Posted on 04/23/2024 9:25:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Scientific American has published a piece claiming that “misinformation,” such as the notion that there are only two sexes, is “being used against transgender people” and in order to target “gender-affirming medical care.”
The article states that there are three types of “misinformation,” and they are “oversimplifying scientific knowledge, fabricating and misinterpreting research, and promoting false equivalences.”
Three types of misinformation are being used against transgender people: oversimplifying scientific knowledge, fabricating and misinterpreting research, and promoting false equivalences. https://t.co/1AOp6Bk6A2 — Scientific American (@sciam) April 20, 2024
The piece asserts that “Many of the arguments against trans rights center on the idea that transness itself is not legitimate - that there are just two sexes, period.”
There are only two sexes though.
It then turns to ‘scientist’ Simón(e) Sun, a self described trans(sexual) ándrógýne \ (neuro)biologist, pronouns in bio person and notes “You describe this idea as ‘sex essentialism.’ Can you explain that term, and talk about how it shapes the debate.”
They/she then states “Essentialism is the idea that you can take any phenomenon that is complex and distill it down to a particular set of traits. In the case of sex essentialism, the idea is that you can sufficiently describe sex by a few particular characteristics. In this debate, it used to be chromosomes, now it’s gametes (egg and sperm cells).”
Yeah, that is biology 101 and no matter how many times they/she says it’s changed and that anyone who doesn’t agree is a ‘transphobe’, it hasn’t.
Few things better demonstrate how reliant anti-trans advocates are on pseudoscientific disinformation than the desperate replies to this post. https://t.co/o1mSsWNgy5— Simón(e) Sun, PhD \ simonesun.bsky.social (@simonedsun) April 21, 2024
They/she continues, “The target is always moving, because if you want to make something binary, then you need to find the most binary characteristic. Today, sex essentialism boils all of sex down to the gametes that a person produces.”
Again, biology 101.
“But biology is just not that simple,” Sun continues, adding “The sex essentialist perspective is completely wrong about the biology of how sex characteristics arise.”
It is that simple though.
The piece goes on in this vein, throws in ‘hate’ and ‘prejudice’ and climate change and Donald Trump, all to push the ideological agenda that life-altering drugs and surgeries shouldn’t be challenged.
Men can’t be lesbians and gay kids don’t need to be chemically castrated. — Chris {∜} (@ChrisFourOhFour) April 21, 2024
How are you not bankrupt yet?
I mean financially, we can all see how ethically bankrupt you are. — Billy Bragg (@Serena_Partrick) April 21, 2024
No. We just know it's impossible to change sex. That's all. Now, be off with you. — Dr P (@Psychgirl211) April 21, 2024
Oh dear. Your magazine doesn't merit its title. — Clive Simpson (@QueensSpeechUK) April 21, 2024
Oh look at you, using all three of those “misinformation” techniques to push a completely false ideology — Dr Alan Bleaching. PpDc DPhil(a) (@alanbleaching) April 21, 2024
This publication is ideologically captured. — EvanC137 (@EvanC137) April 20, 2024
There was a time when Scientific American was focused on science, and not ideologically-driven spin in the name of social justice.
Can we get that back please? — Kevin in Canada (@kjbrosha) April 20, 2024
Modern science — in the name of progress — has gone from trying to understand reality to denying it altogether.
Scientific progressivism is a religion. Don't be fooled by the fact that its priests wear lab coats. https://t.co/7VQnvuW2JQ — Seth Dillon (@SethDillon) April 20, 2024
@sciam is ideologically captured thus is not a serious publication. “Misinformation” is a label given by the ideologically captured for opinions they don’t like. — JLRed (@JLRed5) April 20, 2024
Maybe you guys should check out alchemy and do an article or two about how awesome and scientifically accurate it is.
Horoscopes too. — Cynical Publius (@CynicalPublius) April 21, 2024
One type of misinformation is being used to prop up transgender ideology: Denial of the fact that there are only two biological sexes.
You're complicit in the erasure of women. Congratulations. — Pardon My Mess (@PardonMyMess) April 20, 2024
I got to:
“The sex essentialist perspective is completely wrong about the biology of how sex characteristics arise,” realised your entire article is based on making statements while offering zero counter argument facts and decided not to waste my time.@scisci is a joke.🤡 — Heavy Lies The Crown (@CrownOnMyFrown) April 21, 2024
A tactic trans ideologues use is pretending a pseudoscience is “elevated science” people just “don’t understand.” Science uses categories and classifications, like sex, to organize. Human sex is binary and immutable. Science does not mean something must be difficult to categorize — Two Genders One Truth (@2genders1truth) April 21, 2024
All of this comes in the wake of a major long term study in the UK that concluded that treatment gender-confused children have been offered was built entirely on “shaky foundations” and that there is “no good evidence to support the global clinical practice of prescribing hormones to under-18s to pause puberty or transition to the opposite sex.”
The author of the review, retired consultant paediatrician Dr Cass, formerly the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics, called the evidence for life altering drugs “remarkably weak” and warned that transgender activists are the ones “deliberately spread(ing) misinformation.”
Since the review was published, Cass has been subject to abuse and cannot use public transport over fears for her safety.
Gender report author cannot travel on public transport over safety fears
Full story ⬇️
https://t.co/FpfxdP3FX4 — Sky News (@SkyNews) April 20, 2024
Meanwhile, trans activist groups continue to push their propaganda on children, encouraging teachers and school officials to keep it hidden from the parents:
—
* * *
Another once valuable publication bites the dust...
Trust the science.
“Scientific American”
Neither scientific, nor American.
For a while now, the publication is no longer “scientific” nor “American”...
Wheeeew!
Yeah, because so many dangerous 'cis-centric' thugs read "Scientific American". and are so incensed that they sought out photos of 'it' and circulate them among their militia, in hopes of somehow riding the same bus as the author. and beating 'it' up.
These people are ludicrous.
SA continues to be neither.
EEEEEEEEeeeeeewwwwwwwwwwww......
Cut that out.....
When there are no absolutes to govern society, society is absoute. Another case in point.. Franciss Schaeffer
Scientific American is a liberal rag for fags and freaks. I can’t believe I used to subscribe to that POS and read every issue from cover to cover when I was going to “college”.
Scientifically, there are people who are hermaphrodites according to their genes, BUT few of the self-identifying trans alphabet crown are that. Statistically, hermaphrodites are quite rare.
SA was GREAT in the 60s and early 70s.
It has flushed itself since.
I still subscribe to Fate Magazine which now surpasses Scientific American in respectability after this nonsense.
https://www.biblio.com/book/fate-magazine-true-stories-strange-unknown/d/741798235#gallery-1
This and Beyonce being the longtime Mother of Country Music is the crap you get when the politicians start legalizing drugs.
NOT Scientific American bit the dust way back in the late 60’s, early 70’s!
I canceled my subscription in 1972, it got so trashy that it was just unreadable!
Almost every article was “POLITICALLY MOTIVATED” and just plain crap scientifically.
Bunch of damn communist perverts.
You sure that wasn’t MAD magazine?
Aaannnnndddddd...... the insanity continues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
