#Orientation Program 2018

[shepscapades]

Thanks to artfight, I’ve finally finished a detailed, official dbhc cub reference! :D

(I’ve put his Artifight description below the cut, which has a more detailed explanation of his timeline, lore, and aesthetics! >:3)

-ˋˏ ༻ ❁  OVERVIEW ❁ ༺ ˎˊ-

Name: C.B.F.N.4000 (Cub) Pronouns: He/Him Species: Android Height: 5’9’’ Associated Visual Themes: vex, ghosts, explosions, mischief, scientist aesthetic, potions, potionmaking, sleepy/tired aesthetic, conspiracies

-ˋˏ ༻ ❁  ABOUT ❁ ༺ ˎˊ-

CBFN4000 is an au version of MCYT Hermitcraft’s Cubfan, set in my DBHC (or Detroit Become Hermitcraft) AU! This au is inspired by the 2018 game Detroit Become Human, but not because it really has anything to do with DBH—I simply yoinked the android mechanics and incorporated them into the world of Hermitcraft. It began as a S8 au, and has roughly followed the hermitcraft timeline up to the present! 

Cub was the last android made during Season 8. While many of the hermit androids were made at the beginning of season 8 and a few were made for season 9, Cub was finished and activated mid-late Season 8, around the time when Hermits started noticing the Big Moon. Cub’s model ended up being a sloppy experiment in deviation, as Doc suggested they try to transfer deviancy to an android upon activation to try and avoid traumatic situations that might cause an android to deviate violently or upsettingly, such as Etho’s, Tango’s, or Mumbo’s experiences. While this went relatively well initially, it clearly wasn’t very thoroughly thought out, as Xisuma (who is normally so adamant and detail-oriented when it comes to assuring the androids’ safety with experiments like this) wasn’t truly himself due to external manipulation and mostly left a relatively young-deviant Doc to carry out the project himself. 

Cub, though adjusting to sentience rather well at first, very quickly became wrapped up in the Big Moon happenings on the server, new personality and inexperience to emotions like fear and ignorance completely overwhelming his young system. He became obsessive over the implications and consequences of the Season 8 Moon Apocalypse, joining the Mooners and spreading his conspiracy theories religiously throughout the server as he descended into madness. The insanity was like a virus to his programming, pervasive and all-engulfing, and Cub’s final attempt to free himself from the Moon’s impact with the Earth—to launch himself on a llama into space via potion-powered TNT(insane btw)— left his hands and feet singed and cracked to ruin.

The experiment, considered a horrific failure by a deeply shameful—and more awake—S9 Xisuma, left Doc and Xisuma with the decision to reset him for the new season, and they ended up pairing him with a hermit like they had done with the other androids until they had found deviancy enough to pursue their own projects. So, at the start of season 9 and fresh after a reset, Cub was paired with Scar. Naturally, because Scar is… Scar, Cub deviated almost instantly after being given to him, and very quickly adopted the iconic lazy, stoic, amused attributes normally associated with Cubfan. Scar’s tendency towards mischief and general shenanigans grew instantly on Cub, and the two were an immediate inseparable pair. So much so that when Scar began rambling one day about his Season 5 Hermitcraft Shenanigans (where deals with the Vex may or may not have been involved), Cub immediately stated he was interested in being in on it. Whatever “it” means. It’s unclear if Cub also made a deal with the vex or became connected to them in some other way, but… well, he got Doc’s help to trick out his eyes, hair, and back to best fit the part. Scar is very jealous that he can't magically make himself have the same features to match.

Cub is closest with Scar, but he gets along just as well with any of the other hermits! He’s close with Jevin and many of the other redstoners like Etho and Doc, who are the other two androids I’ve put on artfight!

-ˋˏ ༻ ❁  EXTRAS ❁ ༺ ˎˊ-

Cub's eyes can light up in the dark, and he’s the only android who has edited his programming so that the default state of his LED is white, not blue. It still will go yellow and red if his processors are working particularly hard, but he’s replaced the blue setting on his LED with white to better match the Vex vibe. Cub has all of the vibes of a fae. If that’s anything <3

[batboyblog]

What Joe Biden has Done for LGBTQ+ People

I wanted to list out everything The Biden Administration has done for Queer people in the last 3 and a half years, but according to GLAAD it'd been 337 moves (and I noticed they missed a few things...) there was just no way to list every ground breaking first Queer person ever nominated to fill this or that job, every ally with a historic LGBT rights record nominated for a top job, every beautiful statement of support, every time he tried to get Congress to pass the Equality Act (support it!) So I've gone through and done my best to pick the ones I think were the most important, but everyone should check out the full list!

Day 1: Signs executive orders banning discrimination and ordering a full review of all federal agencies policies to better include and support LGBT people

Pete Buttigieg becomes the first openly gay person nominated and confirmed for a cabinet level post as Secretary of Transportation

Revokes Trump’s 2018 ban on transgender military personnel

Department of Housing and Urban Development implements LGBTQ protections in housing, becoming first federal agency to implement Pres. Biden’s executive order

First President to recognize and proclaim Trans Day of Visibility

Department of Justice Civil Rights Division issues an official memo that the Supreme Court's Bostock decision against LGBT workplace discrimination also applies to education through Title IX

HUD withdraws a Trump Administration proposed rule change, and reaffirms trans people's rights to seek shelters matching their gender identity

HHS announces the withdrawal of Trump Administration rules that allowed discrimination by healthcare organizations against LGBT people.

The State Department and later Homeland Security announce babies born to Queer couples overseas will be American citizens if one parent is American, in the past the child only qualified if they were genetically related to the American citizen parent.

The Justice Department files against a West Virginia law banning trans students from school athletics

Department of Veterans Affairs announces it will offer gender confirming surgery for transgender veterans. There are an estimated 134,000 transgender veterans in the U.S. and another 15,000 transgender people serving in the armed forces.

President Biden Signs a law making the Pulse Night Club a national memorial

The State Department creates an X gender marker for passports and other documents, allowing gender affirming identification for non-binary and intersex people for the first time.

The Census Bureau for the first time issues a Survey with questions about sexual orientation and gender identity

On the 10th anniversary of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Veterans Administration announces that soldiers discharged for homosexual conduct, gender identity or HIV status qualify for veterans' benefits

Dr. Rachel Levine becomes the first trans person confirmed by the US Senate when she was nominated to be Assistant Secretary for Health, she also became the first trans flag rank officer when she was sworn in as a 4 star Admiral for her job as head of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, his makes her the highest ranked trans person in government

Holds the first ever vigil in the White House for Transgender Day of Remembrance

HHS announces rule change to reinstate and expand protections against discrimination in the Affordable Care Act, including denying coverage for gender-affirming care.

Social Security Administration reverses a Trump Administration policy and allows benefits claims by surviving partners in same-sex relationships, whose partner died before marriage equality was legal

President Biden signs the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (a bill he helped originally craft in the Senate) which for the first time has grant programs dedicated to expanding and developing initiatives specifically for LGBTQ survivors of domestic violence

The TSA announces new technology and policy shifts to improve the customer experience of transgender travelers who have previously been required to undergo additional screening due to alarms in sensitive areas.

The Social Security Administration allows people to edit their gender and name on records for the first time without legal and medical documentation

The US Air Force announces it'll offer medical and legal aid to any personnel families affected by state level anti-trans youth bills.

Karine Jean-Pierre becomes the first Lesbian to serve as White House Press Secretary

on 50th anniversary of Title IX The Department of Ed strengthens protections for Students against sexual harassment and discrimination

Veterans Affairs announces survivor benefits now extended to partners from relationships before marriage equality was legalized in 2015

President Biden signs the Respect for Marriage Act into law enshrining protections for marriage equality for same-sex and interracial couples

The Department of Ed announces new rules around athletic eligibility under Title IX, declaring blanket bans on trans students violate the law and setting up strike standards for schools

The White House announced a suit of new protections for LGBTQ people, including a new job at the Department of Ed to combat book bans, a joint DoJ Homeland Security effort to combat violence and threats and HHS evidence-based guidance to mental health providers for care of transgender kids

President Biden signs an Executive Order directing HHS to protect LGBTQI+ youth in the foster care system, a rule they later passed requiring Queer foster children to be placed in affirming homes

The Biden administration joins families of transgender youth in Tennessee and Kentucky in petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse a circuit court ruling allowing a ban on mainstream health care to be enforced

President Biden Signs a EO expanding on past EO on equality and helping underserved communities

The Department of Education's Civil Rights office opens an investigation into the death of Nex Benedict. President Biden in his statement said: "Every young person deserves to have the fundamental right and freedom to be who they are, and feel safe and supported at school and in their communities. Nex Benedict, a kid who just wanted to be accepted, should still be here with us today. Nonbinary and transgender people are some of the bravest Americans I know. But nobody should have to be brave just to be themselves. In memory of Nex, we must all recommit to our work to end discrimination and address the suicide crisis impacting too many nonbinary and transgender children.”

