You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Science’ tag.
This quote from@prof_curiosity on X: Piaget: The construction of learning
“Piaget viewed children as “little scientists” who actively construct knowledge by testing and refining mental schemas, most often through play. Through assimilation (fitting new experiences into existing schemas) and accommodation (adjusting schemas when they do not fit), driven by equilibration (resolving confusion), children progress through four stages: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operational, and formal operational.Development is a self-motivated process of making sense of the world. Adults naturally introduce their own schemas to children; most are well-meaning and beneficial. However, it is hard to imagine a more destructive schema for young children than that of ‘gender identity.’ Piaget’s theory explains how and why children adopt this adult shortcut to achieve equilibration.Simply it provides easy answers to difficult questions.What transgender ideology offers these playful child scientists is a highly self-destructive, adult schema (construct) wholly unsuitable for their developing, vulnerable minds. This schema, if pushed by significant adults, can easily be assimilated into a child’s learning patterns, providing ready made answers (equilibration) to questions the child would be years away from naturally asking; along with terrible, self-destructive answers to natural self-doubts. Thus, for a toddler girl: “Why do I prefer to play with boys’ things, etc.?” The inserted adult schema answers, “Because you are really a boy.” Of course the correct answer would be, “Because that is who you are” backed up with, “And you are perfect as you are – so carry on playing”.However transgenderism is not interested in children growing into well balanced adults. It targets vulnerable, especially autistic children, with undeveloped schemas who can be convinced that the way to achieve equilibration is to perform “being transgender”. It needs these (trans) children to provide cover for adult autogynephiles.This brilliant application of Piaget’s theory highlights why imposing adult “gender identity” concepts on children short-circuits their natural cognitive development—and why it’s especially harmful for vulnerable groups like autistic kids.”
Evidence backs this up: A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis found a clear overlap between autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and gender dysphoria/incongruence, with autistic youth far more likely to experience it, likely due to challenges with flexible schemas and social understanding.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35596023/The UK’s independent Cass Review (2024) went further: after rigorous systematic evidence reviews, it concluded the evidence for puberty blockers and hormones in minors is weak, with risks (e.g., bone density loss, fertility impacts) outweighing unproven benefits. It recommends extreme caution and holistic care over rapid affirmation.
Full report: https://cass.independent-review.uk/final-report/We must protect children’s natural exploration through play and affirm their bodies as they are. Imposing ideology that locks in confusion isn’t kindness—it’s harm. Prioritize evidence-based therapy and watchful waiting.
Introduction
Despite activist claims that human sex exists on a continuum, biological science tells a different story. Sex in humans is binary, rooted in the immutable organization of the body to produce one of two gamete types: sperm or ova. Disorders of sex development (DSDs) do not blur this binary—they confirm it by illustrating how rare developmental anomalies still adhere to the underlying male or female blueprint. Understanding this distinction is crucial for preserving scientific integrity and fostering honest dialogue about the difference between sex and gender.
1. Sex Is Binary and Immutable
When confronting individuals who assert that human sex constitutes a spectrum due to the existence of disorders of sex development (DSDs), one must begin by clarifying foundational biological truths. Sex in humans is binary and immutable, determined by the organization of reproductive anatomy to produce either small gametes (sperm) or large gametes (ova). This distinction remains fixed from conception and unaltered by developmental anomalies.
This binary framework arises from anisogamy—the biological system in which two and only two gamete types exist. Evolutionary pressures favored this division because it optimizes reproductive success; the fusion of small and large gametes is the only mechanism by which human life continues. Any notion of a “sex continuum” is therefore biologically untenable.
Crucially, sex must not be conflated with gender. Sex is an observable, material reality rooted in chromosomes, hormones, and anatomy. Gender, by contrast, encompasses socially constructed roles, behaviors, and stereotypes arbitrarily imposed on the sexes—norms that often perpetuate hierarchies or restrict personal freedom. Conflating these categories distorts both science and social ethics.
2. What DSDs Actually Are
Disorders of sex development, often mischaracterized as evidence for a sex spectrum, are in fact sex-specific developmental conditions that affirm the binary nature of sex. These rare congenital variations—affecting roughly 0.018 percent of births—involve ambiguities in genital, gonadal, or chromosomal development but align with either male or female pathways, not a third category.
For instance, congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS) both occur in individuals whose biology is oriented toward one sex, with deviations resulting from genetic mutations or hormonal disruptions. These do not create functional intermediates or new reproductive categories.
Such specificity underscores the binary: DSDs are developmental errors within male or female pathways, not the emergence of a new sex. Individuals with DSDs typically produce—or are organized to produce—only one type of gamete if fertile at all. The biological reality of sex, therefore, remains intact and immutable.
