.elementor-panel-state-loading{ display: none; }
total-news-1024x279-1__1_-removebg-preview.png

LANGUAGE

SELECT LANGUAGE BELOW

Scientific American pushes claims that science-based critiques of gender ideology are ‘misinformation,’ ‘violence’

Gender ideologues are forcing the Biden administration and many Democrats across the country to dutifully advance their policies at the expense of large numbers of Americans, but apparently that’s not enough. They also seem to want their stories about sex, genital mutilation, and transgenderism to be understood by a broader public.

In order to overcome, or at least circumvent, common sense among the general public, social constructivists have spent the last few decades trying to cloak their reality-defying philosophy in the language of science.

The problem with this approach is that their claims hold no water when exposed to real scientific scrutiny. This has become particularly clear in recent months, when even Britain’s National Health Service has put the brakes on so-called “gender-affirming care.”

Faced with the collapse of their narratives, ideologues have sought to demonize critics and reframe the gender debate. on friday, one such attempt The paper was produced in the pages of Scientific American, a 178-year-old scientific journal published by the German-British Springer Nature Group.

Scientific American published an interview that originally appeared in OpenMind Magazine. OpenMind Magazine is the vehicle of former Discover magazine editor-in-chief Corey Powell, who is said to tackle “disinformation” in the science field.

This interview was originally made possible through a grant from the Pulitzer Center’s aptly titled “The Decline of Truth” initiative, and was based on Powell’s involvement with two transvestites, both self-proclaimed activists. It is configured.
florence ashley and describes herself as a “transfeminine activist, academic, and slut.”and Simon Dou-Quan Suna senior fellow at the Center for Applied Transgender Research in Chicago.

Blaze News previously reported on Mr Ashley. assistant professor A professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Alberta in Canada says that when disorganized children are concerned, “unrestricted social transition and easy access to puberty blockers should be treated as the default option, and we should not accept it.” “Support should be provided to parents who may find it difficult.” their youth. ”

he
claimed In an article on the left-wing blog Truth Out, he said efforts to protect children from irreversible puberty inhibition, genital mutilation and LGBT propaganda are “rooted in racism and white supremacy.”

Ashley also
called For the decriminalization of rape by deception, especially when a transvestite has sex with the victim without showing that she is actually not the woman she is advertised to be.

Sun, unlike Ashley, is actually a qualified scientist and studies neuroplasticity. However, the reliability of his scientific declarations regarding gender ideology may not be entirely scientific.

in
article Last year, Sun co-authored a book with Ashley and asserted that there is no such thing as a male or female brain. Just a few months later, study The paper, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, describes how a group of Stanford Medicine researchers found “highly reproducible findings in human functional brain tissue localized in the default mode network, the striatum, and the limbic network. The researchers said they had identified “generalizable and behaviorally relevant gender differences.”

The structure of the Scientific American interview made it clear that science had taken a backseat and its purpose was political.

Powell’s interview begins with the following statement: “In 2023 alone, more than 500 anti-trans bills will be proposed or adopted in nearly every state in the United States, targeting everything from drag performance to gender-affirming health care to gender-equal school policies.” Support for transgender people has been enabled and driven by scientific misinformation, a painful and infuriating public that would otherwise be broadly sympathetic or at least unsure of where it stands. It has been proven to be a very effective tool. ”

After recycling the suggestion that the science informing laws against gender mutilation is “disinformation,” Scientific American goes on to comment on the notion that there are “only two sexes” (referred to in this article as “gender essentialism”). ) recycled Sun’s suggestion that it was “completely wrong”. About the biology of how sexual characteristics arise. ”

“The fallacy is simply that gametes are the determinant of sex. Once you know what kind of gametes a person produces, that is that person’s sex, and there is nothing you can do to change that. I can’t,” Sun argued. “But biology is a dynamic system in which organisms begin in a particular state and grow throughout life and development as multiple systems interact. So, more precisely, how sex works. That is, sex essentialism boils all this down to one immutable characteristic and cannot eliminate “transness as a biological phenomenon.” ”

Ashley says, “People who use ideas about biological sex against trans people first appeal to the idea of ​​biology as an explanation for difference, but then they take the leap and consider that uses biological concepts as forms of meaning.” The important thing is that we organize our societies around meaning, not difference. The essence of biology cannot explain what is important to human tissues. ”

“We should seriously ask what we are interested in, and then find out whether biology has anything to say about it.” If you look, you’ll see that biology actually has very little to nothing to say about anything, like transgender rights,” Ashley added.

The Canadian activist further implied that when scientists interpret empirical results in a way that undermines transgender narratives, they are committing “epistemological violence.”

“Epistemic violence occurs when a researcher or someone else interprets empirical results in a way that devalues, pathologizes, or harms a marginalized group. This is despite the fact that there are comparable or better explanations for the same data,” Ashley said.

“We should try to interpret the data in a way that is compatible with inclusion and well-being, if that’s an appropriate interpretation as well,” Ashley said in an interview.

The interview ended with a call to shut down the unwanted speech.

“When you see misinformation and hate popping up around you, shut it down,” Ashley told Powell. “Oftentimes we don’t like confrontation, so we let misinformation stand. Whenever an issue comes up, people need to start speaking out. And shout it out. We , we’re in an ecosystem where anti-trans voices are trying to portray themselves as “people need to speak up to counteract the impression of a silent majority.”

Being a scientific American
Claim It strives to “share trustworthy knowledge” and “deepen understanding,” and shows that it is also committed to “advancing social justice.” The weight of these efforts does not seem to be equal.

Do you like Blaze News? Avoid censorship and sign up for our newsletter to get articles like this delivered straight to your inbox. Please register here!

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Reddit
Telegram
WhatsApp