Katz takes a cheap shot by mocking the trans scholar who studies rivers and then follows up with this: "I must also mention that knowledge of the kind most people deem useless can suddenly become very useful." The context before and after this part of the essay demonstrates the author is being inconsistent; he sets up a punchline that co…
Katz takes a cheap shot by mocking the trans scholar who studies rivers and then follows up with this: "I must also mention that knowledge of the kind most people deem useless can suddenly become very useful." The context before and after this part of the essay demonstrates the author is being inconsistent; he sets up a punchline that compares the hydrologist with another classical scholar in order to denigrate the trans hydrologist. Not only is such pettiness unbecoming, but it is brazen hypocrisy given the sanctimony that follows to the end of the essay.
I went and looked up the work by the trans hydrologist. As a former professional theatre producer who worked with some of the greatest performance artists of the 20th century and other more mainstream figures, and as a mid-career change into water use, law, and politics, I have a unique perspective on the topics this transgender hydrologist studies -- and it is fascinating.
Oh, but you may wish to denigrate me -- good luck with that: I'm, armed to the teeth with privilege, educated at a ritzy New England boarding school, then private liberal arts college, then at a UC graduate program; I'm a white cis-gender heterosexual male, and put the blade down on the bulldozer in first gear when writing critiques and cracking skulls.
Katz should never have been run out of Princeton; the school showed its weakness. Unfortunately, Katz has shown his as well.
Because the author of the article did in his disrespectful statement:
"...the environmental scientist who describes “zerself” as a “salmon oracle” (no, I’m not making this up) and who last year published a monograph with a major academic press that (and I quote) “explores how a queer-trans-feminist approach can ally with indigenous praxis to renew human-water-fish relations.”"
It is precisely the quality of being transgender the author is demeaning that makes the hydrologist's work so fascinating and "useful." I just ordered their book " Underflows: Queer Trans Ecologies and River Justice." The hydrologist explores how we are all just more of the river flowing through the lens of being queer transgender.
I had no idea that being trans is required as a prerequisite to be able to study human-river-fish interactions. Did the patriarchy dominating previous study deform results significantly?
Silly me, I thought you were a scientist whose observations were independent of who the observer was. That way the truth discovered was universal. I guess now trans truth is different from cis normative truth?
I guess that at 73, I am too old and mis-or mal-educated to understand today's gender fluid world and its interactions with fluid dynamics in rivers. Or perhaps you're weaponising gender fluidity to invalidate objective science as a way to destroy modern engineering? Smashing the patriarchy is obviously much more important than modern sewage systems built with excessively white cis norm math and engineering.
You make assertions and complaints that no one has made -- neither I, Joshua Katz, nor the hydrologist who brings their life to the work they do.
No one said being trans is a prerequisite to study human-river-fish interactions.
Not since the early-mid 20th century did scientists think they were separate from their experiments; indeed, the very act of coming up with a creative hypothesis is inseparable from the scientist who chooses what to think and then go test for it. All credible experiments must be replicable in other labs by other people; if a scientist brings their life to their work in unique and creative ways and others can objectively replicate that work, then we have the best of both worlds: a creative and human exploration that others can confirm and connect with in the process of advancing knowledge and experience. This is the standard now for over 70+ years.
No one has speculated on you and your abilities; only you have done so. And no one has suggested that patriarchy has to be smashed in order for other perspectives to exist -- only you put forth the idea that they are mutually exclusive. There is a very important term that came out of the Enlightenment called "Pluralism," which is the idea that multiple ideas can coexist. Both patriarchy and other systems of power can and do coexist. Being queer and viewing the world through other lenses than patriarchal lenses is one way to live that exists alongside other ways of living. No one has told you you can be who you are and live the way you do, however that life may be.
You should know that most math is done by non-white males these days. One of my friends graduated from U Chicago as a math wizard and they are queer transgender; my niece graduated with an incomprehensible level of math as a major; my daughter probably won't go into math but has such a high level of understanding and near perfect math SAT score that my eyes glaze over; hundreds of thousands, if not millions of citizens from may Asian nations are extraordinary engineers, many of whom are women. No one said anything about smashing patriarchy and invalidating objective science and the minority of "cis-norm math and engineering."
I am fascinated at what fear and loathing look like: it's people who manufacture statements and claims such as you have done here -- putting words and presumptions into the discussion no one has said. To the author's credit and to the trans hydrologist he defames, neither have said for one perspective to exist another must necessarily be silenced. How people like you come to the conclusion of a "zero-sum" or "mutually-exclusive" reality is a branch of psychology and sociology that ought to be studied by a diverse and wide community of scientists from a range of backgrounds to really get a pluralistic view of the condition. You, sir, are worthy of being studied -- the subject of a scientific experiment!