[dandelionsresilience]

Dandelion News - January 1-7

Like these weekly compilations? Tip me at $kaybarr1735 or check out my Dandelion Doodles!

1. Homes built with clay, grass, plastic and glass: How a Caribbean island is shying away from concrete

“[… Clay] traps moisture which then evaporates and pulls heat from the surface as it goes. […] The roof is covered in old recycled advertising banners and piece of a water tank, the other half of which is used to house some of Rahaman-Noronha's fish [… and] multi-coloured glass bottles inset into walls provide an avenue for streams of light and colour.”

2. To Combat Phoenix’s Extreme Heat, a New Program Provides Sustainable Shade

“The neighborhood workshops allow residents to get a shade plan tailored to their community’s needs and identify the locations where officials can plant trees. Meanwhile, the workforce-development side of the program creates the jobs needed to keep the trees alive for generations[….]”

3. Conservation corridors provide hope for Latin America’s felines

“[… S]cience has shown that to maintain healthy populations there needs to be connection between individuals. [… A] protected area that is close to another has more species and more potential for their survival.”

4. Social program cuts tuberculosis cases among Brazil's poorest by more than half

“The decrease [“in TB cases and deaths”] was over 50% in extremely poor people and more than 60% among the Indigenous populations. […] "We know that the program improves access to food [… and healthcare…] and strengthens people's immune defenses as a result.””

5. Geothermal has vast potential to meet the world’s power needs

“New geothermal systems could technically provide as much as 600 terawatts of carbon-free power capacity by 2050[…. C]ountries could cost-effectively deploy over 800 GW of geothermal power capacity using technology that’s in development today[….]”

6. New D.C. Catholic archbishop is pro-LGBTQ+ and anti-Trump

“In 2018, he objected to the blaming of gay priests for the clergy sexual abuse crisis, “saying that such abuse was a matter of power, not sexual orientation[….]” “We must disrupt those who portray refugees as enemies [… and] seek to rob our medical care, especially from the poor.””

7. Chesapeake Bay Will Gain New Wildlife Refuge

“The Chesapeake Bay area will have a new wildlife refuge for the first time in a quarter century. […] “This new refuge offers an opportunity to halt and even reverse biodiversity loss in this important place, and in a way that fully integrates and respects the leadership and rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities.””

8. Inside Svalbard seed vault’s critical mission to stop our favourite fruit and veg from going extinct

“[… T]he world’s largest secure seed storage […] sits proudly in a massive former coal mine[….] Right now, there are over 1,331,458 samples of 6,297 crop species. […] “During 2024, 61 seed genebanks deposited 64,331 seed samples, including 21 from institutes that deposited seeds for the first time this year[….]””

9. Medical debt will be erased from credit reports for all Americans under new federal rule

“The rule will affect more than 15 million Americans, raising their credit scores by an estimated average of 20 points. [… S]tates and localities have already utilized American Rescue Plan (ARP) funds to support the elimination of over $1 billion in medical debt for more than 700,000 Americans[….]”

10. 'Forgotten' water harvesting system transforms 'barren wasteland' into thriving farmland

“"The process started with the community-based participatory planning[….]” 10% to 15% of the water will actually soak into the ground to replenish the water table, creating a more sustainable agricultural process.”

December 22-28 news here | (all credit for images and written material can be found at the source linked; I don’t claim credit for anything but curating.)

[beardedmrbean]

NASA's Voyager 2 spacecraft is alone drifting through interstellar space after a communications breakdown left it unable to receive commands or transmit data back to Earth.

Communications with Voyager 2, which is currently around 12.4 billion miles (19.9 billion kilometers) from Earth, were severed as a result of planned commands. These commands rotated the spacecraft's antenna two degrees away from our planet, enough to cut its links to the ground antennas of NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN).

As a result, Voyager 2 is no longer sending data back to the DSN, and mission control on Earth can't send any commands back to the interstellar spacecraft.

Not all is lost, however. Voyager 2, launched in 1977, is programmed to reset its orientation several times a year to keep its antenna directed at Earth. Another reset is scheduled for Oct. 15 this year, and this should result in Voyager 2 resuming contact with its ground control. Until that time, operators  expect the spacecraft to stick to its planned trajectory. 

Voyager 2 was launched from Launch Complex 41 at Cape Canaveral, Florida, on August 20, 1977. It made history on Dec. 10, 2018, when it became the second spacecraft to leave the solar system and enter interstellar space. 

Six years prior to this, its sister craft Voyager 1 became the first man-made craft to journey beyond the influence of our star, the sun. Voyager 1 is currently around 15 billion miles (24 billion km) from Earth and remains in contact with our planet.

Both Voyager 1 and 2 were designed to find and study objects at the edge of the solar system, according to NASA. In the course of doing this, Voyager 2 has been responsible for a number of scientific firsts. It is the only spacecraft that has conducted close-up studies of all four giant planets of the solar system — the gas giants Jupiter and Saturn and the ice giants Neptune and Uranus.

In Jan. 1986, Voyager 2 became the first human-made object to fly past Uranus. During that trip, Voyager 2 discovered 10 new moons and two new rings around the ice giant. In Aug. 1989, it also became the first spacecraft to buzz past Neptune, and while there, it discovered five moons and four rings. While studying Neptune, Voyager 2 also discovered an 8,100-mile by 4,100-mile (13,036 km by 6,600 km) cyclonic storm with winds of up to 1,300 miles per hour (2,092 km/h) raging on the ice giant, which has been dubbed the Great Dark Spot.

In April 2023, NASA announced that Voyager 2 would postpone a planned instrument shutdown by at least three years, continuing to gather valuable deep space data until at least 2026. 

"We are definitely interested in keeping as many science instruments operating as long as possible," Voyager project scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in southern California, Linda Spilker, said in a statement issued on Wednesday, April 26.

[evidence-based-activism]

Hope this isn't a weird question, but do women do well in positions of leadership? The constant statement that women are too emotionally to lead is getting tired.

I feel like that's a really unfair statement anyways considering women were kept out of leadership positions, and now many women refuse to lead. That's okay, not saying women must. However for the ones that do, I'd like to know some female leaders I could look up to.

Not weird at all! In short, literature on this topic suggests that women in leadership positions perform either the same or better than men.

First, there are a few laymen oriented articles that address this topic [1, 2, 3]. These were written by the American Psychological Association [1] and Forbes [2, 3] and are heavily sourced. I'll be referencing some (but not all) of their sources as well, but they should be easy to follow if you want to read more. The articles use links instead of a reference list, however, so if you find a broken link, consider using the WaybackMachine on archive.org to find a copy of the source.

Subjective Perceptions

The Harvard Business Review has gathered a large dataset on subjective ratings of leader performance as evaluated by peers, superiors, and subordinates. From this dataset, they found that women outscored men on 17 of 19 "leadership capabilities", replicating their earlier results and indicating that on-average female leaders have a greater subjective performance than male leaders [4].

The American Psychological Association (APA) conducted a meta-analytic review of "16 nationally representative U.S. public opinion polls ... extending from 1946 to 2018" [5] found that a public opinion shift took place over this time, such that women are now rated as either equally or higher than men for competence, intelligence, and communion (broadly: concern for others). Men have retained a slight advantage in ratings of agency (broadly: self-oriented goal attainment).

Beyond that, the "mere presence" of a female leader led people to anticipate fairer treatment [6].

And a Pew Research Center survey from 2008 found that people ranked women either equal to or higher than men on most leadership traits (e.g., honest, intelligent) and political performance skills. Almost 70% of people indicated women and men make equally good political leaders. However, despite women's clear advantage when asking about specific skills, when directly asked who makes a better leader only 6% of people said women and 21% said men. This suggests that people's answer to this second question may be driven by sexist stereotypes (i.e., despite ranking women's leadership skills as better, people still default to belief in male leadership). [7]

All in all, this suggests that people believe that women are either equally or more qualified than men to lead (even if that doesn't translate to an explicit endorsement of female leaders over male leaders). So ... what about objective measures?

Political

A 2020 review on the impact of female political leaders [8] found strong evidence that more women representatives is related to lower levels of corruption, along with some evidence that more women in politics leads to better implementation of social programs, more legislation on neglected issues, and less conflict/human rights abuses. Women in politics are also more likely to prioritize human rights and access to "care" (e.g., health care, welfare, education, international aid, equal rights, etc.).

