The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Social Issues]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-08-29 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 157 references
[Comments enabled]  

Jesus, the stupid....

Patriarchy is at its most potent when oppression doesn’t feel like oppression, or when it is packaged in terms of biology, religion or basic social needs like security comfort, acceptance and success. Heterosexuality offers women all these things as selling points to their consensual subjection.

Historically, women have been conditioned to believe that heterosexuality is natural or innate, just as they have been conditioned to believe that their main purpose is to make babies — and if they fail to do so, they are condemned as not “real,” or as bad, women.

Well considering that biological fact is that if women do not make babies there will be no more humans, I'd say that this passes the test of scientific fact.

Now I, personally, have no individual responsibility to the continuation of the human species just as does not any individual woman.  Indeed I have fathered one child and then got snipped, so absent a medical miracle creating a sufficient "replacement" for myself and the person I had that child with such an outcome is now impossible.  I took that course of action of my own free will and any woman is likewise within her rights to do as well, whether it is by abstaining from sex with men, having her tubes snipped or otherwise.

But to deny that the foundation of the continuation of the species rests in the decision of men and women to sleep together and produce children which can only happen via that event, whether artificially construed or not, is to deny the basics of sexual reproduction and biology.

You don't need to "condition" either women or men in this regard; indeed you need to condition them to believe otherwise.

Sexual reproduction works exactly the same way in all mammals.  If you put male and female rabbits in a cage you will get more rabbits.  The male rabbits may well **** some of the other males, but their drive, their innate desire, is to screw the girl rabbits.  They don't know why they wish to screw the girl rabbits but they damn well know, as a matter of instinct, that they need to and thus they will.

Deer in rut are the same way.  The bucks do not know why screwing that doe is important but they sure do know they want to, and if you try to stop them I hope you like antler up your ass.

Interestingly enough there have recently been studies done on sexual attraction between women and men who have never seen each other.  The women are given a set of t-shirts worn by different men and asked to choose which one(s) they "like."  They have no idea what the men look like or act like but surprisingly, they do have preferences!  You'd think not -- the stinky t-shirt I had on after running last night is hardly what I'd consider "attractive", but apparently it is.

Now here's the interesting thing -- it turns out that there are pheromones that are produced by both men and women correlated with myriad variations in seminal fluid and other genetic characteristics that interact with that of a woman's reproductive system and that women are without being conscious of why very adept at choosing the man who is most-likely to be able to sexually reproduce with her.

Now consider this: When you wake up in the morning you're gonna stick to some degree.  Do you think your relationship or marriage will be better if said woman thinks that smells sexy or the one who thinks you smell like ass -- and vice-versa for you?

Here's the stunner, however, that came out of those studies: A woman on chemical birth control loses that discrimination capacity linked to her biological chemistry so long as she's using it.

In other words if a woman is on chemical birth control she is quite likely to choose a man she is chemically incompatible with without knowing it, and to only discover this if and when she discontinues same with the intent to get pregnant.  This of course is rather likely to increase the odds of a divorce!

Further, however, it is hard evidence that indeed women and men are intrinsically, unconsciously and inexorably connected together and it is through that connection that the human species has survived!

There is an interesting twist to this however, that I'm unaware of having been considered: Does getting snipped as a man break the connection as well?  Maybe.  Men, of course, produce sperm by the millions on a daily basis -- quite literally.  When a man gets snipped all of those are reabsorbed into the body instead of being released, of course, and in a significant percentage of men the body starts producing antibodies -- which means even if you have the vasectomy reversed it won't matter because your own immune system will have killed them all before they can do their deed.  It's thus entirely possible that a vasectomy may tamper with or even destroy the signals so-released; that is, you lose that "unknown" attractive quality by doing so.  Is that logical?  Indeed it is, albeit unproved thus far.  It's IMHO definitely worthy of study, however....

The sort of twaddle that comes out in the cited article flies in the fact of scientific fact.  No, it's not "patriarchy" to note that men and women are different on the basis of biology and science.  We are.  The differences begin with differentiation at the first cellular division and there's not a thing you can do about it.  The inherent attraction between specific men and women isn't patriarchy either, it's innate and necessary to the continuation of the human species.  Indeed that a specific man and woman are attracted to each other and want to have sex in preference to other possible pairings appears to have a biological -- and unconscious -- basis.

That individuals choose otherwise is indeed a right and a choice -- but it is not "normal."  It's not wrong but it isn't what produces continuation of humans.  It can't be.  You can try to pretend it is, to pretend that there is no unconscious yet accurate filter that women in particular use to select men to breed with, but you're wrong.  There is.  Further in every free society men do chase but it is women who choose.  Always.

Indoctrinating the sort of crap found in the cited article into our young ought to be considered intent to commit a literal species-wide wipe-out of humanity.

If there's an offense worthy of the death penalty this is it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

So we have Louisiana poised to sign an anti-abortion Bill, Alabama has just passed one, and there are others.

On the other hand as I noted New York and Virginia started this latest round of insanity, with both states basically attempting to declare that a child in the process of being born could be aborted.  Then the US House refused to pass a bill that would require a fetus that survived an abortion attempt to be given medical care as a child.