Sorry if I broke your rice bowl. Science should be independent of the sexual orientation of the scientist. If it ain't, then it ain't science. I am tired of people who claim that a trans approach to science brings new insight. It shouldn't. Unless you are investigating the sexual orientation of fish, it shouldn't make any difference.
The laws of fluid dynamics are not dependent on the sexual orientation of the observer. If you think they are, you ain't a scientist. I don't care about your sexual orientation, because it's scientifically irrelevant unless the paper is about sexual orientation.
I have lifelong friends that are gay. I have no hate for anyone. You, on the other hand, seem to have a new, unprecedented, required framework for science & politics that's completely intolerant of opposing views. Sorry, but I won't comply. The Party will not censor my thoughts. For the moment at least, the Bill of Rights is still in force. Good luck with being a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
You said: "You, on the other hand, seem to have a new, unprecedented, required framework for science & politics that's completely intolerant of opposing views."
You realize what you said is the exact opposite of what I spoke about above when I said: "There is a very important term that came out of the Enlightenment called "Pluralism," which is the idea that multiple ideas can coexist. Both patriarchy and other systems of power can and do coexist. Being queer and viewing the world through other lenses than patriarchal lenses is one way to live that exists alongside other ways of living."
And when I said: "How people like you come to the conclusion of a "zero-sum" or "mutually-exclusive" reality is a branch of psychology and sociology that ought to be studied by a diverse and wide community of scientists from a range of backgrounds to really get a pluralistic view of the condition."
The fundamental basis of pluralism is embracing opposing views. Yet you accuse the person (me) who supports pluralism as being intolerant of opposing views. You become more and more interesting to study as the dialogue advances.
You mention the party will not censor your thoughts. No one ever said your thoughts were to be censored -- that's un-American and uninteresting. Your thoughts are central to the American ideal -- to say whatever you want, think whatever you want regardless of how inconsistent, hypocritical, or uninformed others make think of you. I'd carry a gun to war -- one of my many -- to defend your right to ignorant non-sequiturs, if not because it would also protect all rights to free speech, but because of the entertainment value.
As a card-carrying paying subscriber of The Free Press and proud Real American, I appreciate this opportunity to engage a person who thinks the world is out to get them and that they are under attack by people who, just by living their own lives, threaten your sense of safety, security, and welfare. While ideas are powerful and diverse lifestyles are fascinating, they are not out to get you. You live your life true to your own self and quit worrying about how others live theirs and sooner than later, you'll find peace and serenity is this dynamic and interesting world you are not the center of.
Your claim to pluralism is laughable. What is a woman? Even asking that question is defined as hate speech on many campuses across the US, and you know it. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
You missed my point entirely. It's about science, not political tolerance. On tolerance, I follow John Locke. You may not have heard of him, because he's an old dead straight white guy. Even so, his "On Tolerance" is worth reading.
Science generally should not change based on the gender orientation of the scientist. The only time the gender orientation of the scientist might matter is if the subject of the study is gender orientation itself. In that case, the gender orientation off the scientist would give insight into the subject.
I am secure in my beliefs. However, I view cancel culture with alarm. Democracy dies without free speech. Perhaps you're unaware of the Twitter files and Missouri v Biden? The government paid Twitter $3 million to censor posts and cancel accounts. In Missouri v Biden, the DOJ is fighting an injunction that would prohibit parts of the government from "suggesting" censorship activities to private companies. This ain't my imagination. It's a serious threat.
Perhaps the ignorance you seek is your own. People who depend on censored news and social media have no idea what they're missing.
You make so many speculative assertions, including comments no one has made, that it's like debating with a person suffering from schizophrenia. If you suffer from such a malady, please understand I wish you well and hope you are cared for by loved ones.
As regards John Locke, I studied him in college, specifically, his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Along with Locke, I studied other empiricists, such as Berkeley and Hume. I also studied the rationalists, namely Liebenez, Spinoza, and Descartes. Yeah, I'm pretty sure your speculations are off as to my understanding about the things you say or contemporary events and movements you wonder if I am aware of.
Look, buddy, denigrating the hydrologist for bringing their trans-worldview to their work is a below-the-belt disrespectful and dishonorable act. Your insistence on canceling people who do science from a perspective that is not from the same hegemonic worldview as yours is regressive and a losing bigoted position to take.
