Big Science Sells Its Soul to Political Correctness
Few things are more scientifically obvious than biological sex, but Nature would rather please the politically correct crowd.
The editors of Nature in the UK have long had bitter animosity to conservatives. It pops up repeatedly in attacks on President Donald Trump in the USA, and now is also aimed at Brazil’s new president, Jair Bolsonaro, whom they mock as “Tropical Trump” (Nature). Look at the fear in their eyes that yet another conservative would win popular election and stand in the way of global leftism:
‘Tropical Trump’ victory in Brazil stuns scientists
Jair Bolsonaro will be the country’s next president, leaving researchers worried about the future of science, the environment and democracy.
In its editorial this week, Nature blew off all their fellow human beings who classify their kind as male and female, boys and girls, men and women. It’s hard to tell which animosity is the main motivation for their biological revisionism: Trump hatred, or the desire to please the LGBTQ crowd by following the bandwagon over what is politically correct (PC) these days. In a knee-jerk conditioned response, they kick. If Trump proposes something, whatever it is, they are agin’ it. So committed are they, they wish to stand out in front of the transgender bandwagon with mace in a firm grip, pumping the band to play its Anti-Trump Fight Song louder .
US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science
A move to classify people on the basis of anatomy or genetics should be abandoned.
They do have a few scientific cards to play. In very rare occasions, babies are hard to tell apart.
Furthermore, biology is not as straightforward as the proposal suggests. By some estimates, as many as one in 100 people have differences or disorders of sex development, such as hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical ambiguities, some of which mean that their genitalia cannot clearly be classified as male or female. For most of the twentieth century, doctors would often surgically alter an infant’s ambiguous genitals to match whichever sex was easier, and expect the child to adapt. Frequently, they were wrong. A 2004 study tracked 14 genetically male children given female genitalia; 8 ended up identifying as male, and the surgical intervention caused them great distress (W. G. Reiner and J. P. Gearhart N. Engl. J. Med. 350, 333–341; 2004).
These facts should not be surprising, because almost everything in biology has rare exceptions. By their own admission, though, at least 99% of human beings do have straightforward biological sexual characteristics. Simple solution: accommodate the rare exceptions with sensitivity and respect, considering the laws of the land and the wishes of the parents and doctors. If a mistake is made, reverse it. For those who are gender-confused, educate them out of their confusion with some straightforward human anatomy and physiology. It’s not that confusing. Confusion comes from refusing to face reality. Teach them to enjoy the blessings of their biology; both sexes have their joys and advantages. Humans are equal in value and opportunity. Teach them to embrace their biological destiny. Envy is a sin, isn’t it?
The exceptions could be more rare than Nature indicates, because the editors have lumped three problems into one: “hormonal conditions, genetic changes or anatomical ambiguities.” Each of these, furthermore, could fall into ranges of abnormality. The number of truly ambiguous cases could be a tiny fraction of 1%.
Like most PC leftists, though (totalitarians that they are), Nature wants to punish the majority to accommodate the minority. They do this by creating a new victim class of the oppressed: the transgenders, who gained the national media stage not long ago as the new oppressed class. Solution: if 1% experience “great distress,” then 100% must share great distress, too. That will eliminate “discrimination” and achieve “equality”— and on this point, the editors reveal their true stripes. Their concern is not about biology. They care about leading the LGBTQ bandwagon, running its wheels over the feet of the crowd in order to punish them and their president, Donald Trump.
The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour. Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.
No foundation in science? Tell that to human beings covering thousands of years (millions of Darwin Years, in Nature‘s view), for whom biological sex and corresponding gender was never an issue – till political correctness, a form of Marxism, grabbed the word “gender” to use as a tool for global revolution.
This is not to say that there are not ranges of masculinity and femininity that have never been noticed before. Every generation has its tomboys and girly-men. Joan of Arc, dressing as a male soldier and leading the troops into battle, was not quite the Princess and the Pea. Men range from weightlifters at the World’s Strongest Man competition to sensitive interpreters of Chopin at the keyboard. Loving husbands might be lumberjacks during the day and yet at night, try to reach out to their “feminine side” to understand their wives in conversation on the sofa. Tender women might flex their muscles in wartime and adorn posters with “We Can Do It!” That’s understandable. Men and women, also, vary in their hormone levels; some men have more testosterone; some women, more estrogen.
These long-recognized realities do not require a wholesale revision of terms like sex and gender. Culture has come a long way since World War II in providing traditionally-male jobs to women, and traditionally-female jobs to men. We are all human beings, after all, members of one species. But must every bathroom in the country be renovated? Must vocabulary be radically revised? Must hairy-chested, bearded guys be allowed in girls’ shower rooms, scaring the daylights out of girls just because a man (probably with dishonorable motives) declares himself a woman that day? Must boys be allowed to compete in girls’ sports, and feminists be prohibited from complaining about it? Must men now be the ones giving birth? Must a psychologist not be laughed at for proclaiming that some women have a penis? (It happened in a science article: see 13 Sept 2018). Is this the world that Nature wants?
Political attempts to pigeonhole people have nothing to do with science and everything to do with stripping away rights and recognition from those whose identity does not correspond with outdated ideas of sex and gender. It is an easy way for the Trump administration to rally its supporters, many of whom oppose equality for people from sexual and gender minorities. It is unsurprising that it appeared just weeks before the midterm elections.
Nothing political about this editorial, right, Editors? On and on the Trump-bashing goes, faking tender affection for the new victim class Trump is making feel great distress.
