Over the years I try to stop judging people who have those expensive dogs. I figure it’s like being religious or something; I’ll never really understand but apparently the good outweighs the bad for them. If I were in charge I’d ban dog breeders and religion on the first day and then whoever wanted to get unbanned would have to explain why their project is not bad and be subject to committee oversight in implementation.

what’s the communist line on breeding dogs like that?

my gut instinct is that it’s a nasty thing to do. those poor things always snorting and slobbering and having all kinds of problems. I know some otherwise-normal people who have this kind of dog. and it was on purpose, they paid good cash to have the exact characteristics they want.

I think it’s probably OK to breed for temperament and approximate adult size so people can get animals that are suited to their lifestyles. anyone who has a legitimate need for a working dog can also do their thing, within guidelines I can’t speculate about because I don’t know enough.

Some communists have thought breeding dogs was OK, at least for some purposes. Most famously the Silver Fox . Perhaps there are other examples.

Emoji emoji emoji

Not if they publish under CC SA NC!

/s

Its not a table runner. It in a skirt and cloth made of different but complimentary fabrics that suit the purpose. The light color on top contrasts to the equipment which is displayed, providing a plain background that draws the eye to the items. The sides being darker but still incorporating the khaki is perfect because it matches but blends in a bit more to the background while concealing whatever is stored under the platform or just the table itself making things serious and put together. Also by using the fabric they have available in massive quantity for other purposes, nothing is being wasted because it can be re used after.

Together they help create the intended visual effect of a long corridor full of booty.

Its called Attention To Detail. To juxtapose:

Mangione said he learned the exact location of UnitedHealthcare’s conference by emailing the company, posing as an investor with more than $50 billion in capital.

Next time you are in an anti phishing training at work, be sure to share about this cautionary tale to help drive the point home.

Its a good article.

The changes at Downtown Magnets High School followed a complaint filed in March with LAUSD’s Office of Student Civil Rights by Emet Legal Services, alleging violations of anti-discrimination statutes, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 715. Specifically, the complaint, which Truthout reviewed, alleged that Tiffany Do, an 11th-grade social studies and health teacher, had created a hostile environment for Jewish faculty and students by displaying Palestinian flags in the classroom, wearing a keffiyeh in their staff photo on the school’s website and sometimes on campus, and “fail[ing] to present pro-Israel or pro-Zionist speech, posters, or classroom content.” The complaint claimed Do had “indoctrinate[d] students to become political activists while silencing and intimidating Jewish and Israeli-American staff and students.”

When the complaint was filed, it triggered an investigation covering the previous six months of Do’s curricular material, classroom decorations, and professional conduct. Do was interviewed and required to turn over classroom materials, this time to the Office of Student Civil Rights. The school’s principal, history and ethnic studies coordinators, director and operations coordinator, and 15 students in Do’s classes were also interviewed.

The findings of the investigation were announced in late April. It found that Do had used only “limited Israel-Palestine-related” materials, including a single Teen Vogue article about Ireland’s solidarity with Palestine, which was offered as one of seven possible options during a reading assignment, and Democracy Now!’s Top U.S. and World Headlines segment. Students watched those segments every Tuesday, and the segments sometimes referenced the war on Gaza.

Students interviewed as part of this year’s investigation “generally described the classroom environment as open, nonjudgmental, comfortable, or relaxed,” according to the investigation’s findings. Students said they could “share different opinions or disagree without issue” and reported that neither their teacher nor classmates made “comments specifically targeting Jewish people, Israeli people, or Zionism.”

Notably, the investigation did not find that Do’s wearing a keffiyeh constituted discrimination. But the complainant has appealed that finding. The original complaint characterized a keffiyeh as “not only a political symbol, but one that promotes a political agenda of extremism,” and claimed the scarves are “widely used by leaders, members, and supporters of terrorist groups,” citing an “info sheet” from one pro-Israel advocacy group.

That’s the basic plot of what happened but worth reading for the rest of details. Zionists really enthusiastically using themselves as the sharp edge of the knife in the fight to defend white supremacy. Maybe they hope to endear themselves to the other whites having been abandoned by masses of even Americans.

Annabelle Loma has spoken with her husband only a few times since he attempted to jump overboard from the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln during his current deployment.Communication has been difficult to come by, and he is now on medical hold.

sailors described an incident in which watchstanders stopped a crew member from jumping overboard. Stripes reported that the crew was informed about the incident through a shipwide announcement.

Holding incommunicado from family and announcing crisis over the loud speaker to all friends and coworkers. Sounds like they really know how to handle thing. /s

for which you need to type in your zipcode EVERY TIME

Worst thing about that is all these devices are maxxed out with surveillance so it probably actually knows the exact latitude and longitude among other factoids, but that info is not available in a way that could help the user. Only to the ad bidding services or other random shadow entities who pay for access.