Another report [9] linked increased women’s political representation with greater legal equality and economic performance, and suggests that women's political representation leads to these outcomes. (While causation cannot be definitively established, the longitudinal research suggests a causal relationship such that having more female leadership leads to these positive outcomes.)

One way to objectively evaluate differences in men's and women's political leadership, is to examine differences in outcomes from a major global events like the COVID-19 pandemic.

This 2021 review [10], found female leaders (at country and state level) had a quicker response to the pandemic onset, lower fatality rates, and greater humanitarian response than male leaders. Given the comparatively low number of female leaders, some of these results were not statistically significant, but the pattern of results is still strongly suggestive. In any case, female leaders were at least as capable as male leaders in responding to the pandemic.

The above results are confirmed by a 2022 country-level analysis [11], and these results were strongly statistically significant, indicating that female leaders resulted in lower cases and deaths.

In fact, a Brazilian study [12] found that in addition to female leaders outperforming male leaders (in terms of a lower rate of COVID deaths and hospitalizations), local female leaders were able to mitigate the damage done by an irresponsible national leader (Bolsonaro). In short, "when faced with the decision between enforcing health measures against COVID-19 or trying to conquer the votes of local Bolsonaro supporters, our results suggest that female mayors were more likely to prioritize measures that can save lives".

All in all, female political leaders are either equal to or better than male political leaders.

Corporate

To start with, this 2017 review [13] indicates that some literature on financial outcomes suggests "firms run by female CEOs often report better ROA [return on assets], ROE [return on equity], and sales performance". However, they also indicate that research looking at a broader population (i.e., beyond "large firms in the United States"), does not always find this relationship. Even then, however, women's financial performance under a female leader is still equivalent to financial performance under a male leader.

An additional review [14], found similar results, with some finding a positive impact of female leadership on firm performance and others finding no difference between male and female leaders.

Other sources indicating increased profit under female leaders include:

A McKinsey & Company report [15] found greater diversity (i.e., sex and race) was associated with greater profitability. Specifically, the top 25% (top-quartile) most diverse companies worldwide had a 21% likelihood of outperforming their bottom-quartile peers.

A report by S&P Global, found firms with female CEOs and/or CFOs generated $1.8 trillion in excess profits and superior stock price performance [16].

An additional study [17] on 2 million companies across 32 countries in Europe found "a strong positive association between the share of women in senior positions and firms' ROA [return on assets]".

Beyond pure profit indicators, female corporate leaders are associated with:

Greater corporate responsibility [13]

Better internal management [13]

Lower firm risk [14, 20]

Better corporate credit rating [14]

Greater (bank) stability [18]

Fewer environmental violations [21]

Greater innovation [22]

Now, a reasonable criticism of all of this, is that this research is correlational and cannot establish causation. (The omnipresent problem in social research!) To a degree, this is a problem that cannot be fixed (i.e., there is no way to definitively prove causation without a controlled experiment). However, there are techniques that can provide strong support for causation. One such paper provides support against "reverse causation" (i.e., the idea that firms increase female representation when performing well), and found female representation among corporate board leadership predicts positive future performance [19]. This provides support for (but, again, cannot technically prove) a causal relationship between women's leadership and corporate performance.

Again, this indicates that female corporate leaders are either equal to or better than male corporate leaders.

Other

Political and corporate leadership are the two big categories where most of the research has been done. There are a few other relevant studies I'll describe here:

UNICEF (a part of the UN) reports that "women-led schools may perform better than men-led schools" as "learning outcomes ... for both girls and boys in female-led schools are higher" [23]

An experiment investigating team performance found "a positive and significant effect of female leadership on team performance" specifically "driven by the higher performance of team members in female-led teams" [24]

Unfortunately, the above study also found that "in spite of the higher performance of female-led teams, male members tended to evaluate female leaders as less effective, whereas female members have provided more favorable judgments", suggesting that men's interpretations of women's leadership abilities doesn't align with objective outcomes [24]

While not specifically about female leadership, a large study found that the "collective intelligence" of a group (essentially the IQ of a group rather than an individual) increases with the proportion of women in the group [25]

In addition, this review [26] describes a number of female leaders, so you may interested in it for "some female leaders [you] could look up to"

Women and Emotions

Lastly, I wanted to address "the constant statement that women are too emotionally to lead".

In terms of objective (or, as objective as we can get) measurements of emotional variability, there is little evidence that any sex differences exist, and if they do exist they are likely to be so small they would be (practically speaking) negligible [29].

However, an interesting study [27] examined "emotional expression content" by considering "feminine display rules" (suppression of negative emotions + simulation of positive emotions) and "masculine display rules" (suppression of positive emotions + simulation of negative emotions). As expected, women tended to follow feminine display rules, while men followed masculine display rules. However, this paradigm suggests it's not the amount of expressed emotion that varies by sex but the type of expressed emotion. Importantly, they also found that only the feminine display rules were associated with subjective distress.

A different study [28] examined sex differences in emotion regulation, specifically looking at two prosocial mechanisms and five antisocial mechanisms. They found women and men reported similar endorsement of 1 prosocial and 1 antisocial mechanism, women reported greater endorsement of the other prosocial mechanism, and men reported greater endorsement of the other 4 antisocial mechanisms.

One of the first articles I linked [2] discusses how women outperform men on prosocial behaviors/emotions (e.g., self-control, kindness, moral sensitivity) and men "outperform" women on antisocial behaviors/emotions (e.g., narcissism, aggression, etc.). To be clear, this is almost certainly a result of differences in socialization. That is: these differences are not "biological" or predetermined, instead society expects women to be more prosocial and men to be more antisocial, and we (tend to) meet those expectations.

All together, this suggests that men and women are both expected to modify their emotional expression (although the expectation for women is more likely to cause distress), women are more likely to display more prosocial and less antisocial emotions/behaviors, and women are more likely to deal with emotion constructively.

Ironically, based on the literature in the previous sections, society's expectations for women (i.e., empathy, team work, care for other people, etc.) are part of what drives their superior leadership performance over men.

TL;DR:

Women are either equal or better leaders than men based on: subjective evaluations, objective evaluations of political leaders, and objective evaluations of corporate leaders.

Women — in general and in leadership roles — improve the performance of people in their group.

Women and men likely don’t differ in emotional experience, but are both expected to modulate their emotional expression (in different ways).

Socialization and societal expectations induce more prosocial behavior in women and antisocial behavior in men. (Likely contributing to women’s superior leadership.)

References under the cut:

Novotney, A. (2023, March 23). Women leaders make work better. Here’s the science behind how to promote them. American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/topics/women-girls/female-leaders-make-work-better

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2021, March 7). If women are better leaders, then why are they not in charge? Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomaspremuzic/2021/03/07/if-women-are-better-leaders-then-why-are-they-not-in-charge/

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2022, March 2). The business case for women in leadership. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomaspremuzic/2022/03/02/the-business-case-for-women-in-leadership/

Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2019, June 25). Research: Women score higher than men in most leadership skills. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-women-score-higher-than-men-in-most-leadership-skills

Eagly, A. H., Nater, C., Miller, D. I., Kaufmann, M., & Sczesny, S. (2020). Gender stereotypes have changed: A cross-temporal meta-analysis of U.S. public opinion polls from 1946 to 2018. American Psychologist, 75(3), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000494

Joshi, M. P., & Diekman, A. B. (2022). My fair lady? Inferring organizational trust from the mere presence of women in leadership roles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(8), 1220–1237. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211035957

Men or women: Who’s the better leader? (2008, August 25). Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2008/08/25/men-or-women-whos-the-better-leader/

Cowper-Coles, M. (2020). Women Political Leaders: The Impact of Gender on Democracy. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/giwl/assets/women-political-leaders.pdf

Wyman, O., & Weh, D. (2023). Representation matters: Women political leaders. Oliver Wyman Forum. https://www.oliverwymanforum.com/global-consumer-sentiment/2023/sep/representation-matters-women-political-leaders.html

Luoto, S., & Varella, M. A. C. (2021). Pandemic leadership: Sex differences and their evolutionary–developmental origins. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 633862. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.633862

Chang, D., Chang, X., He, Y. et al. The determinants of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality across countries. Sci Rep 12, 5888 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-09783-9

Bruce, R., Cavgias, A., Meloni, L., & Remígio, M. (2022). Under pressure: Women’s leadership during the COVID-19 crisis. Journal of Development Economics, 154, 102761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2021.102761

