Dr. Tyson is a smart man, so I'm going with he's joining the bandwagon for the kudos. Note to Dr. Tyson: I'm 100% female and I don't wear make-up, my hairstyle varies from cropped to long, don't get manicures and pedicures, and wear culturally standard clothing for a female that feels comfortable. I was bashed incessantly growing up and sometimes treated with suspicion as an adult because of gender stereotyped attitudes like his that I did not rigidly adhere to, but people somehow still knew I was a female. People really obsess over clothing and grooming, as if it has deep meaning. It's ludicrous to suggest that because people can inject hormones he doesn't know what to say. I could put a lens over a telescope to distort the view of a planet, but that doesn't now mean it's not a planet.
For the record, I am NOT a fan of Tyson and his work; his fame is based solely upon his role as an 'entertainment physicist' who has leveraged his DEI appeal mainly for personal financial purposes.
He is nowhere at the top of the physics world and his rep within the scientific community is plebeian; his views beyond it even less significant.
That's where science has brought him. To a world of nonsense. He is the new Bill Nye the Science guy. Bill drifted to leftist nonsense also. How can a man who is so sure about the scientific method declare that each of us declare our sex. One day dress as a man, the next a woman! What does the surgeon do on that person? He is making a clown of himself. His indignation is pure narcissism.
I found myself challenged by Tyson’s three definitions of truth, and what appears to be a conflation between “truth” and “fact”.
I think there are absolute facts, and science is the broad field that tries to find answers to questions.
I think there are personal feelings, which may or may not align with another person’s feelings. These are tricky and, often, the source of disagreement.
I also believe there are Truths. I know that you, Colin, as an atheist will not likely agree with me here, but I believe Truth cannot come from within, but then it has to come from an external source, what I call God.
We often conflate facts and Truths, as I believe Tyson is doing. I also believe you pointed this out in his substitution of gender for sex. Sex is factual and scientific, going back before humans existed (I’m thinking of Jordan Peterson’s description of lobsters and also mammals and how the male and female, rooted in sex, have played out roles that also exist amongst humans). Gender is subjective and personal and does not align, by definition, from person to person. My tomboy is another’s trans man.
I heard recently somebody refer to the Bible as a book of truth, not facts, but when it’s read as a book of facts it loses much of its meaning. In addition, all the science in the world is not, per se, going to give me explanation for my purpose or how I feel about my wife and kids (at least not satisfying answers :-) or why evil exists or how good often shows up in the lost unlikely places.
Keep up the good work--I think you are making a difference in the world.
It’s quite obvious that Tyson values his role as a science popularizer above being a scientist. Any scientist worth their salt would immediately dismiss the term gender as imprecise and confusing and refer instead to socially driven sexual stereotypes. End of controversy.
There is no confusion of human biology in reality, male or female, except in the minds of the confused and those suffering the mental illness of gender dysphoria and other delusions. Oh yeah, and opportunistic media, corrupt politicians and evil medical practitioners.
I've heard Tyson in person discussing this topic. He was incredibly smug about his own views about gender and dismissive (to the point of being contemptuous) of anyone who disagreed. As I said then -- and as Colin says in this article -- Tyson should really stay in his lane.
His comments read as if he's just starting to consider gender ideology. As you say, "the current debates have nothing to do with a refusal to acknowledge and accept sex-atypical behaviors and expressions. In reality, they are about legitimate concerns" about commensurate changes in policy and law that trespass female rights, put children in harm's way and cancel dissent.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has been deleted from my list of people I would not pay to see anymore. Sad because he was good but has had a bend to the Woke side and left real science behind.
Dr. Tyson is a smart man, so I'm going with he's joining the bandwagon for the kudos. Note to Dr. Tyson: I'm 100% female and I don't wear make-up, my hairstyle varies from cropped to long, don't get manicures and pedicures, and wear culturally standard clothing for a female that feels comfortable. I was bashed incessantly growing up and sometimes treated with suspicion as an adult because of gender stereotyped attitudes like his that I did not rigidly adhere to, but people somehow still knew I was a female. People really obsess over clothing and grooming, as if it has deep meaning. It's ludicrous to suggest that because people can inject hormones he doesn't know what to say. I could put a lens over a telescope to distort the view of a planet, but that doesn't now mean it's not a planet.
