Scientific American's Lysenkoism

"Oh How the Mighty Have Fallen" — and for a "mess of pottage" ...

A reposting of a comment in a conversation I’m having with

Hippiesq

, the mother of a teenage dysphoric daughter. Hopefully of some general relevance, particularly as Hippiesq’s reference to a “bright line” underlines the reasons why the standard biological definitions are the only way of unhorsing the so-called biologists at “Scientific” American who are peddling what is no more than egregious Lysenkoism — i.e., “the deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, or socially desirable.”

---

Hello Hippiesq — thanks muchly for getting back to me. I kinda thought you probably had other irons in the fire, though I was a bit apprehensive that I might have offended you or been too harsh. 🙂

And thanks for raising the idea of a "bright line", although I think it makes "no sense" to you — and to many others — because you and they are focused, more or less reasonably, on the direct consequences of transgenderism. However, the wider problem is how transgenderism is corrupting biology in which case the only way of dealing with that is with that "bright line" of yours. I can appreciate that you & they want the "non-functional" definitions for the sexes, but they conflict profoundly and in many ways with the standard biological ones. In which case, promoting the non-functional versions contributes to that corruption.

Apropos of which, you might check out a post by and my conversation with "Ms. M" on her

Two Plus Two

Substack, particularly on the "Scientific" American [SA] article she linked to:

📘 2+2=4 Vol. 11: Anti-women, anti-men, anti-children, anti-human

The SA article — by a couple of so-called "biologists" — makes something of a reasonable point that what we mean by "male" and "female" is a matter of definitions, but they too are apparently but desperately committed to definitions that somehow include transwomen in the female category. There is SOME scientific merit in their arguments — which is why that bright line is so important in unhorsing them — but their closing argument proves them to be peddling what is no more than Lysenkoism — i.e., "the deliberate distortion of scientific facts or theories for purposes that are deemed politically, or socially desirable":

SA: "So, if 'sex' is the answer, what is the question? This is not so clear, and we have no warrant to make authoritative declarations on this issue from a scientific standpoint that is uninformed by ethical, moral or social considerations."

Since when are "ethical, moral, or social considerations" — feelings, in fact — going to be allowed to trump brute "scientific facts and theories"? We might just as well “teach the controversy”, teach creationism as a viable alternative to Darwinian evolution. They, along with Zach Elliott as I’ve mentioned in the original post, are engaging in egregious Lysenkoism:

How is that different from what you are promoting even if you're doing so with the best of intentions? Roads to hell and all that.

Though I do appreciate your concerns with the practical matters of adjudicating claims to access sports leagues, toilets, and the like. But the problem is in connecting definitions for "man" and "woman" to the terms "male" and "female". You either accept that IF you insist on using "male" and "female" as parts of those definitions THEN some third of us are sexless, OR you have to come up with definitions for "man" and "woman" that aren't joined at the hips with "male" and "female".

In the latter case and as I've argued before, one might define "man" and "woman" as "adult humans with gonads [testicles & ovaries] of past, present, or future functionality". Kinda think that part of the problem there is that many people, not just you, seem to think that definitions qualify as gospel truth, and are not just connections between words and facts, connections which can change depending on context. But getting agreement on those definitions, and getting them into the law books is likely to be far less difficult than getting biologists to repudiate their definitions which are based on solid facts and sound principles.

In other news, though somewhat related to this and to our previous conversations, you might have some interest in a recent post at

BROADview by Lisa Selin Davis

. Currently paywalled, but Davis lets through a phrase that you, and I, can probably sympathize with:

LSD (ironic? ...): "Boys and girls can look and act all different kinds of ways."

This Is What Gender Education Should Be

A great many people seem unclear on the difference between "looking and acting in different kinds of ways" — AKA, gender — and BEING "male" or "female" — AKA, being members of the sex categories. But losing sight of what it means to be male and female in the first place — which, not to give you (much 🙂) of a hard time, I think you're contributing to — is what leads to the conflation of sex (reproductive abilities) and gender (traits that typically correlate with our sexes) which is part and parcel of the whole transgender clusterfuck (excuse my French).

Many people, mostly those on the right including people like Matt Walsh, really do seem to think that all of those traits are part and parcel of what it means to be male and female, that those traits are intrinsic to "male" and "female". That, for example, if a "man" isn't out raping and pillaging then he's not a "Real Man (™)". So to speak ...

But that outlook causes no end of problems as we have both, more or less, recognized. As a case in point, you might have some interest in — may even wish to weigh-in on — a conversation I was having with "Rex Landy" (a woman despite the name) over at

Reality Bites

, and her rather "unhinged" responses to me:

https://rexlandy.substack.com/p/where-are-we-9b3/comment/42602522

https://rexlandy.substack.com/p/where-are-we-9b3/comment/42514118

She seems to "think" that me arguing that, for example, there are feminine men means that I'm trying to claim that transwomen are women. Some rather "murky" thought processes there that are also part and parcel of that transgender clusterfuck.

That "bright line" seems the only way of separating wheat and chaff, the only way off the horns of a very serious social dilemma.