I don't know how much more-clear you can get than that as to intent; the House clearly stated that a born infant, who was attempted to be aborted but survived, has no right to life even though it is now independently alive outside of the mother.

Essentially, the left -- all of it, including all elected Democrats in Congress, have declared that there is no such thing as a baby until and unless the mother declares that it is.  At any point prior to that declaration she can declare it nothing more than an unwanted growth irrespective of that "unwanted growth's" ability to survive independently, independently of her negligence, or independently of the random odds of survival, which said child beats, while she's actively trying to kill it.

Let's cut the crap; the left's position on this is transparent and obvious: A woman who doesn't want the financial and personal costs of raising a child must have the ability to evade that at any moment up to the baby's first breath, no matter what happens from that instant in time forward.  She may defer that decision through personal avarice, negligence or even intentional misconduct up to that moment in time and none of that bears on the merits of the decision.

At the same time a man has no rights whatsoever, even if his sperm is stolen from a used condom.

The far right's position is equally-clear: Your legs were open if a women or your pants off (or at least unzipped) if a man.  Tough crap; you undertook an adult act, now behave like an adult.  If you got raped that's unfortunate and a criminal act but even under that circumstance it's not the baby's fault so you don't get to kill the child.  Go after the rapist.

These are polar opposite positions.

The USSC in Roe, however, played Solomon and "split the baby" so to speak.

And when these laws get to the USSC, and they shall as they're intended to do exactly that it is my belief that the Court will do the logical and appropriate thing.

Specifically, I don't think Roe falls.  In fact I don't even believe that despite the statements from some of these state legislatures they expect Roe to fall.  They may wish it but I doubt very much they expect it to.

But I do believe the USSC will send back these laws with a remand consistent with Roe.

Let me remind you what Roe actually holds:

  • In the first trimester a woman has the presumption of supremacy for two reasons -- personal medical privacy and the fact that no 1st trimester fetus can survive outside the womb.  That is, the fetus is inextricably tied to the woman in question and if she acts as an adult, having undertaken an adult act or as a victim of a crime implicating an adult action forced upon her, she, in concert with a physician that elects to do so under his rules of conscience has the right to stop the progression that would otherwise lead to a birth.

  • In the second trimester there is a balance of harms and benefits to the woman which is left to the states to decide and regulate, with the exception found below (that is, a state cannot require a woman to sacrifice her life.)  That is, the people of the 50 states have the right to tilt the scale of supremacy in either direction provided they can justify it on the basis of maternal health. There are likely to be 50 different answers depending on the specifics of the circumstances found in said states -- and that's constitutional.  This balance of harms and benefits test is logical because any woman who desires to know she is pregnant before the expiration of the first trimester may discover same and by that point she has had a reasonable amount of time to contemplate the risks and benefits of both paths available to her in the context of both state law and the regulation of medical practices within a given state.

  • Beyond fetal viability (which is almost-exactly concordant with the start of the third trimester) the states have the right to put into law a presumption that the fetus has a right to live.  At this point the woman has decided either through negligence or intentional action to continue the pregnancy for two thirds of the requisite time.  In addition with each passing day it is increasingly likely that should there be a birth the child can survive independently of that specific woman; in other words it in the event of delivery said child is no more or less dependent than any other baby in that anyone can feed, clothe, diaper and protect it; there is no longer a biological requirement that a given specific woman do so.  Exactly where that line is changes over time but that it certainly occurs somewhere early in the third trimester is a fact.  However, even here the duty is not absolute: A woman is not required to sacrifice her life for said soon-to-be--infant, any more than you are required to stop and render aid to a motorist in a crash.  In fact there is no circumstance, not even under admiralty law on the sea, where you're required to sacrifice your own life to save another.  You may choose to, but you're not required to.  Therefore absent such a clear requirement in trade -- life-for-life or clear and convincing evidence that the mother will have her health severely and even permanently harmed -- states are fully within their rights to bar as a matter of law all third-trimester abortions.

That's what Roe found folks.  It did not confer an absolute right to an abortion at any time.  The Supreme Court has never issued such a ruling.


The screaming liars on the left have claimed that Roe in fact goes all the way to birth -- and even during birth.  This is flat-out nonsense.  Here is what was actually held in Roe, from the actual text of the decision:

3. State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a "compelling" point at various stages of the woman's approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician. Pp. 163, 164.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health. Pp. 163, 164.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

4. The State may define the term "physician" to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined. P. 165.

There is no unrestricted right to abortion, as found by Roe, beyond the first trimester.


A State may therefore find that abortion beyond the end of the first trimester implicates maternal health, including mental health, damaging same, and so regulate it -- including a prohibition except where the manifest trade-off mitigates otherwise.

A state may not, in other words, enact a law that requires a pregnant woman to sacrifice herself for the fetus she is carrying.  However, beyond the first trimester a state may find as its legislature determines on the balance of harms.

