The nearly 150-year-old magazine, Nature, just disgraced itself by signing onto the left-wing PCism that there are 57 genders and not just, you know, the two defined by actual science.
Founded in 1869, Nature ended its century and a half of dedication to science with one idiotic editorial. The op-ed led to this tweet:
“Editorial: The US Department of Health and Human Services proposes to establish a legal definition of whether someone is male or female based on the genitals they are born with. This proposal has no foundation in science and should be abandoned.”
Editorial: The US Department of Health and Human Services proposes to establish a legal definition of whether someone is male or female based on the genitals they are born with. This proposal has no foundation in science and should be abandoned. https://t.co/GakJypiEED
take our poll - story continues belowCompleting this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.Trending: Stanford Tried to Force Frat to Remove U.S. Flag, But the Frat’s Reply Was Amazing
— nature (@nature) November 20, 2018
The magazine is incensed that the Trump administration is proposing to return federal policy back to the idea that human beings are made in one of two genders. Not 57, like the left has been claiming of late.
But the science-denying Nature now says that gender is a “construct,” or something.
According to the outrageous editorial:
The proposal — on which HHS officials have refused to comment — is a terrible idea that should be killed off. It has no foundation in science and would undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour. Worse, it would undermine efforts to reduce discrimination against transgender people and those who do not fall into the binary categories of male or female.
Folks on Twitter had a blast destroying the science deniers at Nature.
To say "this proposal has no foundation in science" is nonsense.
The genitals one is born with show overwhelming correlation with one's self-assessed gender, as predicted by evolutionary theory.
If we grant Nature's claim, we condemn the study of complex phenomena to a dark age https://t.co/I3gPra3lYa
— Bret Weinstein (@BretWeinstein) November 20, 2018
Actually, it is derived 100% from science. Arguments for fluid or multiple genders is sociological and political, I mean unless the physical sciences were unable to pin it down even after mapping the genome and all
— Jeremy Palo (@scoobs2254) November 20, 2018
Is there a geneticist in the house? Someone please explain to the editors what a Y chromosome is and what its function is.
— Travis Fields (@calitrav) November 20, 2018
It's correct for 99.6% of people though, so its scientific validity is pretty high. "No foundation in science" is a gross exaggeration, that seems to cater to the political instead of science.
— Joost (@jw_twitt) November 20, 2018
Its even higher than that. Genuine intersex people are 0.05% of the populace. The others are simply those with natural variation in reproductive organ size at birth.
— Swiftdasher (@swiftdasher) November 20, 2018
… and Captain obvious added:
This article is political opinion and has no place in a scientific magazine
— Defender of Truth (@billpu63) November 20, 2018
Follow Warner Todd Huston on Twitter @warnerthuston.
Join the conversation!
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.