Tell the world, Nature, what other organism will you treat this way? Will it be a crime to say state the difference between a lion and a lioness, a silverback gorilla and its harem, a male peacock spider and the larger female watching its performance? Will there be no permitted distinction between peacock and peahen? You might as well throw out Darwin’s sexual selection theory, the term “sexual dimorphism,” and “sex chromosomes” while you’re at it. Let the drab bird ofparadise put on its show to the male. Let the female deer bash heads with the three-point buck. Must not discriminate, now! Or are you finally admitting in a back-handed way that humans are exceptional beings, with moral qualities needing to be respected? If not, then please give equal reproductive rights to men, and allow them to decide whether to have an abortion or not. That will be the day.
It’s not just in Nature. Look at this article in Medical Xpress, kowtowing to the gender-fluidity trend: “‘Man’, ‘woman’ and ‘other’: research explores gender diversity.” Notice the scare-quotes around man and woman, a prelude to the coming redefinitions:
A growing number of people in Australia no longer see themselves as fitting into the traditional boxes of ‘man’ or ‘woman’, with more than 30 gender options available to choose from on some social media platforms and within government institutions.
The article pussyfoots around the biology in order not to offend the PC crowd while it clutches its Darwin doll:
“The study is a great example of how behavioural economics, evolutionary biology and psychology can all provide relevant insight into human decision making, as well as the societal influences and pressures that shape what we think gender is in modern society.“
Once again, this quote would make no sense without presupposing human exceptionalism. Try to restate this quote, using birds instead of humans, without laughing out loud. With “evolutionary biology” there is no need for consistency. Perhaps the authors are employing a form of Mullerian mimicry to deceive their predators.
The Australian prime minister has had enough of this ‘nonsense,’ reports WND.
Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison said he has had enough transgender “nonsense,” refusing to capitulate to the movement’s demands for the government to create “non-binary” government documents for transgender people.
The Labor Party in Australia is trying to force the government to issue gender-neutral passports.
“The proposal says that “gender-confused Australians” will not attain “equal enjoyment of human rights without discrimination” unless the government gives them “autonomy regarding sex/gender markers, and obtain identification options that match their sex characteristics and/or gender identities, as preferred.”
Morrison is not taking their bluff. “Get real,” he declared boldly to the promoters of that proposal, saying the government would never “cave” to this demand. Few government leaders have the guts to stand up to the PC crowd and endure the wrathful accusations that will come their way. Trump is one of them, and Nature hates him for not knuckling under their “scientific consensus.”
But science is not about consensus. It’s about searching for truth. The battle is engaged. It will be interesting to see who wins.
Update 11/03/18: Will the LGBT movement implode? The Telegraph reports that a gay sauna booted a transgender “man” (a physical female calling itself a man). They complained that “he” was a “female,” and they didn’t want a woman in their “male space.” The owners were forced to apologize to the “man” with a female body. Presumably, this means that a transgender “woman” with male genitalia and a beard could work his way into a “female space” and expect non-discriminatory acceptance by the women there. Beyond that, what are these kinds of spaces going to do with the “30 gender options available to choose from” of their patrons? This is what happens when culture opens the door to fake reality. It is unsustainable, and everybody pays the consequences, including those who pushed it in the first place.
The Bible says, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27). He made them to multiply and fill the earth. That required distinct sexual anatomies and distinct sexual roles, but did not imply inequality of value. How far into absurdity mankind sinks when denying their Creator and His word!
Nature, and the rest of the leftist PC crowd, scoff at the Bible, and will not listen to you if you quote it. So take Solomon’s advice: “Answer a fool according to his folly” (Proverbs 26:4-5), but not in such a way as to be a fool yourself. One way is Greg Koukl’s method of “taking the roof off” – meaning, force the opponent to face the consequences of his argument. A good example of this can be seen in a YouTube stunt where a tall interviewer of college students asked if he could declare himself to be a five-foot Asian girl. He actually got several to agree that he had that right, and should be treated that way if that was how he felt. It was funny, but he could have gone even further. He could have said, “Right now I feel myself to a member of the Taliban that thinks women are property and should be available for men to fulfill their lusts on. Will you let me do that?” If she objects, accuse her of discrimination, and say her attitude is causing him great distress. You get the point; you can imagine worse examples. Do this with tough love in order to force the opponent to agree that there are limits to this kind of PC thinking. Most likely the opponent will stand on some kind of moral foundation, saying you “should not” be allowed to do that. That’s a door opening. Ask “Why not?” Press on; “I thought you believe that people should be able to respected for their feelings of who they want to be. I want to be a terrorist and remove all evolutionists and PC types. Why won’t you let me fulfill the destiny I set for myself? Are you a hater or something? I feel discriminated against!” Lay it on thick till you get a change of heart, but with a smile of evident sarcasm so the person knows you don’t mean it, but are making a debate point. “I feel like a bird today. I think I will land on your head and leave a deposit. No; actually, I feel like a poisonous snake and my fangs are itching to bite someone. I declare myself a Mack truck and you’re in my lane.” Back off once the person cries uncle, and then have a polite discussion about worldview. “You know, what you are admitting is that the world is what it is, not what we declare it to be. And we, as human beings, have responsibilities that are not culturally defined, but are part of our nature. The Bible says that’s because we were created in God’s image as male and female. Shouldn’t our Maker be allowed to make the rules about sex and gender? Look what can happen if you leave it up to the whims of human opinion.”
Exercise: Use Koukl’s “taking the roof off” method on the Nature editorial cited above.