If you’ve been reading Scientific American over the past several years, you may have noticed that it’s taken a bit of a dip in quality. Well, more like a nosedive, actually. It’s a straight-up hot mess now.
Scientific American is publishing more and more partisan garbage dressed up as science
It is embarrassing to watch the scientific community debase themselves at the altar of their political gods pic.twitter.com/cK0hPpekOc
— PoliMath (@politicalmath) August 25, 2022
It’s pretty much all partisan garbage these days. Woke partisan garbage, if we’re gonna get technical about it.
Like, take a look at this recent offering from the once-reputable pro-science publication:
Before the late 18th century, Western science recognized only one sex—the male—and considered the female body an inferior version of it. The shift historians call the “two-sex model” served mainly to reinforce gender and racial divisions by tying social status to the body. (6/7) pic.twitter.com/x8KZ5rEaeW
— Scientific American (@sciam) August 24, 2022
There’s are several tweets about intersexuality that precede that one, but it’s that tweet that really grabbed our attention. Hopefully it’s grabbing yours, too. Because it’s so effing stupid. In fact, it’s quite possibly one of the effingest stupidest things we’ve read recently, and that’s really saying something.
Previously — just this past April, actually — Scientific American said that physicians and psychologists in the 1950s had to deal with the crisis of not knowing what made people male or female. We knew that was BS, of course. But while we’d say it was BS because it’s completely insane and totally made-up, Scientific American would tell us that since April, they’ve discovered that the inability to distinguish between male and female actually dates back from anytime before the late 18th century.
Recommended
Scientific American should probably just drop the “Scientific” part from their name. They’ve lost the right to use it.
LOL whaaaaaaaaaa? https://t.co/jTBzvIJbdC
— Nathan Wurtzel (@NathanWurtzel) August 26, 2022
This isn’t actually true at all. https://t.co/twGrehqzvl
— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) August 26, 2022
Fake News, Scientific American. Fake. News.
Can anybody explain why early human societies in east Africa were matrilineal if gender originated in 18th century europe?
— Duckspeaker (@DuckSpeaker2020) August 26, 2022
What year was The Canterbury Tales written
— Chris Nodima 🍄 (@chrisnodima) August 26, 2022
Yes, it all changed when the book of Genesis was published in the 19th century.
— Frederik (@FredUnbound) August 26, 2022
For millenia, humans have recognised 2 sexes. Male and female. If this is the quality of your science, I look forward to your upcoming editions on crystal healing, alchemy and scrying.
— A womb with a view KPSS 🇺🇦 (@babygothbear) August 26, 2022
Should be some real page-turners!
historical revisionism happening before our eyes to justify mutilating children https://t.co/S2OsZtdeo8
— Kaya the redneck geisha (@kayatweetsstuff) August 26, 2022
*Historical and scientific revisionism.
So many levels of nonsense in this @sciam tweet. They have totally succumbed to postmodernist horsecrap. https://t.co/3LiUn7eg2M
— Andy 🇺🇦 (@lecanardnoir) August 26, 2022
Every part of this is made up and designed to dupe the sub-60 IQ crowd. Which means that it will dupe quite a lot of people, sadly.
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) August 26, 2022
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member