On the NIH's proposal to "study sex as a non-binary construct" at taxpayer expense (thread--link to submit commentary to NIH at end):
"Sex IS a binary construct for humans, and most of our species' close and distant relatives. If one produces the large gamete, one is female; ...
"Sex IS a binary construct for humans, and most of our species' close and distant relatives. If one produces the large gamete, one is female; ...
2/...if one produces the small gamete, one is male. There has never been a third human gamete; there is no spegg. No human has ever resulted from the union of any two gametes other than sperm and egg.
...
...
3/ That a putatively scientific organization should be "investigating sex as a non-binary construct" means that the organization is no longer scientific, putatively or actually.
If NIH is going to be a purveyor of the psueodscience and pseudoreligion of nonfalsifiable...
If NIH is going to be a purveyor of the psueodscience and pseudoreligion of nonfalsifiable...
4/...mind-body mismatch, floating brain-sexed souls, and surgical flagellation of gender-corrupt flesh, that's of no consequence to anyone so long as it correctly labels itself a religious institution and exits the realm of public fundind and governnment authority....
5/ But if it's going to be the pseudoscience arm of an established state gender religion, then it should be defunded and disbanded.
www8.nationalacademies.org/pa/feedback.as…
www8.nationalacademies.org/pa/feedback.as…
@threadreaderapp unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
