Ideology v science
Different moves, different grooves. Stands to reason, don’t it.
Here, @laurahelmuth, the editor-in-chief of @sciam is claiming that different behaviours (aggressive v nurturing) equals different sexes.
Seriously. She’s arguing that an aggressive male sparrow is a different sex to a nurturing male sparrow. https://t.co/hPnXrtGf8S
— Emma Hilton (@FondOfBeetles) May 17, 2023
White-throated sparrows have four chromosomally distinct sexes that pair up in fascinating ways
P.S. Nature is amazing
P.P.S. Sex is not binary https://t.co/NJhQI6uC0q via @audubonsociety— Laura Helmuth (@laurahelmuth) May 17, 2023
Once again, ideology distorts science: the editor-in-chief of Scientific American flubs big time, wrongly asserting that sparrows have four sexes. https://t.co/J3HddoJFjA
— Emma Hilton (@FondOfBeetles) May 18, 2023
Two sexes. Four genders. Seems about right when we consider that gender is performative behaviour.
However, do not tell the esteemed author that she is wrong or that birds are not mammals. Instant Twitter block for those who do.
Do see Jerry Coyne’s writeup on this:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/05/18/once-again-ideology-distorts-science-the-editor-in-chief-of-scientific-american-flubs-big-time-wrongly-asserting-that-sparrows-have-four-sexes/
He’s not a fan.
The last bit of the post includes a link to Jerry Coyne’s writeup, under the birdy image. He’s definitely not a fan (but also not a fan of saying Helmuth should be fired). (How about a lateral move? Same kind of job and salary but not…that job?)
Peter: Went to the Jerry Coyne article you cited at #2, and I can see the attraction for Scientific American readers. This puts them in the box seat watching a discovery roll out that is at least as profound as any since the day Archimedes ran naked down that street in his home town. I mean, we have only 31 years to go to the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s Origin of the Species. If the numbers of sexes, genders or whatyoumaycallems keeps doubling at this rate, they will soon outnumber the stars in the night sky.
SciAm has been a laughingstock for many years now. It was once a decent pop-science educational mag, but then with a big change in the editorial staff (about a decade ago, I think?) they started pushing nonsense like this. Truly a shame.
SciAm used to be really good and I enjoyed their podcasts. Then they started getting really loose about stuff and their staff started making all sorts of pronouncements that were actually off base with the science. I stopped listening. It wasn’t that it was a constant issue, but it was often enough that I lost trust in them to present the science well.
A lot of formerly scientific things have gone that way. It’s about money. The real science is a harder sell than the offbeat or the fun.
We have a Bigfoot museum in town; the paper writes about it regularly as though it was something to be proud of because people are coming to see it from out of town.
She’s arguing that an aggressive male sparrow is a different sex to a nurturing male sparrow.
Helmuth is treading on thin ice; you could use this same behavioural argument to say that aggressive TiMs are not women. Not that that’s not the real reason they’re not women (that’s covered by the whole being men thing), but how can anyone miss this usage of sexist behavioural expectations? If aggression in women is “unladylike,” how come TiMs get to indulge in bullying and violence and still claim to be women on the strength of wardobe and cosmetics?
Ugh, this is the sort of thing that gets my students a 1/5 score on a test question. I mean, you’ve got enough info there for some part marks, but totally missed the main point and didn’t actually answer the question.
There’s so much digital ink on this red herring about sex. It’s sophistry in addition to a distortion of science. Even if other animals have more than two sexes, if the point is to prove that humans can change sex with a couple of hormones and a snip and a stitch of sexual and secondary organs, then what does that have to do with sparrows’ behavior? Or a slime mold with 739 sexes? It’s a distraction from the claim that a body can have a different gender identity than it’s actual physical sex, on which the whole house of cards is built.
There’s nothing that can be done to change a human’s sex and sex is simple to differentiate in humans. When they argue and pull out this phony science, the purpose is to confuse and conflate garbage in order to achieve their aims. What their aims are is clear, is to reduce the social role of women by driving them out of public spaces, taking away sports and re-attaching the urinal leash. It’s the man-child backlash against feminist gains (such as they are) over the last century. *
I’ve been thinking much lately about how science is misused by the media and by propagandists. It’s not allowed to search for truth and understanding. It’s being used to prove a point but with sleight-of-hand that one must be on the look out to see. This is why we need our skeptics, why we are lucky to have you and a few others, Ophelia, looking for where the illusionists are hiding the cards in their sleeve.
* I think that for women who ID as trans and take the drugs and yeet, there is an element of wanting to be able to escape from womanhood, and it’s a big red sign of how misogynistic the whole enterprise is. It’s regressive towards gender stratification, rather than a way to reduce gender’s power.
I saw that tweet and learned that I am blocked by the Editor in Chief of Scientific American.
I can’t decide whether that’s a good or a bad thing.
Mike @ 10
I think the implicit point of something like this silliness with the sparrows is to establish “male” and “female” as having to do with behavior (or appearance) rather than reproduction, making it easier to make the case for humans.
Once again confusing “how do we tell if an individual is female?” with “what is ‘female’?”.
Yes. Anyone who uses any of this “science” is not arguing in good faith, but trying to muddy things up rather than clarify them. Here are some suggested responses:
“What about intersex?” Humans have only two sexes; there is no third sex, no third gamete and no intermediate “between” the two sexes. The preferred term is DSD; using “intersex” and appropriating the “assigned [sex] at birth phraseology that originated with people having this condition is a shitty thing to do. FUCK OFF.
“What about Clown Fish?” Humans aren’t fish; mammals can’t change sex. Learn some biology. FUCK OFF.
“Sexual development is complicated! There’s chromosomes, and gametes, and organs…etc.” Human growth and development, however complex, are aiming towards the goal of producing a male or female of the species. Yes, sometimes things can go wrong, but that doesn’t invalidate the existence or definition of either sex, or of sex itself. Sometimes people are born with non-standard numbers of limbs or digits; that doesn’t throw into doubt the definition of humans as bipedal organisms with two legs and two arms, with five digits on the end of each. Developmental problems do not vitiate the existence of the normal, developmental endpoints. Nobody uses the same argument to claim we can’t say just how many limbs and digits humans have. Edge cases don’t remove meaning from the definition; in fact edge cases can be very instructive, but not in the way genderists hope. Abnormal development itself follows rules and pathways; they do not constitute any sort of intermediate result that was the “intended” goal all along. FUCK OFF>
This could probably be turned into a flow chart. I’m sure there are a number of other stupid “arguments” I’ve missed, but you’ve got the picture.
Exactly. However much one tries to dilute or confuse the concept of sex, these efforts do absolutely nothing to support the idea of being born in the wrong body. It’s like creationists doing their damnedest to discredit evolution without offering a shred of evidence for their view that the entire universe was created by their favoured supernatural being in seven days. Given that gender ideology is dependent on the existence of what amounts to a gendered “soul” and unacknowledged, revivified Cartesian dualism, appeals to issues involving material reality seem beside the point. And they are, and are meant to be. This is not argumentation or justification, it’s throwing shit against the wall and hoping some will stick.
Sackbut, if they want to determine sex by behavior, then these trans activists are definitely NOT women. They are aggressive in a male way, not in a female way (to use the stereotypes of the species they claim they are invalidating). They mean again that we are supposed to take them at their word – they are fragile, nurturing, loving, caring individuals…even when they are carrying a sign with a guillotine and Kill TERFs. Because that is the loving, nurturing thing to do to someone you disagree with, I suppose.
Sums it up neatly.