Your idiotic insistence that the sexual point of view of the scientist changes the science is typical of the woke word view, which posits everyone has their own truth, and there's no one scietific truth for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. On this subject you are full of Schiff, and completely intolerant of traditional views of science and truth. The world wasn't invented yesterday for the benefit of 23 new sexual orientations. Scientific principles don't have to bend to accommodate trans sex. It can exist on it's own, without imposing impossible world views on the world. A trans woman ain't a biological woman. A chromosome check will show the difference in every cell native to the organism. I don't have to play make believe on a scientific level to tolerate whatever you want to do on your own behind closed doors. Insisting I have to accept your distorted view of reality ain't tolerance.
Bob Hope was asked one time if he was leaving California because they made gay marriage legal. He said he was leaving before they could make it mandatory.
There you go again...making assertions neither I or anyone else ever said and then attacking them. You invent falsehoods in order to have something to parry. Your entire first paragraph is a folly of invented statements all of your own making I have not said.
You said: " Insisting I have to accept your distorted view of reality ain't tolerance." I never said you have to accept my view or anyone else's. Where did you get that idea from? You invented it just to have something to parry. I have stated repeatedly that pluralism, the circumstance of having multiple ideas floating around simultaneously, is of preeminent importance. You can and should have your ideas, no matter that they are falsely attributed non-sequiturs.
BTW, you never told me what your "rice bowl" reference was -- you said: "Sorry if I broke your rice bowl." I think there's a tone of sarcasm in there; otherwise, I'm not sure how that non-sequitur fits in.
You also said: "I have lifelong friends that are gay. I have no hate for anyone," but then you make a quip about Bob Hope who made a defamatory and ludicrous remark about gay marriage. What's up, bro? It's a stupid joke that only jerks think is funny.
Yes, fishing is one of the most important activities holding families and societies together -- The Public Trust Doctrine is a 2,000 year old law going back to roman times that holds water in trust to protect fisheries and navigable rivers. Native Americans entire cultures were held together by anadromous fish migrations.
The Free Press exists to preserve and promote the liberty of thought and pressing out into new areas of thought and reporting on a wide range of ideas other media won't touch. I believe TFP is about fearlessly being present with an open mind to see what others are not.
"The Free Press exists to preserve and promote the liberty of thought and pressing out into new areas of thought and reporting on a wide range of ideas other media won't touch."
Katz takes a cheap shot by mocking the trans scholar who studies rivers and then follows up with this: "I must also mention that knowledge of the kind most people deem useless can suddenly become very useful." The context before and after this part of the essay demonstrates the author is being inconsistent; he sets up a punchline that compares the hydrologist with another classical scholar in order to denigrate the trans hydrologist. Not only is such pettiness unbecoming, but it is brazen hypocrisy given the sanctimony that follows to the end of the essay.
I went and looked up the work by the trans hydrologist. As a former professional theatre producer who worked with some of the greatest performance artists of the 20th century and other more mainstream figures, and as a mid-career change into water use, law, and politics, I have a unique perspective on the topics this transgender hydrologist studies -- and it is fascinating.
Oh, but you may wish to denigrate me -- good luck with that: I'm, armed to the teeth with privilege, educated at a ritzy New England boarding school, then private liberal arts college, then at a UC graduate program; I'm a white cis-gender heterosexual male, and put the blade down on the bulldozer in first gear when writing critiques and cracking skulls.
Katz should never have been run out of Princeton; the school showed its weakness. Unfortunately, Katz has shown his as well.
Why mention Transgender at all?
Because the author of the article did in his disrespectful statement:
"...the environmental scientist who describes “zerself” as a “salmon oracle” (no, I’m not making this up) and who last year published a monograph with a major academic press that (and I quote) “explores how a queer-trans-feminist approach can ally with indigenous praxis to renew human-water-fish relations.”"
It is precisely the quality of being transgender the author is demeaning that makes the hydrologist's work so fascinating and "useful." I just ordered their book " Underflows: Queer Trans Ecologies and River Justice." The hydrologist explores how we are all just more of the river flowing through the lens of being queer transgender.
I had no idea that being trans is required as a prerequisite to be able to study human-river-fish interactions. Did the patriarchy dominating previous study deform results significantly?
Silly me, I thought you were a scientist whose observations were independent of who the observer was. That way the truth discovered was universal. I guess now trans truth is different from cis normative truth?
I guess that at 73, I am too old and mis-or mal-educated to understand today's gender fluid world and its interactions with fluid dynamics in rivers. Or perhaps you're weaponising gender fluidity to invalidate objective science as a way to destroy modern engineering? Smashing the patriarchy is obviously much more important than modern sewage systems built with excessively white cis norm math and engineering.
You make assertions and complaints that no one has made -- neither I, Joshua Katz, nor the hydrologist who brings their life to the work they do.
