Is it about to snap? Sure hope so. Reality must be defended by working academics and scientists and the journals who publish them. They have to stay in their jobs, toxic as it may be to do so, and stand up. Some, like you, have had to leave to pave the way. Even Richard Dawkins was cancelled and stripped of an award! When enough of them finally do stand up, the mainstream media will follow their lead. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if this keeps going on, if science really has been destroyed by these SJW mythologies. But that's not really possible--the scientific method and approach is a wonderful human invention that will be rediscovered, because nothing else is as useful in helping humans get to the truth about our physical world.
Colin: You are, of course, correct, and I support your ongoing efforts. However, I wonder to what degree the conversation will change until there is what Thomas Kuhn referred to as a "paradigm shift." The claims to which you refer are so outlandish, in my opinion, that a reasoned rebuttal is futile. It's analogous to using geology to dissuade someone who believes in the flat Earth theory. Further, when people devolve into obscenities and childish ad hominem attacks (as in the example you provided), they are revealing serious psychological issues that have nothing to do with the substance of the debate. And, they are just engaging in theatrics for their own aggrandizement. Arguing with a person like that is a losing proposition.
Again, I respect your courage and fortitude to keep plugging away. But, I really think this pseudo-intellectual edifice will not collapse until it becomes so unwieldy that it crumbles of its own weight. Of course, your pressures against it (and, to a lesser extent, mine) may hasten its demise, but only slightly, I fear. Sincerely, Frederick
Great piece! I can't even understand what PZ thinks he's saying. Does he believe there are no categories distinguishing human reproductive systems and it's just a coincidence that babies never seem to come out of the people with penises? Or is he saying that people with penises who like MCU movies reproduce in a fundementally differently way than those who like Masterpiece theater? Sex is not intended to capture literally every aspect of a person's personality or identity!
Lysenkoism is back in style again. But these academics and journalists who parrot gender nonsense have no excuse--they will not be arrested and executed by Stalin’s henchmen. I guess they must be true believers earning virtue points.
Is 'the sex binary' an actual term in biology? Or has it seeped in recently from leftist politics?
PZ Meyers, IMHO, went off the rails quite some time ago. He went Lysenkoist (in the broad sense, not the specifically biological sense) well before the Great Awokening and the complete radicalization/crazification of the American left.
With Riley Gaines calling all female athletes to take a stand against male bodies in women's sports events, we'll witness the practical ramifications of various false theories supporting sex spectrum ideology. We are also hearing that studies of "post-op" individuals who made life changing decisions to "change gender" come up with results like "lost to follow-up" and "gender incongruence." The latter meaning the patient was so confused that the researchers' data shows "non-binary or other identification" from the supposed sex the surgeries were mimicking. The conflicts of interest prevent otherwise trained, logical academics from seeing the long term results truthfully. Link to the reporting on the EPATH illogic here:
I hope you’re right that we’re on the brink of a return to sanity.
The idiocy that social media platforms in support of Gender Identity Theory is infuriating. The attitudes of activists frankly remind me of the stereotypical bro charging into a martial arts gym claiming jiu-jitsu doesn’t work… right before getting embarrassed. The problem today is we hear all of the posturing, the bad ideas virtue signaled on Twitter go unchecked (except by people like Colin Wright, biology “black belt”.)
It would be good to explicitly say and expand on why the gamete size definition is far from arbitrary. How does this fact, along with others, provide superior predictive power?
I think I see the appeal of the gender non-binary to many. On the surface it seems like a paradigm shift with superior explanatory powers, and like other paradigm shifts (classical mechanics to quantum mechanics) it requires new background propositions (sex is not binary). What I don’t see from this new “paradigm shift” are the superior predictive powers.
Do you know who first proposed that males and females are defined by the size of their gamete? I'm curious about this history because (contrary to some claims) it is not a new idea: it was in every biology textbook for many decades. But so far I have been unable to find where and when it started...
So why even care what an English professor or anthropologist, for that matter, has to say about biology. They have no more authority than my gardener does. Stick to their own disciplines
I may not be the brightest but I still have some working brain cells, and I had to shut down some of the few I have left in order to read that paragraph out of the SA article. "Childcare capacity?" "Interest in literature?" I'm surprised he didn't include "Likelihood to wear makeup." The ridiculousness and lack of seriousness displayed by the "intellectuals" in this cult is Exhibit A as to why some have lost respect for many in academia.
<blockquote > Lastly, I want to highlight a common fallacy deployed by people like PZ Myers and Agustin Fuentes, which is to falsely equate what people are with who they are.</blockquote >
Which is reflected in the common mantra of support for trans identities, that “trans people are <i >who</i> they say they are.” Unless we think they’ve stolen a credit card or they’re claiming to be the rightful ruler of Romania we’re not questioning “who” they say they are, but “what” they say they are: male as opposed to female, female as opposed to male, or some other option. Sex is a category; they want it treated as an identity.
Ironically, this argument from an atheist about people being reduced to gametes if sex is about gametes echos the common theistic complaint that if we leave out the soul, then people are “reduced” to molecules. But we’re so much more than molecules! We’re so much more than gametes! A molecule can’t appreciate a sunset and a gamete can’t put on heels and do the cha-cha. Bring in the (gender) soul and all is complex and nuanced again.
PZ accuses you of the fallacy of reductionism, yet seems to be making a different form of that fallacy.
Is it about to snap? Sure hope so. Reality must be defended by working academics and scientists and the journals who publish them. They have to stay in their jobs, toxic as it may be to do so, and stand up. Some, like you, have had to leave to pave the way. Even Richard Dawkins was cancelled and stripped of an award! When enough of them finally do stand up, the mainstream media will follow their lead. Sometimes I wonder what will happen if this keeps going on, if science really has been destroyed by these SJW mythologies. But that's not really possible--the scientific method and approach is a wonderful human invention that will be rediscovered, because nothing else is as useful in helping humans get to the truth about our physical world.
