Apparently, according to WorldCat, I’d have to travel overseas to other libraries to read it. And it was published in 1909, so presumably its copyright has long since expired. If travel ever resumes, I think I’ll make vacation plans to visit one of these libraries and scan the book myself...
Regarding sources for Wikipedia on Dr Thomas Baty, one of the longest freely published accounts I found online is at http://www.ilajapan.org/doc/baty_e.pdf - relevant as Baty spent much of his life in Japan.
Well, I guess we’ll have to wait until 2024 then. Unless maybe it was published locally in one of those countries like Canada with a shorter term.... but that seems doubtful given the limited availability in public libraries.
That is to say, utopias achieve social harmony by excluding dissidents. The process of exclusion varies widely, of course. In the past the means were crude: slavery, war, closed borders. More modern “solutions” might include drugs, eugenics, or genetic engineering, or simply pretending the problem doesn’t exist.
And what is the problem, anyway? It’s that people disagree, in fundamental ways, how the world should be run. These disagreements are presently held in check by a delicate balance of power and complex political processes. But utopian authors don’t want that. They want to simplify society and sweep away the complexities and ugliness of the real world. I have yet to see anyone succeed at doing that without some process of exclusion.
FWIW, I know many trans people who agree with this.
FWIW, it's a work of speculative fiction and not a manifesto.
The fact that the topic is ideological is no reason to go into flamewar about it. Actually it's a reason not to go into flamewar. Note this guideline from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."
eg. I don't understand what the other side is saying: You mention identity politics. I don't care. I don't know anyone who cares, including trans people I know. They (and I) would rather have a good night out and a couple of drinks.
All such discussions become fruitless in the end.
If we want real problems, how about people who insist on addressing others with T-pronouns when they're still on a V-basis? Now, those are the real savages.
Bonus clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Am5AEPHd6k
As for that breakaway technical college somewhere off in the fens, it somewhat de-victorianised in the twenties: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24340585
Every time I think I have seen the most bonkers thing that the US has to offer someone trumps it.
Did no one refuse? Was it a male only institution and they wanted to make absolutely sure that no women got in? If so why the photographs? Surely a discreet examination would do?
Regardless of the 'reason' it is astonishingly weird.
I don’t think that is significant but it is strange the article describes the person with pronoun they instead of the pronoun identifying their preferred sex. It seems some increased context would be beneficial as perhaps there is a historical reason.
It's possible they had to do that because of the times. But where is the evidence? Why is this not discussed in an encyclopedia we can look up? Do we need an uncensored Wikipedia now?
Transgender identity has changed a lot over the last several decades. You therefore shouldn't expect someone who lived before that to have used the same vocabulary and labels we use today. You also shouldn't force them into a binary gender bucket. There is a wide variety of transgender identities and it isn't exclusively about going from man to woman or vice versa.
When you aren't sure of a person's preferred gender identity and pronouns, you are probably better off using general terms like they/them/their as the Wikipedia article does. You should never use "it" like you did in your first post unless specifically told to do so. It is can be viewed as dehumanizing.
'It' referrers to the situation, not the person. I changed the grammar a little to try and fix this.
Maybe that also isn't intentional and is merely poor grammar, but that certainly reads as if you are using "it" to refer to the person.
it isn't bad grammar, though you could argue it's poor writing because it's confusing. it's using a feature of english called it-extraposition. some examples here: https://www1.icsi.berkeley.edu/~kay/bcg/extrap.html
basically, it-xp lets you delay a constituent in certain circumstances using "it". sometimes this is required to make a sentence grammatical.
"(What to do next) is not clear"
"It is not clear (what to do next)"
*"Was (who painted this) a child?"
"Was it a child (who painted this)?"
Discourse: "I don't know the gender of the writer"
R1: *"Was (who wrote this) a man?" (can't have wh-phrase here, needs it-xp)
R2: "Was it a man (who wrote this)?" (OK, but the last part is redundant. Discourse already includes we are talking about a writer. Grice's maxims suggest we will usually drop it.)
R3: "Was it a man?" (looks weird, but sounds perfectly normal in context)
I will also say it is worth the tiny bit of extra effort to make pronoun use clear when dealing with members of the trans people. That community already faces so many challenges, accidentally offending them with our laziness is a mistake we shouldn't make.
If you are already sure it was a person and wanted to be specific, you could rephrase that as “Was the person who did this a man?”.
(The answer to that might of course be “I don't know, they looked rather androgynous.” or the more down to earth “Dunno. Couldn't tell if it was a bloke or a gal.”.)
At least Wikipedia has a copy before degenderisation:
You made that up. Here's the actual criteria: .
> This page in a nutshell: A book is notable, and generally merits an article, if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
> 1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.
As the article lists quite a few references, it's soundly in the Notable category. Please take this elsewhere.
I'm not saying that's the case here (I thought it was an interesting article), just offering context for why it might have been frustration rather than deliberate bad faith.