Are We Just Hormones?

hermaphrodite bird, budgie

Can't one become the opposite sex by changing their hormones? Don't we all start out as girls in the womb? It's not that simple. 

Some notes before you watch the video:

Using the word "gender" or "transgender is not valuable in this context. Here is why: 

Gender is the social performance of one's biological sex. Gender performance (or gender roles) are not arbitrary or made up; they are driven by neurochemistry and have served an evolutionary purpose that aided our survival. But today, in theory, anyone can be any gender, or neither gender, and act any way they please, so the word has become meaningless. 

There are legitimate brain differences in true transsexuals (see footnote). The brain is a physical component of someone's sex, therefore calling a transsexual a transgender is inaccurate and demeans their physical difference to an arbitrary social one. And from what I understand, the root issue for real transsexuals is not "society won't let me wear what I want and call myself by a different pronoun," it's that they literally feel they were born in the wrong body. 

*The bed nucleus of the striate terminals (where the amygdala begins its descent into the hypothalamus) holds a neurotransmitter that's twice the size in males than females. When transsexuals were studied post-mortem, the size of their neurotransmitter coincided with the gender they identified with. This was true for those who went through hormone therapy and those who did not.

How promiscuity hurts men

promiscuity hurts men

– Why are marriage rates today lower than they were during the great depression?

– Why is it that in the 50's African Americans had a lower divorce rate than whites, and today 73% of black mothers are single? 

– Why are so many people of welfare?

– Why are so many couples living together for years and then breaking up?

– What happened to all the real men? 


Well…women happened to them. Women have completely reframed their incentive structure. 


Anarchism Does Not Belong to the Socialists

individualist anarchist

Anarchism does not belong to the socialists. Anarchism is as old as Lao-Tzu & Christ. There a many anarchist schools of thought, my favorite being individualist anarchism. The following is an adaptation from Anselm Bellegarrigue's 1850's Anarchist Manifesto.


The sacrifice of the individual and their property has always been justified as a virtuous act for the preservation of society, the collective, and the State. This justification, this dogma, upheld by philosophy and politics, has served as a basis for power. 

It has never been true, it will never be true. it cannot be true, that there is on earth an interest to which I owe the sacrifice. On earth there are only individuals; I am an individual; my interest is equal to that of any other; I owe nothing to the collective, because I am part of the collective . I owe nothing to the government, for the government gives me nothing,—in fact, has nothing to give me except that which it takes from me. 

Do I, then, deny collective interest? Certainly not. Society is the inevitable consequence of the aggregation of individuals; collective interest is an unavoidable deduction from the aggregation of private interests. Collective interests can be complete only so far as private interest remains intact; if collective interest is defined as the interest of all, the moment the interest of a single individual in society is injured, collective interest is no longer the interest of all, and consequently has ceased to exist.

 If the community needs to run a road through my field, it may compensate me. Here it is my interest that governs; individual right weighs over collective right. I have the same interest that the community has in having a road, but not in sacrifice to myself. So it is the communities' interest to indemnify me; which moves my interest to yield. Such is the collective interest that springs from the nature of things. 

But when you close my establishment, forbid me to work, restrict my speech, prohibit me from being a lawyer or a doctor by virtue of my private studies and my clientèle, order me not to sell this and not to buy that,—when, in short, you call collective interest that which you invoke in order to prevent me from earning my living in the open day, I declare that I do not understand you.

Let us leave this frightful and outrageous fiction, and let us say that the only way to protect the collective interest is to protect private interest. 


Soft Science Sophistry, with Friends

real peer review

John Tierney, the author of “The Real War on Science” has a few words on this: “Scientists try to avoid confirmation bias by exposing their work to peer review by critics with different views, but it’s increasingly difficult for liberals to find such critics. Academics have traditionally leaned left politically, and many fields have essentially become monocultures, especially in the social sciences, where Democrats now outnumber Republicans by at least 8 to 1. (In sociology, where the ratio is 44 to 1, a student is much likelier to be taught by a Marxist than by a Republican.) The lopsided ratio has led to another well-documented phenomenon: people’s beliefs become more extreme when they’re surrounded by like-minded colleagues. They come to assume that their opinions are not only the norm but also the truth.”

To find all the articles my friends and I featured, browse the following: 

Real peer-reviewed research database
New Real Peer Review Twitter





Next time you’re feeling melancholy, or even depressed, let this thought console you…"at least I didn’t go into debt to write about black anuses”












Bitcoin: no need to keep talking

segwit, bitcoin debate

I will make this brief and to the point, respecting the spirit of my post's title. 

Roger Ver and those associated with BU have a dislike for the core dev team, and segwit. Roger has been very vocal regarding his idea of how Bitcoin should move forward and so has his opposition. This week we happened to all be at a conference together and efforts were made to have a productive dialogue. 

Tone Vays started the discussion with Roger, after which Trace Mayer and I thought a more technical follow up was needed, so we asked JD of blockstream to flesh out some points. The intention was for the two sides to expand their common ground, to stop animosity, and to agree on a path forward for Bitcoin considering the solutions available today. After several private and public discussions, no one's attitude or understanding of Bitcoin has changed.

There were points where he was asked "if core increases blocksize to 10 MB tomorrow, will you get behind core & segwit, and disassemble BU?" and "how about signaling segwit on BU?"

Roger tended to defer the questions or respond with "we asked core to do something years ago and they didn't listen."

I later asked Jake the first mentioned hypothetical and he simply said "no."

I'm not sure if much else can be said. 

I understand Roger's frustration, but writing sound code is hard, and doing things right is a priority over making companies happy. Core cannot compromise code quality because someone's business model is suffering.

If Roger wants a Zero-Confirmation StarbucksCoin that is controlled by miners, he has a right to fund its creation. I will miss him as a positive voice for the original protocol, but I'm happy that it's now more clear as to what everyone's intentions are.


1. BU will continue to develop, while making technical blunders (such as their recent loss of 13k due to the mining on an invalid block) and remaining perpetually behind (~4000 commits as of today).

2. Core (around 120 active devs) will silently keep working on awesome stuff like mimble wimble, tumblebit, Schnorr, MAST, etc.

3. Bitcoin will keep its status quo until Jihan (bitmain CEO) makes a move

Until then, shhhhh…let the work talk.


A huge thank you to the cryptoshow for hosting and moderating, and to Tone Vays for his contributions and stream!