Neil deGrasse Tyson Should Stick to Physics

By adopting gender ideology’s lexicon, Tyson undermines his professed advocacy for gender nonconformity and free expression.

Image by Christina Buttons

Reality’s Last Stand is a reader-supported publication. Please consider becoming a paying subscriber or making a one-time or recurring donation to show your support.

There is a supply-and-demand problem with science popularizers. Numerous fields require specialized knowledge, but there is a dearth of scientists possessing the essential blend of brilliance, charisma, and articulation to serve as public spokespersons. As a result, the most charismatic and eloquent individuals from the most awe-inspiring fields such as physics and astronomy often become default ambassadors for the scientific community and The Science™.

This doesn’t always result in bad takes, especially if they’re simply asked to cover the basics of fields in which they lack expertise, or if they’re reading off scripts written by actual experts. However, when they deviate from the script and discuss subjects beyond their radius of expertise, and especially on topics that have an increasingly narrow range of socially acceptable and ideologically acceptable responses, this can result in the dissemination of well-intentioned pseudoscience. This latter situation seems to apply to the world-renowned astrophysicist, Tyson, who has recently been providing offhand commentary on the hot-button issue of sex and gender.

For the record, I am overall a fan of Tyson and his work, and believe his fame to be well-deserved. But his comments on sex and gender, and his adoption of gender ideology’s lexicon, are more than a little concerning given his enormous reach and the potential real-world harms involved in spreading such radical nonsense.

What did Tyson say?