3. Why Exceptions Prove the Rule
The argument that DSDs invalidate the binary misconstrues both scientific reasoning and logic. In truth, these exceptions prove the rule by demonstrating the natural order they deviate from. Biological rules are typological but real: their edges may blur, but the underlying structure remains dichotomous.
True hermaphroditism—where an individual possesses both ovarian and testicular tissue—is vanishingly rare and almost always results in sterility or nonfunctional gonadal tissue. Far from undermining the binary, such anomalies illustrate its boundaries and reinforce its robustness.
DSDs represent developmental anomalies with low reproductive fitness, actively selected against by evolution. Their existence shows that the sex binary is the viable and stable norm for human reproduction. Without such exceptions, the binary framework could not be empirically tested or confirmed; their rarity and deleterious effects affirm its validity.
4. The Gamete Criterion: Biology’s Final Word
A decisive refutation of the “sex spectrum” claim lies in the absence of a third gamete type in humans. Human reproduction depends exclusively on the fusion of sperm and ova. No intermediate or alternative gamete exists, confining sex to two categories:
- Male — organized to produce small gametes (sperm)
- Female — organized to produce large gametes (ova)
Even in rare ovotesticular conditions, any functional gametes—if produced—belong to one type, not a hybrid or new category. Evolutionarily, the emergence of a third gamete type would represent an entirely new reproductive strategy, a macroevolutionary shift not observed in any vertebrate species.
This gamete binary, enforced by genetic mechanisms such as imprinting and gonadal inhibition, precludes hermaphroditism and parthenogenesis in humans and other mammals. As such, sex is not a spectrum but a digital dichotomy essential for genetic propagation.
5. Engaging with Honesty and Precision
When engaging those who conflate DSDs with a sex spectrum, redirect the discussion to verifiable evidence rather than ideology. Clarify the distinction between sex’s biological immutability and gender’s social construction. Acknowledge the human dignity of individuals with DSDs while affirming that their existence does not alter the fundamental binary of human sex.
Binary does not mean uniformity. Just as handedness is binary yet exhibits variation, sex is binary but allows for rare deviations that do not create new categories. By citing the gamete criterion and the sex-specific nature of DSDs, one can show that exceptions test and affirm the rule—they do not abolish it.
This approach promotes truthful, constructive dialogue and safeguards scientific discourse from the encroachment of ideological distortion.
References
- Arboleda, V. A., et al. (2014). Disorders of sex development: Revisiting the spectrum. Endocrine Reviews, 35(6), 945–967. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10265381/
- Bachtrog, D., et al. (2014). Sex determination: Why so many ways of doing it? Nature Reviews Genetics, 15(11), 783–797.
- Lee, P. A., et al. (2006). Consensus statement on management of intersex disorders. Pediatrics, 118(2), e488–e500.
- Parker, G. A., Baker, R. R., & Smith, V. G. F. (1972/2011). The evolution of anisogamy: A fundamental change in reproductive biology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 366(1566), 257–270.
- Sax, L. (2002). How common is intersex? Journal of Sex Research, 39(3), 174–178. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12476264/
- National Association of Scholars. (2020). In Humans, Sex Is Binary and Immutable. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable
- City Journal. (2022). Understanding the Sex Binary. https://www.city-journal.org/article/understanding-the-sex-binary
- World Health Organization. (n.d.). Gender and Health. https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender
The scientific revolution, rooted in empirical rigor, propelled humanity’s progress and democratic values. Yet anti-science ideologies—postmodern skepticism and politicized dogmas—undermine this legacy, threatening truth and unity. We must champion evidence to preserve civilization’s gains.
1. The Scientific Revolution: Engine of Progress
In 1633, Galileo faced the Inquisition for defending heliocentrism, yet his empirical rigor helped ignite the scientific revolution. From the 16th century onward, Western thinkers like Copernicus, Newton, and Bacon formalized the scientific method—hypotheses tested by evidence, not enforced by dogma. This wasn’t mere stargazing; it transformed civilization. Innovations such as the steam engine and penicillin doubled global life expectancy from 31 to 73 years (1800–2020). Today, 95% of the world benefits from medical advancements and technologies rooted in Western science.
The scientific method’s transparency reinforced democratic values: peer review mirrors open debate, uniting societies through shared truth. Nations that embrace science lead in prosperity—Germany, for instance, boasts a 0.95 Human Development Index score (UNDP, 2022). Critics may highlight science’s darker uses (e.g., nuclear weapons), but its self-correcting nature—evident in ethical reforms like the Declaration of Helsinki (1964)—demonstrates resilience and integrity. Science is civilization’s telescope: it reveals, refines, and uplifts.
