Bisexual John Danziger Evangelist

Koko the Gorilla has been thought to exhibit Clever Hans Effect since the initial studies on her were published in the late 1970s. This is even present on her Wikipedia page, with other linguists calling Koko's caregiver and trainer's interpretations of her use of sign language as "sentimental nonsence". There has also always been pushback on the Koko experiment from actual primatologists.

One of the reblogs of my original Clever Hans post goes into this briefly and also pulls from THIS youtube video (but tw: ableism & animal abuse if you choose to watch).

What is boils down to is that Koko, and other apes in linguistics studies, were taught sign language the way dogs are taught "talking" buttons, through association. The handler/trainer then sometimes makes the leap to emotional responses much like happens with those with dog buttons. There is an excellent article HERE that describes the Koko situation quite well and touches on an important aspect both with Koko and the button dogs:

"As Koko’s trainer, adopted mum, business manager, and chief caregiver, Patterson wasn’t a neutral observer. If other scientists wanted to verify her claims, they had no access to Koko nor could they scrutinise any data. The only publicly available material is video recordings on YouTube, Facebook and various documentaries. It appears as if a lot of Koko’s signs were open to interpretation."

When scientists brought forward that all of Koko's communication was at the prompting of Patternson she simply refused to engage and was unable to come up with points for her position. You can also read transcripts of Patternson and Koko's communications and WHEW. is there a lot of prompting by Patternson to get the answer SHE wants.

There is a reason that we don't see continued ape to human language studies ever if often anymore. 1.) the ethics of it, Koko and other linguistic studies experiment apes lived in very specific and non ape appropriate environments due to the way the experiment and closeness to human behavior was structured and 2.) it is thought we can learn much more about apes by actually learning their forms of communications (shocker /s).

You know whats a great look is sticking to my principles. and thats: hearing about some random ass trans woman's alleged sexual misconduct via other random internet commenters is not an actually good way to 'hold abusers accountable' or whatever the fuck.

how is it protecting victims? how on earth is exaggeration and rumors blown way out of proportion helping anyone?

the answer is simple. it was never about the victims. it was never about protecting vulnerable people. it was never about "holding people accountable".

you just want a trans woman thats considered socially acceptable to bully, harass, threaten, and exclude from society.

Here are some basic primers. If someone is wearing what look like Meta glasses, they usually have a small circular camera in the outer corners of the lenses, like the one on your phone.

I would also regularly check their own product pages so you're on top of what the models look like. They tend to have larger frames, but come in a variety of shapes and colors.

A new hobbyist developed app warns if people nearby may be wearing smart glasses, such as Meta’s Ray-Ban glasses, which stalkers and harassers have repeatedly used to film people without their knowledge or consent. The app scans for smart glasses’ distinctive Bluetooth signatures and sends a push alert if it detects a potential pair of glasses in the local area.

The American Foundation for the Blind has said that "The Ray-Ban Meta glasses are an accessibility tool only by coincidence. That makes them more affordable and, in many ways, unaware of the needs of users with reduced vision" although they do have seemingly positive views on Meta Glasses as a whole. (source 10). It also seems like their marketing push as accessibility devices began last year (source 11).

But to add even more into the nonsense, Meta is now toying around with adding a "limit" to the functionality of their glasses unless their users pay for more access (source 12). AND, as stated above, Meta has officially added facial recognition code in their glasses and only admitted it after being called out, which is basically the death of privacy as we know it (source 13, source 14, source 15). And oh look another lawsuit because of it (source 16) THAT THEY LOST (source 17)!

Long story short: I don't begrudge someone using them as a disability aid overall, but ultimately both their privacy and other people's privacy are being disregarded by Meta and that is not and should not be acceptable by any means.

I understand there is no ethical consumption under capitalism but there is a level of personal responsibility someone has to take when using them if they truly truly need them, such as opting out of sharing information, not filming strangers without permission, not posting footage of strangers online, opting out of facial recognition if possible, etc.

Antis will claim that they are “protecting children” but then call people who harm fictional children pedophiles. But as a victim of CSA myself, I find it super offensive and harmful when these antis throw around the word pedo to anyone and anything that mildly makes their fragile little brain uncomfortable.

No. People who fantasize fictional children are NOT pedophiles because for someone to be that, they have to have harmed real children. A real child that I used to be when I was assaulted.

So by calling everyone who harms fictional children a pedophile, you’re dismissing my trauma and experience by reducing it to ***fictional kids being harmed*** and you’re actually helping real pedophiles who harm real children like me get away with it easier because now people have associated the word with “dark fiction” instead of real life harm, thanks to you.

So it’s antis who ARE harming real children because they want to protect fictional ones. Fuck off.

I was a CSA victim, and I say “let dark ship enjoyers write whatever they want”. They’re not harming real kids like you do.

Not to mention, a lot of victims like me use dark fiction to help us cope with our trauma. So not only are antis helping actual pedophiles get away with harming real children easier, they’re also calling CSA victims pedophiles because we write about fictional things that make them uncomfortable (even though we never force anybody to read our shit).

I think the big difference here is that it's entirely reasonable that a lot of people are very invested in peeing after sex because it's very widespread advice that's even offered up by many healthcare workers! it can be really hard to see common wisdom challenges, especially if it's come from a trusted doctor. but it's also important to remember that healthcare providers are as capable as passing on faulty assumptions as anyone else—hell, you can see that easily in the way many patients who are fat, disabled, and Black or otherwise racialized are treated.

none of which is to say that peeing after sex is malicious misinformation; it's pretty harmless. but it's also not really proven in any meaningful to offer the benefits it's widely credited with. and that's another thing that's hard, because I think people (especially people who suffer with a lot of urinary tract infections!) really want a sense that they can control their bodies and their health. I'm really sympathetic to a lot of people resistant to questioning that kind of thing!