Scientists: Sex Chromosomes are a "belief system"

submitted by GuacLettuceBacon from self.GenderCritical

Try as we might, secular science still has a bias where people impose their beliefs which can be outright lies.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/stop-using-phony-science-to-justify-transphobia/

I used to think removing religion from science would mean unbiased truth, free of dogma.

Nope, even when you have atheist/agnostic scientists, the scientists just invent totally new religion instead. Some scientists are complicit with the new trans / gender identity religion, ignoring truth for woke points / popularity; even if it hurts women, lesbians, gays, young people and anyone who cares about truth

According to Scientific American:

The popular belief that your sex arises from your chromosomal makeup is wrong.

Did you catch that? XX = female? myth! Says Scientific american. XY = male? where on earth did you get that idea from?

The biology you learned is just a belief, according to Scientific American you need to be 're-educated':

Nearly everyone in middle school biology learned that if you’ve got XX chromosomes, you’re a female; if you’ve got XY, you’re a male. This tired simplification is great for teaching the importance of chromosomes but betrays(??) the true nature of biological sex. The truth is, your biological sex isn’t carved in stone, but a living system with the potential for change.

^ When people say "No one is denying biological sex", this is literally how people deny biological sex for the sake of the 'gender identity/trans' movement. This is the type of content Scientific American is endorsing

People are telling lies and hiding behind fancy wording published on popular platforms. This is awful because if people neglect the truth, then people can't see blatant trash and lies no matter how obvious it is.

Nearly everyone in middle school mathematics learned that if you add 2 and 2, the result is 4. This tired simplification is great for teaching the importance of numbers but betrays the true nature of math. The truth is, 2+2 = 4 isn't set in stone, but a progressive system with the potential for 2+2 to equal 5.

all 40 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]Daraincork 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's The Article I have been bombarded with recently. They cling to it like a lifebelt. Same as antivaxxers use Andrew Wakefield's long discredited one on MMR causing autism. Sigh....

[–]FemaleIsntAFeeling 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Scientist here: nuh-uh.

[–]WrongToy 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Explain how the human race propagates itself. An XY impregnates an XX at the time of fertility. We used to call that males impregnating females.

[–]Kyto113 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

As bad as the article is, it's not all that wrong (at least about a core point). We need to stop equating sex with chromosomes. Sex is much better linked to gamete production, or development towards gamete production. It's much more precise to say that production of a large gamete defines being female than XX chromosomes.

[–]anonymale 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This thread’s title is misleading. Not the first time OP has pulled this shit.

Articles published on SciAm’s blogs subdomain are opinion pieces published in its Voices series. OP is misrepresenting the nature of this article in the same way TRAs do by presenting it as authoritative. If a first-year biology student submitted this work their professor would summon them to the office.

SciAm (a popular-science monthly), like Nature (a scholarly journal), are clearly doing this for woke clicks and to avoid woke drama but that is not the same as being under the thumb of a sinister TRA conspiracy. There’s no need to invoke conspiracies when market forces and editorial cowardice explain events sufficiently.

BTW SciAm devoted an entire issue to gender ideology in 2017. In July Margaret Atwood was embarrassingly taken in by it as well as the article this thread's about. She started tweeting about gay penguins and 'hermaphrodites'. Actual scientists had to point a few things out to her, and her comments didn't go down well with intersex people either.

[–]just_lesbian_things 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Responding to the article:

Why? Because biological sex is far more complicated than XX or XY (or XXY, or just X). XX individuals could present with male gonads. XY individuals can have ovaries. How? Through a set of complex genetic signals that, in the course of a human’s development, begins with a small group of cells called the bipotential primordium and a gene called SRY.

I'm not fond of dragging intersex individuals into discussions about dyadic male people who want to pretend to be female, but since the author went there, I will give my hot take and I will try to be as sensitive and inoffensive as possible. Individuals with extraordinary sexual development and chromosome make up, the exception, should not make the rule. Some people were born without legs, yet human beings are still bipedal. Some people were born with more than 23 pairs of chromosomes, but human beings are defined by 23 chromosome pairs. The existence of people with unique circumstances does not mean that sex is not dimorphic or binary.