Gipson, A. N., Pfaff, D. L., Mendelsohn, D. B., Catenacci, L. T., & Burke, W. W. (2017). Women and leadership: Selection, development, leadership style, and performance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 53(1), 32–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886316687247

Serena, Z. (2020). Do women leaders improve firm performance? European Journal of Economics and Management Sciences, 2, 21–26. https://doi.org/10.29013/EJEMS-20-2-21-26

Dame Vivian Hunt, Lareina Yee , Sara Prince, & Sundiatu Dixon-Fyle. (2018). Delivering through Diversity. McKinsey & Company . https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/delivering-through-diversity

Sandberg, D. J. (2019). When Women Lead, Firms Win. S&P Global. https://www.spglobal.com/content/dam/spglobal/corporate/en/images/general/special-editorial/whenwomenlead_.pdf

Christiansen, L. E., Lin, H., Pereira, J., Topalova, P., & Turk, R. (2016). Gender Diversity in Senior Positions and Firm Performance: Evidence from Europe. IMF Working Papers, 16(50). https://doi.org/10.5089/9781513553283.001

Sahay, R., Cihak, M., N’Diaye, P., Barajas, A., Kyobe, A., Mitra, S., Mooi, Y., & Yousefi, R. (2017). Banking on women leaders: A case for more? IMF Working Papers, 17(199). https://doi.org/10.5089/9781484318164.001

Qian, M. (2016). Women’s leadership and corporate performance (ADB Economics Working Papers). Asian Development Bank. https://www.adb.org/publications/womens-leadership-and-corporate-performance

Perryman, A. A., Fernando, G. D., & Tripathy, A. (2016). Do gender differences persist? An examination of gender diversity on firm performance, risk, and executive compensation. Journal of Business Research, 69(2), 579–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.05.013

Liu, C. (2018). Are women greener? Corporate gender diversity and environmental violations. Journal of Corporate Finance, 52, 118–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2018.08.004

Chen, J., Leung, W. S., & Evans, K. P. (2018). Female board representation, corporate innovation and firm performance. Journal of Empirical Finance, 48, 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2018.07.003

Brossard, M., & Bergmann, J. (2022, March 8). Can more women in school leadership improve learning outcomes? | Innocenti Global Office of Research and Foresight. UNICEF | for Every Child; UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/innocenti/stories/can-more-women-school-leadership-improve-learning-outcomes

De Paola, M., Gioia, F., & Scoppa, V. (2022). Female leadership: Effectiveness and perception. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 201, 134–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.07.016

Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686–688. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1193147

Abdul Wahab, Shazanah; Mohamad Rasidi, Nuur Mohamad Firdaus; Wahab, Samsudin. Influences of Women’s Leadership Performance Towards the Corporate, Political and Social Success: A Review and Research Agenda. Asian Journal of Research in Business and Management, [S.l.], v. 2, n. 4, p. 54-68, dec. 2020. Available at: https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ajrbm/article/view/11571.

Simpson, P. A., & Stroh, L. K. (2004). Gender differences: Emotional expression and feelings of personal inauthenticity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(4), 715–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.4.715

Zimmermann, P., & Iwanski, A. (2014). Emotion regulation from early adolescence to emerging adulthood and middle adulthood: Age differences, gender differences, and emotion-specific developmental variations. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 38(2), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413515405

Weigard, A., Loviska, A. M., & Beltz, A. M. (2021). Little evidence for sex or ovarian hormone influences on affective variability. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 20925. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-00143-7

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Colin Wright

Published: Oct 2, 2023

On September 25, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA) announced that they were cancelling a panel discussion titled “Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Why Biological Sex Remains a Necessary Analytic Category in Anthropology,” originally scheduled as part of their annual conference in Toronto from November 15–19. The cancellation and subsequent response by the two organizations shows the extent to which gender ideology has captured academic anthropology.

The panel would have featured six female scientists, specializing in biology and anthropology, to address their profession’s growing denial of biological sex as a valid and relevant category. While terminological confusion surrounding the distinction between sex and gender roles has been a persistent issue within anthropology for decades, the total refusal of some to recognize sex as a real biological variable is a more recent phenomenon. The panel organizers, eager to facilitate an open discussion among anthropologists and entertain diverse perspectives on a contentious issue, considered the AAA/CASCA conference an optimal venue to host such a conversation.

The organizations accepted the “Let’s Talk About Sex” panel without incident on July 13, and planned to feature it alongside other panels including those on politically oriented subjects, such as “Trans Latinx Methodologies,” “Exploring Activist Anthropology,” and “Reimagining Anthropology as Restorative Justice.” Elizabeth Weiss, a professor of anthropology at San José State University, was one of the slated panelists. She had intended to discuss the significance in bio-archaeology and forensic anthropology of using skeletal remains to establish a decedent’s sex. While a 2018 article in Discover titled “Skeletal Studies Show Sex, Like Gender, Exists Along a Spectrum” reached different conclusions, Weiss planned to discuss how scientific breakthroughs have made determining the sex of skeletal remains a more exact science. Her presentation was to be moderate; she titled it “No Bones About It: Skeletons Are Binary; People May Not Be,” and conceded in her abstract the growing need in forensics to “to ensure that skeletal finds are identified by both biological sex and their gender identity” due to “the current rise in transitioning individuals and their overrepresentation as crime victims.”

Despite having already approved the panel, the presidents of the AAA (Ramona Pérez) and CASCA (Monica Heller) unexpectedly issued a joint letter on September 25 notifying the “Let’s Talk About Sex” presenters that their panel was cancelled. They claimed that the panel’s subject matter conflicted with their organizations’ values, jeopardized “the safety and dignity of our members,” and eroded the program’s “scientific integrity.” They further asserted the panel’s ideas (i.e., that sex is a real and important biological variable) would “cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large.” To ensure that similar discussions would not be approved in the future, the AAA/CASCA vowed to “undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings.”

The following day, the panelists issued a response letter, expressing their disappointment that the AAA and CASCA presidents had “chosen to forbid scholarly dialogue” on the topic. They rejected the “false accusation” that supporting the “continued use of biological sex categories (e.g., male and female; man and woman) is to imperil the safety of the LGBTQI community.” The panelists called “particularly egregious” the AAA/CASCA’s assertion that the panel would compromise the program’s “scientific integrity.” They noted that, ironically, the AAA/CASCA’s “decision to anathematize our panel looks very much like an anti-science response to a politicized lobbying campaign.”

I spoke with Weiss, who expressed her frustration over the canceled panel and the two presidents’ stifling of honest discussion about sex. She was concerned about the continual shifting of goalposts on the issue:

We used to say there’s sex, and gender. Sex is biological, and gender is not. Then it’s no, you can no longer talk about sex. Sex and gender are one, and separating the two makes you a transphobe, when of course it doesn’t. In anthropology and many topics, the goalposts are continuously moved. And, because of that, we need to stand up and say, “I’m not moving from my place unless there’s good scientific evidence that my place is wrong.” And I don’t think there is good scientific evidence that there are more than two sexes.

Weiss was not the only person to object. When I broke news of the cancellation on X, it immediately went viral. At the time of writing, my post has more than 2.4 million views, and the episode has ignited public outcry from individuals and academics across the political spectrum. Science writer Michael Shermer called the AAA and CASCA’s presidents’ letter “shameful” and an “utterly absurd blank slate denial of human nature.” Timur Kuran, a professor of economics and political science at Duke University, described it as “absolutely appalling.” Jeffrey Flier, the Harvard University distinguished service professor and former dean of the Harvard Medical School, viewed it as “a chilling declaration of war on scholarly controversy.” Even Elon Musk expressed his disbelief with a single word: “Wow.”

Despite the backlash, the AAA and CASCA have held firm. On September 28, the AAA posted a statement on its website titled “No Place For Transphobia in Anthropology: Session Pulled from Annual Meeting Program.” The statement reiterated the stance outlined in the initial letter, declaring the “Let’s Talk About Sex” panel an affront to its values and claiming that it endangered AAA members’ safety and lacked scientific rigor.

The AAA’s statement claimed that the now-canceled panel was at odds with their first ethical principle of professional responsibility: “Do no harm.” It likened the scuttled panel’s “gender critical scholarship” to the “race science of the late 19th and early 20th centuries,” the main goal of which was to “advance a ‘scientific’ reason to question the humanity of already marginalized groups of people.” In this instance, the AAA argued, “those who exist outside a strict and narrow sex/gender binary” are being targeted.

Weiss remains unconvinced by this moral posturing. “If the panel was so egregious,” she asked, “why had it been accepted in the first place?”