Colin: You are, of course, correct, and I support your ongoing efforts. However, I wonder to what degree the conversation will change until there is what Thomas Kuhn referred to as a "paradigm shift." The claims to which you refer are so outlandish, in my opinion, that a reasoned rebuttal is futile. It's analogous to using geology to dissuade someone who believes in the flat Earth theory. Further, when people devolve into obscenities and childish ad hominem attacks (as in the example you provided), they are revealing serious psychological issues that have nothing to do with the substance of the debate. And, they are just engaging in theatrics for their own aggrandizement. Arguing with a person like that is a losing proposition.
Again, I respect your courage and fortitude to keep plugging away. But, I really think this pseudo-intellectual edifice will not collapse until it becomes so unwieldy that it crumbles of its own weight. Of course, your pressures against it (and, to a lesser extent, mine) may hasten its demise, but only slightly, I fear. Sincerely, Frederick
Great piece! I can't even understand what PZ thinks he's saying. Does he believe there are no categories distinguishing human reproductive systems and it's just a coincidence that babies never seem to come out of the people with penises? Or is he saying that people with penises who like MCU movies reproduce in a fundementally differently way than those who like Masterpiece theater? Sex is not intended to capture literally every aspect of a person's personality or identity!
It must be so demoralizing for you as a scientist. Thank you for standing up for the truth.
Edit needed:
“but to make matters worse, the Washington Post published a nonsensical article by Jennifer Finney Boylan, an English professo, who argued...”
Lysenkoism is back in style again. But these academics and journalists who parrot gender nonsense have no excuse--they will not be arrested and executed by Stalin’s henchmen. I guess they must be true believers earning virtue points.
Is 'the sex binary' an actual term in biology? Or has it seeped in recently from leftist politics?
PZ Meyers, IMHO, went off the rails quite some time ago. He went Lysenkoist (in the broad sense, not the specifically biological sense) well before the Great Awokening and the complete radicalization/crazification of the American left.
Thank you Colin! Yes , the future belongs to those of us who stand firm in the face of delusion and deceit” !
Let’s hope that there are enough people of courage and conviction, like you!
I’m hoping for a groundswell of those who say “Yes !” To truth!
It must happen !
With Riley Gaines calling all female athletes to take a stand against male bodies in women's sports events, we'll witness the practical ramifications of various false theories supporting sex spectrum ideology. We are also hearing that studies of "post-op" individuals who made life changing decisions to "change gender" come up with results like "lost to follow-up" and "gender incongruence." The latter meaning the patient was so confused that the researchers' data shows "non-binary or other identification" from the supposed sex the surgeries were mimicking. The conflicts of interest prevent otherwise trained, logical academics from seeing the long term results truthfully. Link to the reporting on the EPATH illogic here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnlqWSxfgVc
I hope you’re right that we’re on the brink of a return to sanity.
The idiocy that social media platforms in support of Gender Identity Theory is infuriating. The attitudes of activists frankly remind me of the stereotypical bro charging into a martial arts gym claiming jiu-jitsu doesn’t work… right before getting embarrassed. The problem today is we hear all of the posturing, the bad ideas virtue signaled on Twitter go unchecked (except by people like Colin Wright, biology “black belt”.)
It would be good to explicitly say and expand on why the gamete size definition is far from arbitrary. How does this fact, along with others, provide superior predictive power?
I think I see the appeal of the gender non-binary to many. On the surface it seems like a paradigm shift with superior explanatory powers, and like other paradigm shifts (classical mechanics to quantum mechanics) it requires new background propositions (sex is not binary). What I don’t see from this new “paradigm shift” are the superior predictive powers.
Do you know who first proposed that males and females are defined by the size of their gamete? I'm curious about this history because (contrary to some claims) it is not a new idea: it was in every biology textbook for many decades. But so far I have been unable to find where and when it started...
So why even care what an English professor or anthropologist, for that matter, has to say about biology. They have no more authority than my gardener does. Stick to their own disciplines
I may not be the brightest but I still have some working brain cells, and I had to shut down some of the few I have left in order to read that paragraph out of the SA article. "Childcare capacity?" "Interest in literature?" I'm surprised he didn't include "Likelihood to wear makeup." The ridiculousness and lack of seriousness displayed by the "intellectuals" in this cult is Exhibit A as to why some have lost respect for many in academia.
<blockquote > Lastly, I want to highlight a common fallacy deployed by people like PZ Myers and Agustin Fuentes, which is to falsely equate what people are with who they are.</blockquote >
Which is reflected in the common mantra of support for trans identities, that “trans people are <i >who</i> they say they are.” Unless we think they’ve stolen a credit card or they’re claiming to be the rightful ruler of Romania we’re not questioning “who” they say they are, but “what” they say they are: male as opposed to female, female as opposed to male, or some other option. Sex is a category; they want it treated as an identity.
Ironically, this argument from an atheist about people being reduced to gametes if sex is about gametes echos the common theistic complaint that if we leave out the soul, then people are “reduced” to molecules. But we’re so much more than molecules! We’re so much more than gametes! A molecule can’t appreciate a sunset and a gamete can’t put on heels and do the cha-cha. Bring in the (gender) soul and all is complex and nuanced again.
PZ accuses you of the fallacy of reductionism, yet seems to be making a different form of that fallacy.
Amused to hear PZ Meyer's name again. Not at all surprised by his stance on the issue.