2. The Shadow Spreads: Anti-Science’s Assault on Truth
The scientific revolution’s empirical clarity once united humanity in the pursuit of truth. Yet anti-science ideologies—ranging from postmodern relativism to politicized technophobia—now cloud this vision, prioritizing narrative over evidence.
Postmodern theorists like Jean-François Lyotard characterized science as merely one “Western narrative,” denying its universality and authority. This cultural relativism undermines scientific consensus and fosters distrust. For instance, Europe’s ban on certain genetically modified crops—such as France’s 2014 maize restriction—contradicts consensus reports from the National Academy of Sciences, ultimately hampering agricultural productivity. Similarly, critical science studies rooted in neo-Marxist frameworks recast science as an oppressive capitalist tool, downplaying its global benefits. In 2023, 40% of Americans reported distrusting scientific institutions, according to Gallup.
To be sure, some critiques of scientific institutions—like those revealing undue pharmaceutical influence—raise valid ethical concerns. But wholesale rejection of empirical methods leads to regression. Anti-nuclear activism, for example, often ignores nuclear energy’s dramatically lower emissions—10g CO₂/kWh compared to coal’s 800g (IPCC, 2022). Evidence must guide reform; rejecting it outright smashes the very lens through which civilization observes and corrects itself.
3. The Stakes and a Call to Action
When ideology eclipses evidence, progress falters. From GMO restrictions to energy disinformation, anti-scientific trends impose tangible costs—reduced agricultural efficiency, stalled environmental innovation, and societal fragmentation. Science, responsible for a 73-year average life expectancy and countless civilizational gains, remains democracy’s silent architect.
To safeguard this legacy, we must renew public trust in science:
- Support institutions like the National Science Foundation that fund transparent, peer-reviewed research;
- Advocate for scientific literacy programs, such as California’s SB 1384 (2024), to build public resilience against misinformation;
- Promote fact-based discourse in schools, media, and policymaking.
While ethical scrutiny of scientific applications is essential, dismissing the scientific method itself endangers civilization’s core. Science is not perfect—but it is our most reliable guide. It democratizes knowledge, transcends borders, and illuminates the path forward. Uphold science—and preserve the light.
References
- Galilei, G. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632); Bacon, F. Novum Organum (1620).
- Our World in Data. Life Expectancy. (2020)
- WHO. Global Vaccine Coverage (2022)
- UNDP. Human Development Report (2022)
- World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki (1964)
- Lyotard, J.-F. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (1979). University of Minnesota Press.
- National Academy of Sciences. Genetically Engineered Crops (2016); France GMO Ban (2014)
- Gallup. Trust in Institutions (2023)
- Angell, M. The Truth About the Drug Companies (2004). Random House.
- IPCC. Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change (2022)
No so gentle reminder of the reality of the situation.
The recent ruling against Amy Hamm by the British Columbia College of Nurses and Midwives (BCCNM) is nothing short of a travesty, a glaring assault on free speech and common sense that should leave any reasonable person fuming. Hamm, a nurse and vocal advocate for women’s sex-based rights, was found guilty of “professional misconduct” in March 2025 for stating biological facts and expressing opinions critical of gender identity ideology. Specifically, the disciplinary panel zeroed in on a handful of her online statements—made while identifying as a nurse—deeming them “discriminatory and derogatory” toward transgender individuals. This isn’t just a punishment for Hamm; it’s a warning shot to every professional in Canada: step out of line with the prevailing ideology, and your career could be next. How dare a regulatory body, meant to ensure competence in healthcare, stretch its tentacles into policing personal beliefs expressed off-duty?
What’s particularly infuriating is the absurdity of the tribunal’s reasoning—or lack thereof. One so-called expert reportedly argued that being a woman is a “social identity category rather than a biological reality,” a statement so detached from science it’s laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. Hamm’s crime? Asserting that biological sex is real and matters, especially when it comes to women’s spaces and rights—a position grounded in observable fact, not hate. Yet, the panel chose to side with ideological fantasy over evidence, slapping Hamm with a guilty verdict for daring to speak her mind. This isn’t about protecting anyone; it’s about control, about silencing dissent under the guise of professionalism. The fact that her extensive Twitter posts, where she didn’t explicitly tie her nurse status, were spared only highlights the flimsy, cherry-picked nature of this witch hunt.