Secondary sex characteristics—penis, vagina, appearance, behavior—arise later, from hormones, environment, experience, and genes interacting. To explore this, we move from the body to the brain, where biology becomes behavior[...] When the biology gets too complicated, some point to differences between brains of males and females as proof of the sexual binary.

I don't understand this shift. The brain isn't a secondary sex characteristic. Also, it is the trans and patriarchal side that pushes brain sex. GC and "TERFs" are against brain sex. I agree with his point on "brain sex"; that it doesn't exist, but I don't see how it is relevant.

But like all things biology, hormones cannot be limited to the pubescent idea of “estrogen = female and testosterone = male.”

Again, it's mostly trans people pushing the "I have female hormones through hrt and therefore I'm female" narrative. I'm of the opinion that consenting adults should be allowed to fuck up their endocrinology system however they want, but that doesn't change their sex.

For one thing, all humans possess levels of estrogen, progesterone and testosterone with sex differences not as prominent as is popularly thought. During infancy and prepubescence, these hormones sit in a bipotential range, with no marked sex differences.

Mostly true. Healthy boys receive a spike of testosterone during infancy (0-6 months) that develops their genitalia. Then there's no major difference until puberty.

But in developed adults, estrogen and progesterone levels are on average similar between males and nonpregnant females. And while testosterone exhibits the largest difference between adult males and females, heritability studies have found that genetics (X vs. Y) only explains about 56 percent of an individual’s testosterone, suggesting many other influences on hormones. Furthermore, measurements of sex hormones levels in any one individual wildly vary across the range of “average” values regardless of how close or spread apart you take the measurements.

What a funny paragraph. OK. It is true that estrogen and progesterone are on average similar between adult males and nonpregnant females. Then the author takes this HUGE FUCKING SWERVE to avoid talking about the MASSIVE DIFFERENCE IN TESTOSTERONE LEVELS BETWEEN ADULT MALES AND ADULT FEMALES. He's going on about heritability of testosterone levels?? The variance of sex hormone levels in an individual?? What??? He FINALLY gets to it halfway through the next paragraph:

Though testosterone levels are different between males and females on average, many external factors can change these levels, such as whether or not a person is raising a child.

Nuh uh, it's not just different "on average". The truth of the matter is that there is NO OVER LAP. The healthy testosterone range for a post-pubescent male is 240-950 ng/dL while the healthy testosterone range for a post-pubescent female is 8-60 ng/dL. This means that in healthy adults, the man with the LOWEST T levels have FOUR TIMES the testosterone concentration of the woman with the HIGHEST T levels (I've seen sources that claim it's actually a minimum of three times, but go do your own fact checking; don't blindly trust the word of some stranger on the internet).

While this is a small overview, the science is clear and conclusive: sex is not binary, transgender people are real. It is time that we acknowledge this. Defining a person’s sex identity using decontextualized “facts” is unscientific and dehumanizing.

What an incredibly disingenuous article. I've said enough about sex being binary. Nobody says trans people aren't real; the question is whether or not we should all be required to play along with whatever they want. And the fuck is a sex "identity"?

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Great post! Thank you. One quibble, about where you said

Healthy boys receive a spike of testosterone during infancy (0-6 months) that develops their genitalia. Then there's no major difference until puberty.

The spike of testosterone that males go through in the first six months of life - usually lasting for 5 months from the end of the first month through the end of the sixth - does more than develop the male genitalia. It seems to set up males to develop many physical features that will give them advantages over females in strength, size etc that later will have bearing on sports. Such as larger hearts and lungs, more muscle mass, faster twitch fibers, greater levels of blood oxygenation, etc.

Growth rates and size/weight charts for infants and young children differ depending on whether the child is male or female, largely as a result of the male "mini puberty" that occurs in the first six months of life. It's not just the male genitals that are affected.

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I like you. You've got your head screwed on. Have some Saidit gold 🥇

[–]BEB 16 insightful - 2 fun16 insightful - 1 fun17 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

One of the bigger issues about all these formerly respected publications now pushing out trans lobby lies is that they've lost their credibility and lend credence to Donnie Dumbo's cries of "Fake news."