Further, since the states are explicitly in Roe reconfirmed in their power to license physicians and thereby set standards for the conduct of medical practice the State can determine what appropriate medical judgement is -- in other words a State is fully within its rights to declare, for example, that "health" in this context means severe and permanent physical disability (for example) and not something such as "well she doesn't have any money therefore that implicates her health."

The State is also empowered to prohibit any and all abortions not performed by a physician defined by the licensing and practice scheme within in the State.

Note that fetal viability is medically defined as the point where there is a 50% rate of survival.  This is approximately 24-25 weeks or during the sixth month of pregnancy.  By the 27th week the rate of survival is roughly 90% and survival beyond that is >95%.

Therefore an appropriate remand on such a law at the USSC would be:

  • Prohibitions on abortion at a state level prior to the passage of three months from last menstruation are inconsistent with Roe and void.

  • Prohibitions at a state level beyond three months may be enacted provided they comport with state-licensed medical practice rules that protect maternal health, provided that they cannot require a woman to continue to carry a pregnancy that, in the reasonable opinion of licensed physicians, will kill her.

  • States may, beyond fetal viability, which is approximately congruent with the third trimester, ban the procedure entirely except where the mother's life or, congruent with the above objective medical licensing standards, serious maternal health issues are implicated.  Note that this does not create a "carve out" for economic or speculative impact (e.g. "psychology") such as, for example where a fetus is known to have a material but survivable defect or deformity.  A state may choose to permit abortion in such a circumstance but is not required to permit it.

That's what I expect the USSC to hold as it is entirely consistent with Roe and yet at the same time upholds most of what these states seek to do.  As such "heartbeat" laws are likely unconstitutional -- but just barely, by a couple of weeks, and as such instructions on a remand would move that barrier to 14 weeks after the initiation of last menstruation.

That decision would in fact not eviscerate Roe -- such a judgment would reconfirm Roe, and leave the States in the position of setting enforceable and definitive medical standards and licensing requirements defining the balance of harms tests for maternal health and the protection (or lack thereof) for fetal life which they are explicitly empowered under Roe to do.

It would "reset" and underline what has been a rampant and outrageous pack of lies by the left as to what Roe actually held -- a good thing that has been needed for the last three decades -- while at the same time moving the barrier on the "heartbeat" people to a legally-defensible place in conformity with Roe itself.  While that change would be significant all-in the states that enacted "heartbeat" legislation would likely find it to be a win as they'd get 90% of what they enacted and which is almost-exactly what Roe first put into place.

Alabama would be the sole exception: they would be forced to accept Roe "as written."

In addition such a decision does not implicate the 1st Amendment (e.g. establishment) where a decision to toss Roe would have severe trouble in that regard.  The Establishment Clause issue can probably be worked around but there's utterly no reason for the Court to twist themselves into knots to go there, and as a result I don't expect them to.

We'll see.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

The very title of this article is a lie.

One morning last December, Autumn Barksdale, a receptionist at a dog grooming salon, asked a dozen colleagues to gather near the fur-trimming tables so she could explain how she would change in the weeks ahead.

Barksdale’s coworkers listened as she explained that the person they knew as a man named Adam would shift to become a woman named Autumn. She had started taking estrogen pills, which would give her breasts and a rounder face. She wanted to begin wearing women's clothing, makeup, and nail polish to work. Barksdale arranged this "trans 101” session, as she called it, because she feared that people would react negatively when her identity began to change visibly. That turned out to be a fair assumption.

The bolded sentence is a lie.

Adam would appear to become a woman yet it is a physical impossibility for Adam to become a woman because he is immutably a man.

This is not my opinion it is a physical fact that cannot be changed any more than you can change the pull of gravity on the face of the planet earth from 32 ft/sec^2.

The very name "transgendered" is a factual lie for the same reason: You cannot change your gender; it is an immutable quality set at the time sperm and egg join.

You can change your appearance to varying degrees, whether done with simple modifications of your dress or far more-drastic events such as attempting to override your natural hormonal balance with drugs or surgical modification of your body, with the latter two having an increasingly-permanent effect.

But it is not possible to change your factual gender and any claim to the contrary marks you as a liar and fraud -- period.

The real problem that I see with claims of "discrimination" is that they too are inherently false.  The issue from my point of view, as a former employer, is that someone who will lie to themselves will lie to both myself and other associates in the firm as well, and that has the potential to be extremely serious.

I never gave a damn about an associate's sexual preference at my firm; it's utterly immaterial to their job performance.  However, were I to become aware of someone's infidelity, irrespective of their sexual preference, I might have a different view for the precise same reason that I'd have had an issue with someone trying to claim the impossible: It bears on their willingness to lie for personal gain with those who at least in theory they should have had a greater duty to than they do to the company.

“When someone calls me [Adam] or calls me 'he,' it takes away everything, it makes me feel so invalidated," she says. “These people are literally refusing to see me as a person, except for this construction that they have in their mind.”

No, when someone calls this person "Adam" or "he" they are stating a physical fact.

The only thing "invalidated" by such a declaration is your belief in being able to change immutable physical facts to suit your fantasy world view -- something that we consider to be normal in children and their development but which used to be, and still should be, recognized as a mental disorder when exhibited by grown adults.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)