We never thought we’d see the day when Science magazine would turn out to be a misnomer. But here we are.
Science published a letter on December 23 from three people, one of whom goes by “Simón(e),” entitled “Transgender rights rely on inclusive language.”
The title of the letter lets you know pretty much exactly what you’re in for.
A new letter in @ScienceMagazine deploys the Univariate Fallacy to obfuscate around the nature of biological sex:
"No one trait determines whether a person is male or female, and no person’s sex can be meaningfully prescribed by any single variable."https://t.co/sdBaeKLN9A pic.twitter.com/dj8yr0qhTR
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 27, 2021
To highlight the problem with a statement like this, note that it is also true that no *single* trait determines whether an organism is a human or a chimpanzee, or a dog or a cat. Yet humans and chimps and dogs and cats are unambiguously distinct, and we don't pretend otherwise.
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 27, 2021
They also claim that "sex is a context-dependent summary of a multidimensional variable space."
Sorry, no. The sex of an individual is based on their reproductive anatomy and is determined by the type of gamete this anatomy is organized around, through development, to produce.
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 27, 2021
A person's sex is completely unambiguous >99.98% of the time. They're trying to confuse you.
For more on the Univariate Fallacy and how it is used to fool you on a multitude of issues, take a look at my thread below. I think you'll find it illuminating. https://t.co/sNTu6gh8AU
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 27, 2021
Two of the authors of the letter are affiliated with the Center for Applied Transgender Studies in Chicago. So it makes sense that they’d go to bat pretty hard for the idea that sex depends on context.
That doesn’t change the fact that they’re peddling anti-scientific nonsense. Here’s how the letter concludes:
As scientists, we must push back against the misappropriation of biological terms by promoting precise language that focuses on the variables themselves (e.g., “menstruating people”) and acknowledging that people express these variables in ways that may not conform with a binary system of sex or gender. This both creates a more inclusive environment for gender-diverse scientists and reinforces that sex is a context-dependent summary of a multidimensional variable space.
The irony of them playing the “as scientists” card right before encouraging language like “menstruating people” is not lost on us.
China is laughing at the US. https://t.co/31Vh5cBasI
— Ian Miles Cheong @ stillgray.substack.com (@stillgray) December 27, 2021
Somehow people in China didn't need to perform complex multivariate analyses in order to determine whether fetuses were female before aborting them under their "1 Child" policy.
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) December 27, 2021
Excellent point.
If they rely on "inclusive language" there's very little to go by, really. Especially when it obfuscates the reality.
— Jay (@jayteaseejtc) December 27, 2021
It's almost like science, that great methodological and epistemological triumph of humanity, needs to rest on a deeper and more solid foundation to function properly, a foundation of common sense, realism, humility, and gratitude. Remove it, and science collapses into sophistry.
— Philip Toman (@choratech) December 27, 2021
“Science” is a term that is fast losing its meaning.
"Science" is not what it used to be.
— Kris_Kelvin_laChula_Ваше Величество (@Kris41162339) December 27, 2021
Scientism now. Heard a term new to me, "warrior scientists " which seemed to mean of ideological persuasion.
— StoicMom 💜🤍💚 (@girlintact) December 27, 2021