The AAA also claimed that Weiss’s panel lacked “scientific integrity,” and that she and her fellow panelists “relied on assumptions that ran contrary to the settled science in our discipline.” The panelists, the AAA argued, had committed “one of the cardinal sins of scholarship” by “assum[ing] the truth of the proposition that . . . sex and gender are simplistically binary, and that this is a fact with meaningful implications for the discipline.” In fact, the AAA claimed, the panelists’ views “contradict scientific evidence” about sex and gender, since “[a]round the world and throughout history, there have always been people whose gender roles do not align neatly with their reproductive anatomy.”

There is much to respond to in this portion of AAA’s statement. First, it’s ironic for the organization to accuse scientists of committing the “cardinal sin” of “assuming the truth” of something, and then to justify cancelling those scientists’ panel on the grounds that the panelists refuse to accept purportedly “settled science.” Second, the panel was organized to discuss biological sex (i.e., the biology of males and females), not “gender roles”; pivoting from discussions of basic biology to murkier debates about sex-related social roles and expectations is a common tactic of gender ideologues. Third, the AAA’s argument that a person’s “gender role” might not “align neatly” with his or her reproductive anatomy implies the existence of normative behaviors for members of each sex. Indeed, this is a central tenet of gender ideology that many people dispute and warrants the kind of discussion the panel intended to provide.

The AAA’s statement made another faulty allegation, this time against Weiss for using “sex identification” instead of “sex estimation” when assessing the sex of skeletal remains. The AAA claimed that Weiss’s choice of terminology was problematic and unscholarly because it assumes a “determinative” process that “is easily influenced by cognitive bias on the part of the researcher.”

Weiss, however, rejects the AAA’s notion that the term “sex determination” is outdated or improper. She emphasized that “sex determination” is frequently used in the literature, as demonstrated in numerous contemporary anthropology papers, along with “sex estimation.” Weiss said, “I tend not to use the term ‘sex estimation’ because to estimate is usually associated with a numeric value; thus, I do use the term ‘age estimation.’ But just as ‘age estimation’ does not mean that there is no actual age of an individual and that biological age changes don’t exist, ‘sex estimation’ does not mean that there isn’t a biological sex binary.” She also contested the AAA’s claim that anthropologists’ use of “sex estimation” is meant to accommodate people who identify as transgender or non-binary. Rather, she said, “sex estimation” is used when “anthropologists are not 100 [percent] sure of their accuracy for a variety of reasons, including that the remains may be fragmented.” But as these methods improve—which was a focus of her talk—such “estimations” become increasingly determinative.

After making that unfounded allegation against Weiss, the AAA further embarrasses itself by claiming that “There is no single biological standard by which all humans can be reliably sorted into a binary male/female sex classification,” and that sex and gender are “historically and geographically contextual, deeply entangled, and dynamically mutable categories.”

Each of these assertions is empirically false. An individual’s sex can be determined by observing their primary sex organs, or gonads, as these organs determine the type of gamete an individual can or would have the function to produce. The existence of a very rare subset of individuals with developmental conditions that make their sex difficult to assess does not substantiate the existence of a third sex. Sex is binary because are only two sexes, not because every human in existence is neatly classifiable. Additionally, while some organisms are capable of changing sex, humans are not among them. Therefore, the assertion that human sex is “dynamically mutable” is false.

Weiss appropriately highlights the “false equivalency” inherent in the claim that the existence of people with intersex conditions disproves the binary nature of sex. “People who are born intersex or with disorders of sex development are not nonbinary or transgender, they are individuals with medical pathologies,” she said. “We would not argue that because some people are born with polydactyly (extra fingers or toes), often seen in inbred populations, that you can’t say that humans have ten fingers and ten toes. It's an absurd conclusion.”

On September 29, the AAA posted a Letter of Support on its website, penned by anthropologists Agustin Fuentes, Kathryn Clancy, and Robin Nelson, endorsing the decision to cancel the “Let’s Talk About Sex” session. Again, the primary motivation cited was the panel’s opposition to the supposed “settled science” concerning sex. The authors disputed the panelists’ claim that the term “sex” was being supplanted by “gender” in anthropology, claiming instead that there is “massive work on these terms, and their entanglements and nuances.” They also reiterated the AAA’s false accusation that the term “sex determination” was problematic and outdated. Nonetheless, the canceled panel could have served as a prime venue to discuss these issues.

In response to these calls for censorship, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) issued an open letter to the AAA and CASCA. FIRE characterized the groups’ decision to cancel the panel as a “retreat” from their scientific mission, which “requires unwavering dedication to free inquiry and open dialogue.” It argued that this mission “cannot coexist with inherently subjective standards of ‘harm,’ ‘safety,’ and ‘dignity,’ which are inevitably used to suppress ideas that cause discomfort or conflict with certain political or ideological commitments.” FIRE implored the AAA and CASCA to “reconsider this decision and to recommit to the principles of intellectual freedom and open discourse that are essential to the organizations’ academic missions.” FIRE’s open letter has garnered signatures from nearly 100 academics, including Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker and Princeton University’s Robert P. George. FIRE invites additional academic faculty to add their names.

The initial letter and subsequent statement by the AAA/CASCA present a particularly jarring illustration of the undermining of science in the name of “social justice.” The organizations have embarrassed themselves yet lack the self-awareness to realize it. The historian of science Alice Dreger called the AAA and CASCA presidents’ use of the term “cardinal sin” appropriate “because Pérez and Heller are working from dogma so heavy it is worthy of the Vatican.” Indeed, they have fallen prey to gender ideologues, driven into a moral panic by the purported dangers of defending the existence of biological sex to people whose sex distresses them. The AAA/CASCA have determined that it is necessary not only to lie to these people about their sex but also to deceive the rest of us about longstanding, foundational, and universal truths about sex.

Science can advance only within a system and culture that values open inquiry and robust debate. The AAA and CASCA are not just barring a panel of experts with diverse and valid perspectives on biological sex from expressing their well-considered conclusions; they are denying conference attendees the opportunity to hear diverse viewpoints and partake in constructive conversations on a controversial subject. Such actions obstruct the path of scientific progress.

“When you move away from the truth, no good can come from it,” Weiss says. The AAA and CASCA would be wise to ponder that reality.

==

I miss the days when anti-science meant creationists with "Intelligent Design," flat Earthers, and Jenny McCarthy-style MMR anti-vaxers.

It's weird that archaeologists are now denying evolution and pretending not to know how babies are made. Looks like creationists aren't the only evolution-denial game in town any more.

[mmenvs3000w25]

Prompt 3: What role does “privilege” play in nature interpretation? Please include your working definition of privilege.

Close-up of a 'Check Your Privilege' sign at a Black Lives Matter rally in Austria. Photo by Ivan Radic, licensed under CC BY 2.0.

Privilege is an important topic to discuss, even though many people may avoid it due to discomfort. It influences nearly every aspect of our lives, whether we recognize it or not, and nature interpretation is no exception. Privilege can be defined as an unearned advantage granted to specific individuals or groups, often at the expense of others who do not fit societal “norms.” Privilege manifests in many forms, including race, ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, mental and physical abilities, socioeconomic status, nationality, and religion, among others. In nature interpretation, privilege often determines a person’s ability to access and engage with nature without facing barriers. These barriers can be economic, cultural, linguistic, or related to physical or cognitive accessibility (Beck et al., 2018).

For instance, individuals who do not speak English fluently—or at all—may struggle to understand many interpretive resources, which are often exclusively in English. To address this, interpreters can offer translations into commonly spoken languages in their region, ensuring broader inclusivity. Financial status is another significant barrier, as enjoying nature can involve costs for travel, entry fees to parks, specialized equipment, and even interpreter services (Beck et al., 2018). Additionally, some people may not have the luxury of taking time off work to regularly spend time in nature, a privilege that many of us take for granted.

To combat these barriers, interpreters can explore affordable and accessible alternatives. Nature interpretation does not need to be confined to in-person experiences—it can extend to blogs, podcasts, videos, and infographics. These digital platforms are especially beneficial for those who lack the resources or physical ability to participate in activities like hiking through muddy trails or canoeing on rivers. For greater inclusivity, interpreters should ensure online resources include captions, image descriptions, and transcripts. During in-person events, providing sign language interpreters and accessible facilities can further reduce barriers.

Representation is another crucial aspect. Some individuals may feel unwelcome in natural spaces due to a lack of visible diversity or inclusivity in staff and programming (Beck et al., 2018). A diverse, welcoming, and well-trained staff can help underrepresented groups feel more comfortable and engaged in natural settings.

