We're accustomed to this kind of nonsense, but Nature is the most prestigious scientific journal, in a general sense, and has spawned a whole family of journals, with names like Nature Reviews Cancer. Perhaps they should review their own editorial page, which is cancer. Here is a current screenshot of just what I was able to fit in a browser window. Political agendas have been underlined in red.
America needs open borders, Palestine should receive more foreign aid, Brexit is scary, and Democrats gaining the US House is a "welcome change." It's all liberal politics. Nature is effectively a converged institution, meaning its primary purpose is as a political weapon, and second being whatever its original purpose was. However, it currently still maintains a dominant position in the realm of academic prestige. In this list of the top scientific journals in the world, 20 of the top 50 are variants of Nature. So their editorials and opinions are the opposite of obscure: they represent the de facto mainstream academic consensus.
When liberals proclaim that a genital-centric definition of gender "has no basis in science," they are celebrating the logical framework they've created in which all counterarguments are automatically invalid. That is because they have already decided that gender is a nonscientific construct. There seem to be about three different ways that gender might be described. One is biological, or genital-centric. That is the way science approaches all animals besides humans. We note that, while the number of human genders stands at 96 and counting, the number of chimpanzee genders - our closest extant relatives - remains steadfast at two. A second way would be to measure behavioral characteristics and use clustering algorithms to determine genders. This would help solve some open and valid gender questions, such as why soyboys like Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg are biologically men but and talk and act like girls. The third way is that gender is whatever you want it to be. It is a social construct, and thus there is not objective input from science as to what gender is.
It is, of course, the third option that liberals have adopted. How do they defend their anti-scientific positions? With science! Take ownership of the top scientific journals, and you can decide what science is and isn't. We note here - often - that for liberals the term democracy just means the things that they like. Similarly, science just means the things they think are right, and won't allow you to question. So here they claim that science doesn't support a traditional interpretation of how gender should be defined. Of course it doesn't! They themselves define gender as a thing not rooted in science. So there is no way any gender theory could have a foundation in science. The obvious question, then, is what is the scientific foundation of genders like ambigender or otherkin? Or, how are there 96 valid genders and one of them is bi- (meaning two) sexual? The obvious answer is that there won't be an answer. Science is just a blunt political object for bludgeoning WrongThinkers, no longer a tool for sifting out objective truth.
My kindergartener has finally mastered Simon Says. The topmost liberal academics now operate at a similar intellectual level. Suggest that gender might have something to do with biology? Science didn't say that! You're out, you don't get to play the game any more.
No comments:
Post a Comment