NdG Tyson has always seems way overrated to me.
Had he been factual he would have lost speaking engagements and endorsements galore. He knows that......
You are kind to a fault, Colin.
But I am not.
For the record, I am NOT a fan of Tyson and his work; his fame is based solely upon his role as an 'entertainment physicist' who has leveraged his DEI appeal mainly for personal financial purposes.
He is nowhere at the top of the physics world and his rep within the scientific community is plebeian; his views beyond it even less significant.
That's where science has brought him. To a world of nonsense. He is the new Bill Nye the Science guy. Bill drifted to leftist nonsense also. How can a man who is so sure about the scientific method declare that each of us declare our sex. One day dress as a man, the next a woman! What does the surgeon do on that person? He is making a clown of himself. His indignation is pure narcissism.
Great article, Colin.
I found myself challenged by Tyson’s three definitions of truth, and what appears to be a conflation between “truth” and “fact”.
I think there are absolute facts, and science is the broad field that tries to find answers to questions.
I think there are personal feelings, which may or may not align with another person’s feelings. These are tricky and, often, the source of disagreement.
I also believe there are Truths. I know that you, Colin, as an atheist will not likely agree with me here, but I believe Truth cannot come from within, but then it has to come from an external source, what I call God.
We often conflate facts and Truths, as I believe Tyson is doing. I also believe you pointed this out in his substitution of gender for sex. Sex is factual and scientific, going back before humans existed (I’m thinking of Jordan Peterson’s description of lobsters and also mammals and how the male and female, rooted in sex, have played out roles that also exist amongst humans). Gender is subjective and personal and does not align, by definition, from person to person. My tomboy is another’s trans man.
I heard recently somebody refer to the Bible as a book of truth, not facts, but when it’s read as a book of facts it loses much of its meaning. In addition, all the science in the world is not, per se, going to give me explanation for my purpose or how I feel about my wife and kids (at least not satisfying answers :-) or why evil exists or how good often shows up in the lost unlikely places.
Keep up the good work--I think you are making a difference in the world.
It’s quite obvious that Tyson values his role as a science popularizer above being a scientist. Any scientist worth their salt would immediately dismiss the term gender as imprecise and confusing and refer instead to socially driven sexual stereotypes. End of controversy.
You are kind to a fault, Colin.
But I am not.
I view Neil Tyson as simply an 'entertainment physicist' who has leveraged his DEI appeal mainly for personal financial purposes.
His reputation within the world of theoretical or experimental physics is plebeian and his opinions beyond it are moreso.
And that is ME being kind.
Yes. A gasbag.
There is no confusion of human biology in reality, male or female, except in the minds of the confused and those suffering the mental illness of gender dysphoria and other delusions. Oh yeah, and opportunistic media, corrupt politicians and evil medical practitioners.
Tyson's chapter is packed full of sloppy thinking and out and out nonsense in the interests of supporting gender ideology. I actually wrote a bit about this a year or so ago: https://twitter.com/carolinacurmudg/status/1585675099876851714
I've heard Tyson in person discussing this topic. He was incredibly smug about his own views about gender and dismissive (to the point of being contemptuous) of anyone who disagreed. As I said then -- and as Colin says in this article -- Tyson should really stay in his lane.
His comments read as if he's just starting to consider gender ideology. As you say, "the current debates have nothing to do with a refusal to acknowledge and accept sex-atypical behaviors and expressions. In reality, they are about legitimate concerns" about commensurate changes in policy and law that trespass female rights, put children in harm's way and cancel dissent.
The wolf was still a wolf even when he put on grandma‘s clothing. He still ate Little Red Riding Hood.
Carroll disappoints me more.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has been deleted from my list of people I would not pay to see anymore. Sad because he was good but has had a bend to the Woke side and left real science behind.
Them: WHY DO YOU CARE??
Me: *lists all the ways the gender identity ideology is causing issues*
Them: BUT WHY DO YOU CARE???
Me: -_-