As nature interpreters, it’s vital to acknowledge our own privileges and consider how they shape our perspectives and approaches. Many issues connected to nature interpretation, such as climate change, disproportionately affect marginalized communities (Berberian et al., 2022). Discussions around climate justice must incorporate the intersections of race, gender, nationality, and other social factors to ensure they are inclusive and equitable. Recognizing and addressing privilege allows interpreters to create experiences that are not only educational but also accessible and meaningful for all.

Protesters at a climate change demonstration holding a sign reading 'Climate change = social justice.' Image by Fred Murphy, licensed under CC BY-ND-NC 1.0.

Beck, L., Cable, T. T., & Knudson, D. M. (2018). Interpreting cultural and natural heritage for a better world. Sagamore Publishing.

Berberian, A. G., Gonzalez, D. J. X., & Cushing, L. J. (2022). Racial Disparities in Climate Change-Related Health Effects in the United States. Current environmental health reports, 9(3), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-022-00360-w

[okenvs3000w25]

Privilege & Nature Interpretation

To me, privilege is defined as the advantage that specific groups or individuals in society are granted at the expense of more marginalized groups. It can manifest itself in many forms and be based on race, nationality, gender identity, sexual orientation, able-bodiedness, socioeconomic status or other factors. Privilege affects every part of our daily life, whether we’re able to recognize its effect or not, and because of privilege individuals are granted unequal access to aspects of society. Specifically in nature interpretation, privilege is what determines a person’s ability to fully engage with and access natural spaces or natural education. Some people are able to easily participate in interpretative opportunities, but many are prevented from doing so by barriers. Beck et al., listed several examples of prominent barriers in nature interpretation such as economic, cultural and linguistic barriers (2018). In order for a nature interpreter to be accessible to all audiences, it’s absolutely important to dismantle these barriers.

Like all things, privilege plays a huge role in nature interpretation yet is often overlooked by those who have never come face to face with barriers to participating in it. I could definitely relate to the section on cultural barriers as I think history, family structure and values has a large impact on how you engage in nature interpretation. For example, when I was younger I was shocked to find out that many people see urban wildlife like squirrels or birds as invaders or annoyances because I was always taught to appreciate their presence. The background in which we grow up heavily affects the way we see nature, and many people are fearful or unfamiliar with nature simply because they were not privileged enough to have positive past experiences with it. For those of us who had the privilege of having access to natural spaces and education, it may be difficult to recognize or understand the concerns of those who haven’t, and we may play a role in creating barriers by refusing to consider people with different experiences than us. 

I think one of the most impactful barriers to nature interpretation is economic.  As a Zoology major, there’s always a huge emphasis on going outside to learn and taking advantage of the opportunities available to join interpretative programs. These opportunities, however, are impossible for a large number of students due to the economic barriers present. Most students would love to go on a trip to a national park or spend a summer volunteering somewhere, but it’s difficult to do so when every single chance is impeded by application fees, high transportation and accommodation costs, and more. Even if a student has the ability to pay for all of these fees, many of these programs are commitments and/or take place during summers so they directly conflict with job opportunities that many students don’t have the privilege to be able to skip out on.

It’s extremely important for anyone interested in nature interpretation to reflect on privilege, especially as we think about being interpreters ourselves. If we truly want people to connect with the natural world then it’s vital to make sure that all people regardless of who they are or where they come from can participate.

Beck, L., Cable, T.T., Knudson, D.M. (2018). Interpreting Cultural and Natural Heritage: For a Better World. Sagamore Publishing LLC. https://sagamore.vitalsource.com/books/9781571678669

[vulpesevanidum]

Not sure if I miss something about the internet of the past or something about myself that enabled...whatever was happening then. Socializing felt easier to approach, somehow.

The big difference on Tumblr probably came with the mass exodus of the user base following content moderation changes in 2018. I think the average user may have treated the site more like traditional social media before then? This worked in the sense that meeting a few criteria practically guaranteed a couple new direct interactions from time to time: 1) follow each other's blogs, 2) at least superficially share some interests, and 3) display selfies and possibly other personal info. Of course, for what could loosely be described as a very broad circle of vaguely nerdy gay men, these interactions were, unfortunately, rather...particular. A prominent feature of the quasi-culture was this idea of eventually crossing great distances and "meeting up with your mutuals" where the ultimate outcome would surely be finding your One True Love in some unexpected place and having your life change forever. This was cute as a fantasy but not so much as something people were targeting with every new person of interest. Much less cute overall when directed at someone who is practical to a fault and probably some flavor of asexual (not to mention inexperienced with flirting or anything beyond it). Needless to say, those interactions faded on their own from the lack of reciprocity (or in one of the more substantial cases after I was no longer succeeding in academia and abandoned a doctoral program lol). Nowadays it feels like it should work more like my early forum-oriented days where I express excessive enthusiasm about very specific things (but not too specific so that less people are aware of them) and work up to general amicability from hours of over-elaboration about those very specific things with a few people. That's probably how it works in general! Unfortunately, I don't really "fixate" on anything anymore (if I ever really did?) to be able to manage that.

I guess my biggest failure with this is in (not) sufficiently differentiating myself? Pivoting to fully pseudonymous furry-forward content aggregation was certainly antithetical to that in many ways. I've become more...vague...about representing myself (which reflects how I personally relate to myself), I don't create anything, and I'm not going to put my face out there again (I'm highly allergic to cameras) either. I'm not really sure what do about that.

(age is probably a factor here too but sssshhhh)

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

Still kickin' since the '70s: NASA's Voyager mission keeps exploring

NASA's Voyager mission launched in the 1970s. Today, it's making history as it conducts new science. But how are two spacecraft from the '70s not just surviving, but thriving farther out in space than any other spacecraft has been before?

A little mission background

Voyager is a NASA mission made up of two different spacecraft, Voyager 1 and 2, which launched to space on Sept. 5, 1977, and Aug. 20, 1977, respectively. In the decades following launch, the pair took a grand tour of our solar system, studying Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune—one of NASA's earliest efforts to explore the secrets of the universe.

These twin probes later became the first spacecraft to operate in interstellar space—space outside the heliosphere, the bubble of solar wind and magnetic fields emanating from the sun. Voyager 1 was the first to enter interstellar space in 2012, followed by Voyager 2 in 2018.

Today, Voyager continues not just because it can, but because it still has work to do studying interstellar space, the heliosphere, and how the two interact. "We wouldn't be doing Voyager if it wasn't taking science data," said Suzanne Dodd, the mission's current project manager and the director for the Interplanetary Network at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

But across billions of miles and decades of groundbreaking scientific exploration, this trailblazing interstellar journey has not been without its trials. So, what's the Voyager secret to success?

In short: preparation and creativity.

"We designed them not to fail"

According to John Casani, Voyager project manager from 1975 to launch in 1977, "we didn't design them to last 30 years or 40 years, we designed them not to fail."

One key driver of the mission's longevity is redundancy. Voyager's components weren't just engineered with care, they were also made in duplicate.

According to Dodd, Voyager "was designed with nearly everything redundant. Having two spacecraft—right there is a redundancy."

A cutting-edge power source

The twin Voyager spacecraft can also credit their longevity to their long-lasting power source.

Each spacecraft is equipped with three radioisotope thermoelectric generators. These nuclear "batteries" were developed originally by the U.S. Department of Energy as part of the Atoms for Peace program enacted by President Eisenhower in 1955.

Compared to other power options at the time—like solar power, which doesn't have the reach to work beyond Jupiter—these generators have allowed Voyager to go much farther into space.

Voyager's generators continue to take the mission farther than any before, but they also continue to generate less power each year, with instruments needing to be shut off over time to conserve power.

Creative solutions

As a mission that has operated at the farthest edges of the heliosphere and beyond, Voyager has endured its fair share of challenges. With the spacecraft now in interstellar space running on software and hardware from the 1970s, Voyager's problems require creative solutions.

Retired mission personnel who worked on Voyager in its earliest days have even come back out of retirement to collaborate with new mission personnel to not just fix big problems but to pass on important mission know-how to the next generation of scientists and engineers.

"From where I sit as a project manager, it's really very exciting to see young engineers be excited to work on Voyager. To take on the challenges of an old mission and to work side by side with some of the masters, the people that built the spacecraft," Dodd said. "They want to learn from each other."

Within just the last couple of years, Voyager has tested the mission team's creativity with a number of complex issues. Most recently, a fuel tube inside of Voyager 1's thrusters, which control the spacecraft's orientation and direction, became clogged. The thrusters allow the spacecraft to point their antennae and are critical to maintaining communications with Earth. Through careful coordination, the mission team was able to remotely switch the spacecraft to a different set of thrusters.