I don't trust NATURE, or Scientific American or the New York Times on COVID news because how can I?

These formerly-trusted media outlets are gas-lighting the public about biological sex because they're being paid to do so, so what other health or other news are they lying about for $$$?

[–]our_team_is_winning 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So all of these magazines have been purchased and given their agenda orders. They like to keep Opposite Land names too. "Scientific" sure. Why not call it "Unquestionable Truth Magazine" and put loads of men in wigs on the front and headline it "The Brave Women Leading Us Into the 21st Century"?

Do we have a short name for political trans agenda publications? Other than just propaganda I mean. Is it just "transprop" -- is that the term we'll use? "Lies" is shorter but such a broad category.

[–][deleted] 22 insightful - 3 fun22 insightful - 2 fun23 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

Okay, so if there's no such thing as a male or female brain, why can't we just start calling people by their sex chromosomes and do away with gender entirely if that's the road they want to go down. No more women, no more men, just xx, xy, xxy and whatever other variations exist. Dating sites can be xy seeking xx, xx seeking xx etc. A driver's license or birth certificate can state your sex chromosomes. Then people can dress up, surgically alter themselves and morph into the most stereotypical depiction of xx or xy imaginable without being discriminated against, but at the end of the day their identity xx, xy, xxy will be based on scientific evidence that can't be refuted.

[–]MarkTwainiac 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

I'm with you generally speaking, and think sex chromosome testing should be done to determine who qualifies for participation in female sports. But outlier conditions like CAIS and mosaicism would make doing this impolitic for society as a whole.

Also, it wouldn't be fair - or IMO morally right - to put rules and customs into place that would out people with unusual sex chromosomes (X0 for example) and constantly force them to disclose and be identified by their rare medical conditions.

but at the end of the day their identity xx, xy, xxy will be based on scientific evidence that can't be refuted.

A person's sex chromosomes are not an "identity." I know I have XX chromosomes coz I've had genetic testing. But I don't "identify" as XX, just as I don't "identify as" a woman, or as mother, or as old. Those are just facts about me.

If we started "calling people by their sex chromosomes" as you suggest, that could easily lead to people being referred to - and discriminated against - coz of other aspects of our genetic profiles.

Most people have mutations or "genetic defects" that they are entirely unaware of that are causative, predictive or associated with one or another of the many known rare inherited diseases. If we classify and identify people based on sex chromosomes, it opens the door to all of us being identified and classified based on what genetic defects we carry - or don't carry. If history is any indication, this would not take the human race to a good place.

Identifying people based on their chromosomes would most likely lead to another caste system like they have in India and South Africa based on the hue of one's skin. Or to mass slaughter and genocide like what was done to the Armenians circa 1915 and the Jews during the Holocaust.

[–]just_lesbian_things 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

that would out people with unusual sex chromosomes (X0 for example) and constantly force them to disclose and be identified by their rare medical conditions.

People with Turner's Syndrome have a number of physical tells from short stature, webbed neck, high waist-to-hip ratio, specific facial characteristics, and low set ears. I doubt it would "out" them; people probably already noticed and wondered.

Identifying people based on their chromosomes would most likely lead to another caste system like they have in India and South Africa based on the hue of one's skin. Or to mass slaughter and genocide like what was done to the Armenians circa 1915 and the Jews during the Holocaust.

No, there's an economic/political incentive tied to those acts, and I would argue that sex itself is already a caste system. But I digress, I am of the opinion that it is possible to differentiate people without oppression or exploitation. We have managed to differentiate people based on blood type (it is more popular in asian countries) and by birth months (Horoscopes) without devolving into a shit show. The problem isn't in differentiation, it's in power and control. I think you're letting your bad experience skew your perception and judgement.

[–]MarkTwainiac 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

People with Turner's Syndrome have a number of physical tells from short stature, webbed neck, high waist-to-hip ratio, specific facial characteristics, and low set ears. I doubt it would "out" them; people probably already noticed and wondered.

