It has been deemed as unscientific to say that a person’s genitals determines their sex. Genes, too, have been disallowed as scientific evidence. Nature says so, and they are the preeminent science authority in the world.
How long before we see a geneticist, with black eyes and swollen face, of his own “free will”, announce on the slave-control box that he denounces the unscientific belief in sexual reproduction?
Well, if neither genitals or genes count, what does determine sex, or gender, then?
Does it matter? Once we disallow the truth, what differences does the lie that replaces it make? None, if the goal is getting people to accept the lie not because it’s a lie, but because it isn’t the truth.
We know that’s definitely the goal here when they say, “The idea that science can make definitive conclusions about a person’s sex or gender is fundamentally flawed.”
Now, brothers and sisters, I ask you how you came to be here today. Not to this site, which is the sure choice of all wise men and women. No: how did you yourself come to be? If you don’t know, ask your mother and father.
The answer they supply you with would have, until last week, have been deemed a definite scientific conclusion about your parents’ sex.
No longer, bigots.
Nature, true their new post-scientific selves, did not stop with calling sexual reproduction an affront to equality, and a denial of those who cannot use the “lavatory of their choice”. No, sir. They also want all scientific research teams to increase their sexual diversity.
Diversity in gender expression, which is to say, in variations of non-reproductive simulated sexual activities, “helps to produce stronger research”.
You bigot. That’s how. (There’s a paper behind this, naturally, which if I can read through without retching, we’ll analyze on another day.)
They say “Scientists must also analyse how sex and gender shape the questions they ask and the methods they use to reach scientific insights”.
Borrowing from Wikipedia’s open physics problems page, is it possible to construct, in the mathematically rigorous framework of algebraic QFT, a theory in 4-dimensional spacetime that includes interactions and does not resort to perturbative methods from a team of penisless scientists identifying as male?
What relationship is there between lesbians who occasionally like men and Standard Model bosons and the set of all gauge superpartners?
Can we say why is gravity such a weak force? Does it have anything to do with all men being potential rapists?
Can the acceptance of necrophilia as a sexual orientation answer whether the mass of neutrinos follow Dirac or Majorana statistics?
“The question is no longer what the benefits of diversity are, but how we can best support the potential benefits of diversity,” says one of the Perspective’s authors, Mathias Wullum Nielsen, who studies gender in science at Aarhus University in Denmark. For example, he says, newcomers to a scientific field often ask original research questions. And, although friction can arise from different perspectives and ideas in research teams, those same approaches can spark innovative endeavours.
The logical mistake, one common in our Current Year, is equating original with good. How adding those with gender dysphoria to a team of quantum chemists will increase the rate of good questions about reaction rates is supposed to work we are not told. We are never told. It is accepted as true. It is insisted upon.
Yet it’s a better bet injecting mentally confused individuals onto research teams will only increase unique questions, not good ones.
Nature closes—the very last sentence!—with one purported benefit: “almost half of the proposals submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research in 2011 included gender and sex analysis.”
Did you really think science could hold out forever against the forces of insanity and doom (to coin a phrase) that have gripped Western progressives?