These kinds of repairs are extra challenging as a radio signal takes about 22½ hours to reach Voyager 1 from Earth and another 22½ hours to return. Signals to and from Voyager 2 take about 19 hours each way.

Voyager's interstellar future

This brief peek behind the curtain highlights some of Voyager's history and its secrets to success.

The Voyager probes may continue to operate into the late 2020s. As time goes on, continued operations will become more challenging as the mission's power diminishes by 4 watts every year, and the two spacecraft will cool down as this power decreases. Additionally, unexpected anomalies could impact the mission's functionality and longevity as they grow older.

As the mission presses on, the Voyager team grows this legacy of creative problem solving and collaboration while these twin interstellar travelers continue to expand our understanding of the vast and mysterious cosmos we inhabit.

[crossdreamers]

Meta's new moderation policies will harm LGBTQ people,Judd Legum says

In a recent interview with Uncloseted Media, Judd Legum, founder of the accountability journalism newsletter Popular Information, discussed Meta's recent policy changes under CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

(For more about the new Meta policy, see our article Facebook, Threads and Instagram open the gates to anti-LGBTQ haters.)

Legum highlighted that Meta has eliminated its fact-checking program and introduced guidelines permitting users to label LGBTQ individuals as mentally ill due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Legum noted that the fact-checking program, initiated around 2018-2019, was inherently flawed due to minimal investment and the inclusion of publications with questionable records, such as The Daily Caller.

He emphasized that the program served more to shield Meta from criticism over misinformation than to effectively curb it. The decision to terminate the program, accompanied by rhetoric aligning with anti-fact-checking sentiments prevalent in certain political circles, signals a cultural shift within Meta towards right-leaning ideologies.

Legum said:

The other part of this announcement that really stuck out and underscores that, was Zuckerberg saying that they're going to continue some content moderation about certain topics, but they're moving their content moderation team to Texas because Zuckerberg says that Texas is a place where people have less concern about bias, which is also something that Musk talks about a lot, that Texas is the greatest place. He's moved the headquarters of Tesla to Texas. He moved the headquarters of X to Texas. And that somehow is this neutral place and California is just full of biased people. And so all of that is pretty ridiculous on its face. The only way that it's preferable is if you are trying to pander to the right.

Legum expressed concern over Meta's new guidelines that allow users to accuse LGBTQ individuals of mental illness based on their identity. He warned that such policies could exacerbate hate speech and discrimination on the platform, especially with the upcoming inauguration of President Trump.

Read the interview here.

[sgenvs3000w25]

Privilege in Nature Interpretation

Privilege refers to the unearned immunity, rights, advantages, and benefits that particular individuals or groups of people are granted due to their economic, social, and/or cultural status, rather than through personal effort or merit. Privilege is a social construct that arises from societal structures, norms, and institutions that assign unearned entitlement on people based on factors such as race, gender, class, sexual orientation, (physical and mental) ability, religion, age, nationality, or other identity marker(s). These advantages are systemic rather than inherent or biologically determined as they are shaped by the historical, political, and cultural systems within a society. Privilege can manifest through various forms, including, social acceptance, opportunities, and access to resources that are restricted to others.

Privilege plays a significant role in nature interpretation by influencing accessibility, perspective, and inclusivity in how natural environments are experienced, understood, and shared with others. Those with economic privilege, or access to wealth and financial resources, often have greater access to natural areas whether through travel, park fees, or outdoor gear. Thus, economic privilege can influence the audience attending nature interpretation programs, of excluding those with less financial stability or security. Geographic privilege, or the proximity to natural spaces, hiking trails, and protected areas can also influence the audience of nature interpretation programs. Those in urban cities or under-resourced areas often have fewer opportunity for such experiences compared to others. Language and physical ability also restrict access and influence the audience of nature interpretation programs as they are often designed in dominant languages or for able-bodied individuals, limiting inclusivity for non-native speakers, those with literacy challenges, and individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, interpretative programs that lack representation of diverse perspectives including women, people of colour, or Indigenous communities, may unintentionally alienate or isolate certain audiences. Nature interpretation has historically been shaped by dominant cultural narratives, which may marginalize or overlook the perspectives, knowledge, and practices of Indigenous peoples and other underrepresented minority groups. Educational privilege is also apparent in nature interpretation, as some interpretive programs may assume prior knowledge about nature, environmental issues, or other information that may not be accessible to all audiences. This may also unintentionally alienate certain audiences, particularly those without formal environmental education. 

Although nature interpretation programs can sometimes be less accessible to those who lack certain advantages, nature interpreters can leverage their positions to address privilege and limit inaccessibility. This can be achieved by designing programs that reduce economic and accessibility restrictions, such as by offering free or low-cost interpretative activities, multilingual materials, and accessible recreational trails (or trails that are accessible/complaint to people with mobility devices). Nature interpreters can also use their position to amplify the voices of marginalized or underrepresented groups, such as First Nations communities, by sharing traditional Indigenous knowledge and acknowledging the systemic historical exclusion of minority groups from natural spaces. Nature interpreters should also actively seek feedback from such underrepresented communities to ensure their voices and knowledge are being accurately represented (Beck et al., 2018).

By recognizing and addressing privilege, nature interpreters can faster more equitable and inclusive experiences that ensure all people (regardless of social class or economic status, gender, race, etc.) develop a connection with nature and feel inspired to contribute to its conservation. 

References:

Beck, L., Cable, T. T., & Knudson, D. M. (2018). Interpreting cultural and natural heritage for a better world. Sagamore Publishing.

[nerdygaymormon]

On the latest episode of Richard Ostler's podcast was a gay man who had electroshock therapy done to him. I was wondering if you experienced that?

I never experienced electroshock therapy, for that I am truly thankful.

My dad has told me one of his great regrets is not putting me into conversion therapy, which likely would've been through LDS Social Services, which could've meant that electroshock therapy would be involved.

Unfortunately, in 2019 I went to a camp run by an LDS man who claims to be an "expert" at turning gay men straight. It was a rough experience. I didn't know it at the time, but the "expert" has no formal psychological education nor any professional qualification as a psychologist. In fact, he's been found guilty of fraud in a court of law for claiming to change gay men to being straight, but unable to produce any clients who successfully made this change.

————————————————————

For those who aren't familiar, the idea of electroshock therapy is that a person can change their sexual orientation by looking at erotic photos of their same gender while receiving an electrical shock. It's a form of aversion therapy. BYU also used vomiting aversion therapy.

This aversion therapy is supposed to create a connection in their mind between homosexual thoughts, feelings, & images, with pain, which would cause them to reject those feelings. Usually this therapy was paired with attempts to link pleasure with heterosexuality by having them masturbate while looking at pornographic images & videos of the opposite gender.

Another important fact to remember is that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973. Meaning that therapists in the United States who continued to treat homosexuality as if it were a pathology or disorder were outside of the accepted standards of their profession.

It’s unclear how many BYU students underwent electroshock or vomiting aversion therapies. The records for each individual were destroyed when they left the university. For many years BYU denied it happened, but in 2011 admitted that aversion therapy programs happened on campus, and not just limited to BYU students, but also gay members referred by bishops & stake presidents in the area.

While aversion therapies at BYU or by LDS Social Services (now called Family Services) stopped in the mid-1990s, conversion or reparative therapy to change a person's sexual orientation continued until probably 2018.

————————————————————

Here is a history of conversion therapy in the LDS church:

The word 'homosexual' was coined in 1868 to replace the pejorative terms sodomy and pederast. This is important because it acknowledged that this is how a person experiences sexual attraction, it is an innate part of who they are.

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, viewed homosexuality as a form of arrested development. Later psychiatric models continued to identify homosexuality as a problem that could be treated.

The 1952 first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM) classified homosexuality as a sociopathic personality disorder. The DSM is used in the United States to diagnose and treat mental disorders and is considered one of the principal guides of psychiatry.

In 1959, LDS Church president David O. McKay appointed the apostles Spencer W. Kimball and Mark E. Peterson to focus on 'curing' gay members. It doesn't seem a coincidence that later that year, BYU began its on-campus electroshock aversion therapy program, and this lasted into the mid-1990s.

In 1973, the APA removed homosexuality from the DSM. This didn't change the LDS Church position on homosexuality, in fact, it seems to have caused it to double down as it realized it could no longer count on the world to sustain church teachings and values on the matter.

In 1976, the Values Institute was founded at BYU with the idea that truth comes from the scriptures and prophets, not secular data. The Institute was to do academic and scientific research to support the church's homophobic teachings. The Values Institute closed in 1985, having been unable to achieve any of its objectives.