Of course this is true, as with many other conditions. But you really think people with genetic conditions or mutations for those conditions, visible or invisible - whether Turners, BRCA, deltaF508, HBB and so on - should have to have them listed on all official ID documents? And that's how society should be organized? And in online dating, everyone should be be pigeonholed according to their genetic profile? Coz the comment I was responding to said essentially that.

We have managed to differentiate people based on blood type (it is more popular in asian countries) and by birth months (Horoscopes) without devolving into a shit show.

People in Asian countries have their blood types on all their official documents? So instead of saying, girls use that loo/locker room, boys use this other one, schoolchildren are sorted by blood type? Which Asian countries? I know in Japan there are weird beliefs and hangups about blood type, but...

And by "blood type" what exactly do you mean? A,AB, B,O? Rh factor? Clotting factor? Ferritin levels? Antibody levels? Whether a person previously has been pregnant?

You really think sun signs/Horoscopes are akin to sex? And facilities and medical services and rights should be doled out accordingly? What next, making everyone divulge whether they are a "winter" or "summer" or whatever amongst the "colour types"?

What's going on in China with the Uighars is not a shit show? What the Japanese did to the Chinese and the people in other Asian countries during WW2 was not a shitshow? What the Khmer Rouge did wasn't a shit show?

I agree that the problem isn't differentiation; the problem is the way recognition of differentiation has been used, and is used, to create/justify hierarchies. But you're naive if you think progress and liberation will come from defining and dividing everyone according to their blood profiles, sun signs, hair color, types of food we like, race, genetic anomalies.

[–]just_lesbian_things 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

But you really think people with genetic conditions or mutations for those conditions, visible or invisible - whether Turners, BRCA, deltaF508, HBB and so on - should have to have them listed on all official ID documents?

If we are to put biological sex on official ID documents, then people should have their biological sex on it. Not the sex they wish they were, not the sex they're role-playing as, not the sex they kinda sorta resemble. In the case of the huge variation of different genetic conditions, I'm not opposed to a general umbrella marker. Nor am I against people willfully hiding their biological sex, though that option should be open to everyone, and they can only mask it, not claim to be a sex they are not. (Also, they would, obviously, be responsible for any consequences that were to result from their decision to obfuscate their basic biological information). But if I'm required to have my biological sex on my official ID, if you think that's something fair to ask of me, why should an exception be made for everyone or anyone else?

And in online dating, everyone should be be pigeonholed according to their genetic profile? Coz the comment I was responding to said essentially that.

It's probably not enforceable, but why shouldn't I be allowed to filter people out based on it?

People in Asian countries have their blood types on all their official documents? So instead of saying, girls use that loo/locker room, boys use this other one, schoolchildren are sorted by blood type?

No, because blood type doesn't affect the bathroom you use. And it's A, AB, B, O. It's been a while, I'm not sure if Rh factor is included.

You really think sun signs/Horoscopes are akin to sex? And facilities and medical services and rights should be doled out accordingly? What next, making everyone divulge whether they are a "winter" or "summer" or whatever amongst the "colour types"?

Actually, facilities and medical services are doled out according to blood type, not horoscopes. You're being disingenuous. People do self-segregate or stereotype according to horoscope.

What's going on in China with the Uighars is not a shit show? What the Japanese did to the Chinese and the people in other Asian countries during WW2 was not a shitshow? What the Khmer Rouge did wasn't a shit show?

More disingenuous arguments. Biological sex has long been used to oppress women. I'm well aware of the ways recognition of differentiation has been used to create and justify hierarchy from that alone.

But you're naive if you think progress and liberation will come from defining and dividing everyone according to their blood profiles, sun signs, hair color, types of food we like, race, genetic anomalies.

No, I don't think progress and liberation will come from categorizing people, but I think being required to be dishonest about who you are is not progress. Having to lie about your sex, your genetic anomaly or your sexual orientation to fit in is not going to improve any situation. The goal is to create a system that can acknowledge differences without denying people opportunities based on them, and we're not going to be able to create such a system if we have to lie about everything all the time. People with genetic anomalies will often require some form of medical intervention. I'm never going to need a prostate exam. And people who are attracted to, and engage in relationships with the same sex will want their relationships recognized the same way opposite sex relationships are. Society has to account for those differences while respecting the human rights of everyone. But we're not even going to be able to have that conversation if we can't recognize differences for fear of the possibility of failure and injustice.