No one said being trans is a prerequisite to study human-river-fish interactions.
Not since the early-mid 20th century did scientists think they were separate from their experiments; indeed, the very act of coming up with a creative hypothesis is inseparable from the scientist who chooses what to think and then go test for it. All credible experiments must be replicable in other labs by other people; if a scientist brings their life to their work in unique and creative ways and others can objectively replicate that work, then we have the best of both worlds: a creative and human exploration that others can confirm and connect with in the process of advancing knowledge and experience. This is the standard now for over 70+ years.
No one has speculated on you and your abilities; only you have done so. And no one has suggested that patriarchy has to be smashed in order for other perspectives to exist -- only you put forth the idea that they are mutually exclusive. There is a very important term that came out of the Enlightenment called "Pluralism," which is the idea that multiple ideas can coexist. Both patriarchy and other systems of power can and do coexist. Being queer and viewing the world through other lenses than patriarchal lenses is one way to live that exists alongside other ways of living. No one has told you you can be who you are and live the way you do, however that life may be.
You should know that most math is done by non-white males these days. One of my friends graduated from U Chicago as a math wizard and they are queer transgender; my niece graduated with an incomprehensible level of math as a major; my daughter probably won't go into math but has such a high level of understanding and near perfect math SAT score that my eyes glaze over; hundreds of thousands, if not millions of citizens from may Asian nations are extraordinary engineers, many of whom are women. No one said anything about smashing patriarchy and invalidating objective science and the minority of "cis-norm math and engineering."
I am fascinated at what fear and loathing look like: it's people who manufacture statements and claims such as you have done here -- putting words and presumptions into the discussion no one has said. To the author's credit and to the trans hydrologist he defames, neither have said for one perspective to exist another must necessarily be silenced. How people like you come to the conclusion of a "zero-sum" or "mutually-exclusive" reality is a branch of psychology and sociology that ought to be studied by a diverse and wide community of scientists from a range of backgrounds to really get a pluralistic view of the condition. You, sir, are worthy of being studied -- the subject of a scientific experiment!
Sorry if I broke your rice bowl. Science should be independent of the sexual orientation of the scientist. If it ain't, then it ain't science. I am tired of people who claim that a trans approach to science brings new insight. It shouldn't. Unless you are investigating the sexual orientation of fish, it shouldn't make any difference.
The laws of fluid dynamics are not dependent on the sexual orientation of the observer. If you think they are, you ain't a scientist. I don't care about your sexual orientation, because it's scientifically irrelevant unless the paper is about sexual orientation.
I have lifelong friends that are gay. I have no hate for anyone. You, on the other hand, seem to have a new, unprecedented, required framework for science & politics that's completely intolerant of opposing views. Sorry, but I won't comply. The Party will not censor my thoughts. For the moment at least, the Bill of Rights is still in force. Good luck with being a domestic enemy of the Constitution.
Rice bowl? I don't get the reference.
You said: "You, on the other hand, seem to have a new, unprecedented, required framework for science & politics that's completely intolerant of opposing views."
You realize what you said is the exact opposite of what I spoke about above when I said: "There is a very important term that came out of the Enlightenment called "Pluralism," which is the idea that multiple ideas can coexist. Both patriarchy and other systems of power can and do coexist. Being queer and viewing the world through other lenses than patriarchal lenses is one way to live that exists alongside other ways of living."
And when I said: "How people like you come to the conclusion of a "zero-sum" or "mutually-exclusive" reality is a branch of psychology and sociology that ought to be studied by a diverse and wide community of scientists from a range of backgrounds to really get a pluralistic view of the condition."
The fundamental basis of pluralism is embracing opposing views. Yet you accuse the person (me) who supports pluralism as being intolerant of opposing views. You become more and more interesting to study as the dialogue advances.
You mention the party will not censor your thoughts. No one ever said your thoughts were to be censored -- that's un-American and uninteresting. Your thoughts are central to the American ideal -- to say whatever you want, think whatever you want regardless of how inconsistent, hypocritical, or uninformed others make think of you. I'd carry a gun to war -- one of my many -- to defend your right to ignorant non-sequiturs, if not because it would also protect all rights to free speech, but because of the entertainment value.
As a card-carrying paying subscriber of The Free Press and proud Real American, I appreciate this opportunity to engage a person who thinks the world is out to get them and that they are under attack by people who, just by living their own lives, threaten your sense of safety, security, and welfare. While ideas are powerful and diverse lifestyles are fascinating, they are not out to get you. You live your life true to your own self and quit worrying about how others live theirs and sooner than later, you'll find peace and serenity is this dynamic and interesting world you are not the center of.