Allen Bergin was director of the Values Institute, and after it was closed he continued to oppose LGBT rights and saying that LGBT people could change their sexual orientation. His opinion carried a lot of weight inside the LDS Church and he even served in the Sunday School General Presidency. However, in 2020 he issued a public apology for “being part of a professional, religious, and public culture that marginalized, pathologized, and excluded LGBT persons.” What caused him to change his opinion? Getting to personally know and love gay people. Bergin wrote that as a father of two gay sons and grandfather to a gay grandson, “I’ve been given a personal education that has been painful and enlightening.”

Since the early 1990s, researchers have found that homosexuality has a genetic component, that there are differences in the brain structures of adult straight and gay people, and there exists a large array of homosexual behavior in animals. The academic and scientific consensus was a challenge to the long-held LDS positions.

In 1995, the First Presidency letter in the Ensign magazine affirmed that a homosexual orientation is not inborn as that would frustrate God's plan and top leaders continued to put forth ideas on what causes a person "confusion" over their gender identity or gender roles into the 2000s (they didn't distinguish between gender identity and sexual orientation).

In 2007, the APA did a thorough review of existing research of conversion therapy and found that it does not work and there is evidence that such therapy is harmful to LGBTQ+ people. Further research links conversion therapy to depression, suicidality, anxiety, social isolation and decreased capacity for intimacy, surely those aren't the results anyone wants for their loved ones.

In 2016, the church website MormonAndGay declared that conversion therapy or sexual orientation change efforts are unethical.

In 2019, LDS Family Services announced they do not provide 'reparative therapy' or 'sexual orientation change efforts' any more

[ahenvs3000w24]

01: Finding Place and Peace with Nature

Welcome folks to my Environmental Science Nature interpretation Blog! I am eager to share my thoughts, opinions, and some of my life with you all over the term. To orient you all, I am currently in my fourth and final term at the University of Guelph. My degree is in Arts and Science program with a focus on Biology and Psychology. I have experience in ecology, plant biology, and field experience that I will share with you all. Throughout my degree, I have found value in understanding how the natural world that surrounds us supports our functioning and the role we must have in protecting it.

From the ripe age of three, my parents bundled me up and took me on my first camping trip. I am reminiscent of those experiences as they have influenced my relationship with nature as a young adult. Hiking, youth groups, and time spent on the beach are some of the fondest memories of my childhood. Each summer, I have taken the initiative and have continued the camping tradition for myself. I am no longer reliant upon my parents to facilitate the trip and have introduced my closest friends to the joys of living with nature. Nature has taught me some of the most valuable lessons a child should learn and I feel inclined to share my lessons with those around me.

As a young adult, university has been a pivotal moment in my life. With university comes additional responsibility and pressure on the future. The COVID-19 pandemic commenced in my first year of study at the University of Guelph. The pandemic, in many ways, was a period of reflection and revaluation for my life and how I wish to lead it. In moments of high stress, I tend to forget the peace that nature brings. The pandemic allowed me to reconnect with nature the way I once did as a child and recentered my headspace.

More recently, I had the opportunity to travel to fourteen different countries across the United Kingdom and Europe. From breathtaking hikes in the Swiss Alps to walking the vineyards of Tuscany, I had the pleasure of exploring new areas and ecosystems of the world I never could have dreamed of experiencing. As I share stories of my adventures with those around me, I express the wonder and fulfillment I felt in those moments. Through facilitating conversations surrounding my travels, I remind my peers that nature does not need to be expensive or extreme. Nature is exciting in the simplest form and we as Canadians are blessed with an extraordinary country to explore. I have found a "sense of place" in some of the smallest corners of the world that ultimately challenged my perspective of what nature is capable of.

As described in the textbook, place is not a consistent entity; it may change and take new meaning through experiences (Beck et al., 2018). No one person or experience offered a sense of place in nature rather it has been a combination of many. As I have previously mentioned, I embark on a camping trip annually at one of our provincial parks. I have attended the same provincial park for nearly a decade. From the perspective of a young child, the campsite was simply a plot of land with large trees lining the perimeter as a source of protection; the beach was a place I would play and dive in to find beach glass. As I have matured, this "big picture" has evolved into a collection of smaller snapshots (Beck et al., 2018). I believe that the metaphorical lighthouse that guides my understanding of heritage will continue to change as I develop a stronger sense of self and interact with the environment (Beck et al., 2018).

In conclusion, my journey as an interpreter of nature is evolving. I found a voice and advocacy for our Earth in my travels. My metaphorical lighthouse has guided my path to places I have only dreamed of. The metaphorical lighthouses that assist in developing a "sense of place" may guide our path in several different directions throughout our lifetime (Beck et al., 2018). With each step, our connection and interpretation of the world around us may change (Beck et al., 2018). Like Shel Silverstein's, The Giving Tree, life will continue to evolve and in some moments we may take more of the Earth than we replenish. At the end of it all, it is our connectedness with others that can produce change. Regardless of socioeconomic status, there is wealth in the natural world that surrounds us all.

I have included some of my most favourite pictures of my adventures abroad. If you have been contemplating whether or not traveling abroad is worth it, this is your sign to book that flight!

References

Beck, L., Cable, T. T., & Knudson, D. M. (2018). Interpreting cultural and natural heritage: for a better world. Sagamore Venture.

Silverstein, Shel. (1964). The giving tree. Harper & Row.

[lantura]

Doll History: Smart Gurlz

Company: SmartGurlz

Designer: Sharmi Kneller

Debuted: 2018

History

SmartGurlz was described as the world's first line of self-balancing coding robots for girls. Their purpose was to inspired girls to participate in STEM. The dolls have an app that allows users to challenge themselves through programming missions.

The doll line had appeared on Shark Tank, S09E10, and was recommended by the Girl Scouts of America and BlackGirlsCode. Their Mission Statement states: SmartGurlz™ Inspires the female leaders of tomorrow, today. Our mission is to create the creators of the future, one girl at a time.

Kneller explained that the concept came about after she bought her child a robot and noticed she wasn't overly interested in the toy as it wasn't targeted towards young girls. She set out to create a robot that was more oriented towards females. She later showed the doll line at the Las Vegas' Consumer Electronics Show. While there, a Shark Tank producer took noticed and eight months Kneller pitch the idea to the Sharks Tank cast. Only Daymond John was willing to hand over cash, Kneller bartered with the entrepreneur and the two eventually settled on $200,000 for 25% equity.

Kari Byron from 'MythBusters' served on board as the Chief Creative Officer in 2018 but left at 2020.

Considering that Kari left the company, the designer focusing on a new business of a cafe serving plant-based coffee, and many of the company's social media was deactivated by 2021, the brand is considered to have been discontinued.

Characters

Three of the dolls were sold on the official website. The last two were sold on other retailer websites.

Jun:  Jun is a young, Asian chemistry star who loves trendy fashion and science. She loves to make her own experiments in her parent's basement. Interests: baking, rock'n'roll music, martial arts, and learning Italian

Zara: Zara is a technology wizard, hacker and she has all the latest gadgets. Zara loves coding all sorts of things and making her own super cool apps! Interests: Hiking, making apps, and learning electric guitar

Jen: Jen is a cool handy, teen mechanic who can repair pretty much anything in a jiffy. Jen is studying mechanical engineering and dreams of inventing the next new thing. Interests: Inventing, blogging, and repairing cars

Emma- A blond girl in a blue skirt.

Maria-A brunette in a red coat

[darkmaga-returns]

An Ohio child welfare agency has made a database tracking the sexual orientation, transgender identity and pronouns of children who communicated with the agency.

The Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (DCFS) developed a supposed "confidential spreadsheet" that monitored the sexual orientations and transgender identities of children.

The report, which describes a document acquired by the Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF), spotlights the extent to which some government agencies entrusted with the protection of children have been captured by trans activists.

The document features entries dated from March 2018 to August 2024 and the spreadsheet was part of the agency's "Safe Identification" program, which teaches social services personnel how to gather information about the sexuality and gender identity of children.

The DCNF discovered that the Cuyahoga County DCFS was one of four social service agencies in the United States "chosen to research, develop and evaluate transgender ideology-based child welfare interventions that suggest parents and caregivers who do not affirm a child's sexual orientation or gender confusion are unsafe and may need to have their children removed from their home."

Members of President Joe Biden's administration called the Cuyahoga County group "trailblazers" and wished to nationalize their model.

The Cuyahoga County DCFS team influenced the recently completed Biden order, which requires child welfare systems to approve and support gender confusion. Staff members described the confidential spreadsheet as their means of "assisting" children acquire gender treatments. They also shared that some of the children they tracked were as young as five years old.