[–]slushpilot 13 insightful - 4 fun13 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

We're really just making this harder than it needs to be, aren't we? We know what biology is for men and women in 99.99% of cases, so we could just keep doing that, maybe?

I'd be totally fine with special consideration to those with a verified genetic or developmental condition—sure, let them legally identify themselves. There may be situations where that gets challenged, like Caster Semenya, but hey, the world is messy and we can deal with it as it comes up.

There's no sense arguing about such a tiny proportion of people. Whatever the conclusion of this scientific article is—it's just derailing the topic and is completely irrelevant to the "trans rights" issue that everyone is actually talking about for the vast majority of those who want to self-identify.

I see it like,

"I believe men shouldn't be admitted into women's prisons & shelters & sports."

— "But the scientific truth says! XXY! klinefelter! bimodal! seahorses!" —

"Sir, this is a Wendy's."

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Agreed, in all but a teensy tiny number of human beings, the sex is clear at birth and can be determined by the appearance of the external genitals, which usually conforms to sex chromosomes. In the rare cases where the external genitalia look ambiguous at birth, nowadays the sex of the child can be determined with accuracy by a full medical workup involving genetic testing, scans and a physical exam.

And BTW, Caster Semenya's sex is clear too: as the IAAF/WA successfully argued in court, Semenya is a healthy male whose external genitalia didn't develop properly in utero, so it looked atypical at birth. But Semenya's male gonads - testes - function just fine, like any other healthy guys testes to; what's more, Semenya is androgen responsive as other healthy males are, so Semenya was/is able to utilize the T Semenya's testes pump out to develop a masculinized physique and all the physical advantages that males have over females in sport.

[–]slushpilot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My only point about Semenya was that this is a pretty unique example of someone who was raised as a girl, but was only found to be male as an adult. It's a messy situation, and we need to allow for it & have some sympathy. It's so rare that such a person is not going to turn society upside down or be a threat to women—unlike opening the gates to self-id. I believe such a person should be allowed to live the life they've always known—although the new information is very relevant to issues like international sport where sex, not gender, still apply. It has to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and never over-generalized.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I thought I accounted for variations.

[–]MarkTwainiac 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, you did account for variations, but the way I read your post I thought you were saying that we should all have our sex chromosomes stated on ID documents, and that we should

start calling people by their sex chromosomes and do away

with the two sex categories, male and female.

No more women, no more men, just xx, xy, xxy and whatever other variations exist. Dating sites can be xy seeking xx, xx seeking xx etc. A driver's license or birth certificate can state your sex chromosomes.

But in terms of sex chromosomes, it's the presence or absence of a Y that is most important - or rather, the presence of the SRY gene that's usually on the Y chromosome. Coz that usually is what determines sex. Someone who is XXY is just as male as someone who is XY. Just as someone who is XO is just as female as someone who is XX, coz of the absence of a Y.

I took your proposal that there should be "No more women, no more men" just people identified by sex chromosomes at face value, and tried to express one of the many reason I think that an unwise approach. Perhaps I misunderstood? If so, apologies.

Also, perhaps I am oversensitive to this topic because I and other members of my family were denied health insurance coverage in the USA because we carry genetic "defects" associated with/causative of a fatal disease, and one family member was fired from their job once the employer was informed by the employer-funded insurance carrier what genetic testing revealed about my family member. As a result, I was involved in the push for legislation that would make discrimination based on genetic information illegal in the US. This finally led to the US passing landmark federal legislation in 2008:

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008 protects Americans from discrimination based on their genetic information in both health insurance (Title I) and employment (Title II). Title I amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHSA), and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), through the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), as well as the Social Security Act, to prohibit health insurers from engaging in genetic discrimination. Title II of GINA is implemented by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and prevents employers from using genetic information in employment decisions and prevents employers from requesting and requiring genetic information from employees or those applying for jobs.

https://www.genome.gov/about-genomics/policy-issues/Genetic-Discrimination

[–]chrysthefeminist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

XO is just as female as someone who is XX, coz of the absence of a Y.