Your claim to pluralism is laughable. What is a woman? Even asking that question is defined as hate speech on many campuses across the US, and you know it. To claim otherwise is disingenuous.
You missed my point entirely. It's about science, not political tolerance. On tolerance, I follow John Locke. You may not have heard of him, because he's an old dead straight white guy. Even so, his "On Tolerance" is worth reading.
Science generally should not change based on the gender orientation of the scientist. The only time the gender orientation of the scientist might matter is if the subject of the study is gender orientation itself. In that case, the gender orientation off the scientist would give insight into the subject.
I am secure in my beliefs. However, I view cancel culture with alarm. Democracy dies without free speech. Perhaps you're unaware of the Twitter files and Missouri v Biden? The government paid Twitter $3 million to censor posts and cancel accounts. In Missouri v Biden, the DOJ is fighting an injunction that would prohibit parts of the government from "suggesting" censorship activities to private companies. This ain't my imagination. It's a serious threat.
Perhaps the ignorance you seek is your own. People who depend on censored news and social media have no idea what they're missing.
You make so many speculative assertions, including comments no one has made, that it's like debating with a person suffering from schizophrenia. If you suffer from such a malady, please understand I wish you well and hope you are cared for by loved ones.
As regards John Locke, I studied him in college, specifically, his "An Essay Concerning Human Understanding." Along with Locke, I studied other empiricists, such as Berkeley and Hume. I also studied the rationalists, namely Liebenez, Spinoza, and Descartes. Yeah, I'm pretty sure your speculations are off as to my understanding about the things you say or contemporary events and movements you wonder if I am aware of.
Look, buddy, denigrating the hydrologist for bringing their trans-worldview to their work is a below-the-belt disrespectful and dishonorable act. Your insistence on canceling people who do science from a perspective that is not from the same hegemonic worldview as yours is regressive and a losing bigoted position to take.
Your idiotic insistence that the sexual point of view of the scientist changes the science is typical of the woke word view, which posits everyone has their own truth, and there's no one scietific truth for everyone, regardless of sexual orientation. On this subject you are full of Schiff, and completely intolerant of traditional views of science and truth. The world wasn't invented yesterday for the benefit of 23 new sexual orientations. Scientific principles don't have to bend to accommodate trans sex. It can exist on it's own, without imposing impossible world views on the world. A trans woman ain't a biological woman. A chromosome check will show the difference in every cell native to the organism. I don't have to play make believe on a scientific level to tolerate whatever you want to do on your own behind closed doors. Insisting I have to accept your distorted view of reality ain't tolerance.
Bob Hope was asked one time if he was leaving California because they made gay marriage legal. He said he was leaving before they could make it mandatory.
There you go again...making assertions neither I or anyone else ever said and then attacking them. You invent falsehoods in order to have something to parry. Your entire first paragraph is a folly of invented statements all of your own making I have not said.
You said: " Insisting I have to accept your distorted view of reality ain't tolerance." I never said you have to accept my view or anyone else's. Where did you get that idea from? You invented it just to have something to parry. I have stated repeatedly that pluralism, the circumstance of having multiple ideas floating around simultaneously, is of preeminent importance. You can and should have your ideas, no matter that they are falsely attributed non-sequiturs.
BTW, you never told me what your "rice bowl" reference was -- you said: "Sorry if I broke your rice bowl." I think there's a tone of sarcasm in there; otherwise, I'm not sure how that non-sequitur fits in.
You also said: "I have lifelong friends that are gay. I have no hate for anyone," but then you make a quip about Bob Hope who made a defamatory and ludicrous remark about gay marriage. What's up, bro? It's a stupid joke that only jerks think is funny.
Good Lord! LOL.
“explores how a queer-trans-feminist approach can ally with indigenous praxis to renew human-water-fish relations.”
(A saying I have recently been using Quite A Bit) Just When I think Things Can't Get Any Crazier...Turns Out I'm Wrong."
Coming from a family that views Fishing Opener as High Holy Day, I view human-water-fish relations, as VERY Important!
Yes, fishing is one of the most important activities holding families and societies together -- The Public Trust Doctrine is a 2,000 year old law going back to roman times that holds water in trust to protect fisheries and navigable rivers. Native Americans entire cultures were held together by anadromous fish migrations.
The Free Press exists to preserve and promote the liberty of thought and pressing out into new areas of thought and reporting on a wide range of ideas other media won't touch. I believe TFP is about fearlessly being present with an open mind to see what others are not.
"The Free Press exists to preserve and promote the liberty of thought and pressing out into new areas of thought and reporting on a wide range of ideas other media won't touch."
RADICAL CONCEPT!