The implications of this ruling are chilling, and that’s putting it mildly. If a nurse can be professionally crucified for advocating for women’s rights and biological truth, what hope is there for free discourse in Canada? The BCCNM’s decision doesn’t just harm Hamm—it erodes the freedom of every regulated professional, from doctors to teachers, who now must tiptoe around controversial issues or risk their livelihoods. This is the kind of dystopian overreach that should spark outrage, not apathy. Hamm’s fight isn’t over—she’s hinted at appeals, potentially up to the Supreme Court—and thank goodness, because someone needs to stand up to this madness. We should all be rooting for her, not because we agree with every word she says, but because the principle at stake is too precious to let slip away without a fight.
Need a response to the biology and sex denialists? Use at your leisure.
Human sex is determined by a complex interplay of genetic, hormonal, and anatomical factors, and extensive scientific research supports the view that it is both immutable and binary—male or female—at the biological level. A foundational study by Jost (1947) established that the presence or absence of the SRY gene on the Y chromosome directs the development of gonadal tissue into testes or ovaries, initiating a cascade of hormonal signals that shape sexual differentiation. This process results in distinct reproductive anatomy and gamete production: testes produce small gametes (sperm) in males, while ovaries produce large gametes (eggs) in females. Research published in Nature Reviews Genetics (2001) by Goodfellow and Lovell-Badge reinforces that this genetic switch is fixed at fertilization, with rare exceptions like intersex conditions (e.g., 0.05–1.7% of births per Sinclair et al., 1990) still aligning with male or female developmental pathways rather than constituting a third sex. Once established, these biological markers—chromosomes, gonads, and gametes—remain constant throughout life, unaffected by social identity or medical intervention.
Further evidence for the immutability and binary nature of sex comes from endocrinology and developmental biology. A 2016 study in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism by Bao and Swaab details how prenatal androgen exposure locks in sexually dimorphic brain structures and physiological traits, such as genitalia, which cannot be fully reversed postnatally. While hormone therapies and surgeries can alter secondary sexual characteristics (e.g., breast development or voice pitch), they do not change the underlying chromosomal or gonadal sex. For instance, a 2020 review in Biology of Sex Differences by Arnold highlights that even in transgender individuals undergoing transition, the production of gametes (or lack thereof post-intervention) remains tied to the original sex, underscoring that biological sex is not malleable at its core. This binary framework is evolutionarily conserved across mammals, as noted in Wilson and Reeder’s Mammal Species of the World (2005), with males and females defined by their roles in sexual reproduction.
Opponents might point to gender identity or intersex conditions as challenges to this binary, but research distinguishes between gender as a social construct and sex as a biological reality. A 2018 paper in Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology by Joel et al. explores brain mosaicism—mixtures of “male” and “female” traits—but concludes it operates within a binary reproductive system, not beyond it. Intersex individuals, often cited as evidence of fluidity, typically have disorders of sex development (DSDs) like Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia or Klinefelter Syndrome, yet these are variations within male or female categories, not a spectrum of sexes (Houk & Lee, 2008, Pediatrics). Overwhelmingly, the scientific consensus—spanning genetics (e.g., Science, 2017, McCarthy et al.), anatomy, and reproductive biology—affirms that human sex is an immutable, binary trait rooted in the objective reality of gamete type and chromosomal inheritance, distinguishing it from the fluidity of gender expression.
Colin Wright goes over the study in that demonstrates that DEI training actually increases divisiveness and strife.
“The NCRI study investigated the psychological effects of DEI pedagogy, specifically training programs that draw heavily from texts like Ibram X. Kendi’s How to Be an Antiracist and Robin DiAngelo’s White Fragility. The findings were unsettling, though perhaps not surprising to longstanding opponents of such programs. Through carefully controlled experiments, the researchers demonstrated that exposure to anti-oppressive (i.e., anti-racist) rhetoric—common in many DEI initiatives—consistently amplified perceptions of bias where none existed. Participants were more likely to see prejudice in neutral scenarios and to support punitive actions against imagined offenders. These effects were not marginal; hostility and punitive tendencies increased by double-digit percentages across multiple measures. Perhaps most troubling, the study revealed a chilling convergence with authoritarian attitudes, suggesting that such training is fostering not empathy, but coercion and control.
The implications of these findings cannot be downplayed. DEI programs have become a fixture in workplaces, schools, and universities across the United States, with a 2023 Pew Research Center report indicating that more than half of U.S. workers have attended some form of DEI training. Institutions collectively spend approximately $8 billion annually on these initiatives, yet the NCRI study underscores how little scrutiny they receive. While proponents of DEI argue that these programs are essential to achieving equity and dismantling systemic oppression, the NCRI’s data suggests that such efforts may actually be deepening divisions and cultivating hostility.”
Who would have thought that focusing on differences and promoting guilt would lead to negative outcomes…?
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…