Except if the X has a transposed SRY on it. I agree with you, don't want to nitpick, just going by what you said about the SRY, not the Y per se, being determinative. Yes, the SRY gene is normally and mostly found on the Y chromosome, except in the case of rare transpositions to the X.

[–]MarkTwainiac 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed.

[–]iguanidae 35 insightful - 6 fun35 insightful - 5 fun36 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

Scientific American has, ironically, become VERY unscientific in the past few years. I stopped reading them when they had an article about women's inclination to "gold digging".

[–]Realwoman 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Do you have a link? That's horrifying

[–]Kikeniggertransfaggo 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

No falsewoman

[–]BEB 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

You're kidding - I hope?

[–]iguanidae 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm definitely not. I was incredibly pissed off about it. Back when I had facebook I posted a rather pointed comment about how there's nothing remotely scientific about that term.

[–]BEB 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I just cannot understand how science has just been thrown out the window in the space of a few years, even with the huge funding behind Trans, Inc.

How does an individual biologist live with themselves after supporting this nonsense?

[–]fuckingsealions 11 insightful - 5 fun11 insightful - 4 fun12 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Here's the author: https://twitter.com/simonedsaid?lang=en

Recent RT from them: https://twitter.com/ukleghoul/status/1306843207519612928

"the Mae who would be queen HibiscusTransgender flag @ukleghoul i am excited to casually dismiss blanchard in an academic setting

you lose old man, the trannies are taking over"

u mad bro

[–]TurtleFuzz 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

If you think, I am pretending to be, ... or stealing benefits from, ... or taking advantage of, ... women, ...

You are weak, foolish, and unimportant.

I am a woman. And I’m stronger than you will ever be.

Another tweet from this lunatic. If you have to prop up your self-esteem by degrading others, you are not strong. You are a bully.

[–]fuckingsealions 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah this person should definitely be writing science articles. 😕

[–]BEB 30 insightful - 1 fun30 insightful - 0 fun31 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I read that Scientific American had been invested in, or bought out, by a Trans, Inc. affiliated something, so it would make sense that the gender lobby is now using the well-respected Scientific American brand to push its woo-woo.

Guess what happens next? Penis News or Vice or Vox or even Nature or NBC or National Geographic or the New York Times, or any one of the publications now pushing Trans, Inc. propaganda non-stop will point to this Scientific American article as "proof" that biological sex is not immutable.

If this attack on science doesn't wake every intelligent person up I don't know what will.

I will try to find the Scientific American being bought by Trans, Inc. proof and post here.

[–]Susiesmum 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

They already have National Geographic. If you look at the group shot on the cover, they have every gender listed except female.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/children-explain-how-gender-affects-their-lives/

[–]divingrightintowork 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Here's a good response to that malarky, but how is it they couldn't find one fucking female to appear on the cover given they seemed to have had a fine time with a male? It just about sums things up perfectly, the only women that matter are men.

[–]BEB 12 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 0 fun13 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I noticed the change in National Geographic to gendxr bs. I think maybe within the last two or three years.

Everyone -please, please, please discuss these changes with whoever you can! Especially middle-aged to older women, because we are old enough to remember the fight for women's rights and many of us are still young enough to do something about it.

[–]fuckingsealions 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They are owned by Springer/Nature it looks like.

[–]BEB 22 insightful - 1 fun22 insightful - 0 fun23 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

NATURE is the one that came out with the much-quoted Sex Is A Spectrum article, that the author herself actually backtracked on, but it was too late.

Because NATURE published one article (and it might even have been an op ed) not really even meaning sex is a spectrum, trans rights activists now confidentially say " sex is a spectrum" and if anyone bothers to ask where they got such an astounding revision of biology from, they can smugly say (formerly respected) NATURE.

These people are such complete con artists.

[–]slushpilot 6 insightful - 9 fun6 insightful - 8 fun7 insightful - 9 fun -  (1 child)

What do you expect from an author whose first name is spelled with parentheses.

[–]Freetochoose 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This made me laugh!