By including "gender identity" WITHIN the definition of "sex", as opposed to making gender identity a separate protected category, all sex-based rights and protections will be based solely on the sex someone merely "identifies" with, regardless of their actual biological sex.
This "study" looked at whether external qigong, an Ancient Chinese practice involving waving your hands over someone to guide "qi energy" through them, could reduce chronic pain.
Might be good to have a sham control, right? Nope! That would impose "Western biomedical concepts"!
What the hell is the point of even doing a study and submitting it to a journal if you refuse to use the methods that would enable you to determine whether or not the effects were real and infer a causal relationship between treatment and outcome?
In humans, as in most animals or plants, an individual’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of sperm or egg cells and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction.
1/ ATTENTION: I posted this tweet following the publication of @AsraNomani's article in Quillette where she first broke news of Kendi's contract. I made a very significant mistake in not allowing Asra to break news of this contract herself on Twitter. She deserves all the credit.
2/ Please read her fantastic essay below where she details the current admissions situation developing at Thomas Jefferson High School, and where she broke the news of Kendi's $20K contract. quillette.com/2020/09/23/ral…
3/ My sincerest apologies to Asra for stealing her thunder on this. She has put in so much work on this project, and deserves 100% of the credit.
To anyone following the story of Thomas Jefferson High that may have new info or leads, please contact @AsraNomani directly!
Fairfax County Public Schools paid Ibram X. Kendi $20,000 for a 45 minute presentation with 15 minutes of Q&A.
Critical Race Theory is an incredibly lucrative industry.
As @razibkhan told me, don't hate the player, hate the game. We need expose the vacuousness of CRT so that schools/companies/institutions are no longer willing to fork over $20K to have a snake-oil salesman like Kendi indoctrinate people over Zoom for 45 minutes.
Let me put it this way. I don't want history education in public schools to be "pro" or "anti" anything. I want it to be accurate. There's a difference between portraying historical events as good or bad (fine) and portraying the USA itself as good or bad (not fine).
What we should stress is that, despite the bad things that have occurred in the past, there has also been a lot of good and moral progress. This is true! While we cannot redo history to purge it of all the bad bits, we can learn from our mistakes and make a better future.
1/ Very pleased to see "Critical Race Theory" called out by name in the highest office. Unfortunately this means Democrats will likely now fully endorse CRT in order to oppose Trump, but this battle of ideas needs to happen. CRT will not hold up well to public scrutiny, IMO.
2/ There are complex costs and benefits associated with forming strategic alliances to combat CRT. I don't pretend to know them all. But, from my perspective, the benefits currently appear to outweigh the costs. This assessment, however, is subject to change with new info.
3/ IMO now is not the time for rigid ideological purity tests. If we want to get things done, we need to be strategic and amass a large coalition of support. And that means temporarily tabling certain issues—important issues—in order to tackle comparatively more important ones.
1/ It should be obvious that when someone has accumulated many thousands of followers, some percentage of them are ALWAYS going to be really shitty people.
When they inevitably rear their ugly heads, people will often say "Wow, look at this following YOU'VE cultivated!"
2/ This line of criticism is tempting but wrong. It's an easy way to convince yourself the person with the large following is bad, and dismiss them and and their arguments wholesale. This urge should be resisted.
3/ I frequently argue with decent people about gender and trans issues, and inevitably receive inflammatory comments and DMs that reflect some variant of "Die TERF scum!"
It's tempting to write off every proponent of gender ideology as containing some drop of this extremism.
Transgender and gender-diverse individuals were 3.03-6.36 times more likely to be autistic and had elevated rates of multiple other neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions than did cis-gender individuals.
2/ This study has huge clinical implications. Clinicians largely treat gender dysphoria (GD) as an independent condition when in reality it is likely a symptom of many underlying comorbidities that go unaddressed.
3/ Treating GD with the single broad brush of social and (frequently) hormonal as well as surgical transition does not address what may be *causing* GD in the first place.
However, due to "conversion therapy" laws being extended to include GD, physicians are often not allowed...
"'Gender critical’ feminists’ arguments often run against (and ignore) decades of feminist theorising on the ontological and epistemic status of ‘womanhood’ and ‘femaleness.’"
...Yeah, because it's absolute trash and doesn't begin to even approximate biological reality.
In science, when your "theorizing" doesn't conform to reality, you don't double-down and insist reality must be as you imagine; you go back to the drawing board and try again. This is the only reliable way to produce knowledge.
1/ Prediction: The "assigned male/female at birth" lingo will become the medical standard due to pressure by activists. It already is in some places. Once adopted, activists will insist these "assignments" are non-consentual—even violent—acts of potential misgendering.
2/ Because of this, activists will demand that medical professionals make no such "assignments" at birth, leaving the birth certificate blank, and allow people to decide for themselves what sex they are later.
It sounds nuts, but I am pretty confident they'll attempt to do this.
3/ I think it's essentially a coin flip as to whether or not they will succeed.
1/ Many people think I claim to have been "canceled." This is not true. I've never claimed this. I chose to leave academia because I believe cancel culture was likely successful in destroying my reputation enough that pursuing a tenure track job would have been a waste of time.
2/ But I wasn't fired. My recent essay described my experience dealing with cancel culture, but I don't maintain that I *was* canceled or that I didn't receive any academic job offers last year and this year because of cancel culture. That may be the case, but I can't prove it.
3/ The worst part about being targeted for cancelation is that the effects are often hidden. There's no way for me to know how many (if any) job interviews I DIDN'T receive because of cancel culture, because NOT getting an interview isn't detectable the same way getting fired is.
1/ If only the biology of sex worked like this. First of all, "male" & "female" are not identities, they're biological sexes. Second, non-binary is not the same as intersex. Third, the vast majority of non-binary people are unambiguously biologically male or female, not intersex.
2/ Fourth, there is no other way to interpret non-binary identities as anything other than not feeling comfortable with regressive stereotypes of masculinity and femininity. Fifth, most people don't live up to, or even strive to be, perfect stereotypes of their sex.
3/ Sixth, this is normal and doesn't make you any less of a male or female.
Seventh (and finally), gender activists should instead expand their understanding of what normal male and female behavior and preferences look like.
1/ Critical Social Justice is so enticing to many because it quite literally stresses the idea that "If you feel it, then it's true." But this is a breeding ground for false positives.
Science, in contrast, stresses the exact opposite: "The easiest person to fool is yourself."
2/ The skeptical approach in science does not eliminate false positives, but it does greatly mitigate them.
This is what makes science more reliable, but it's also what makes it so frustrating!
3/ Learning to not just be OK with being wrong, but to actively seek to debunk yourself at every turn is a hard mentality to cultivate. This is not the default state for our minds. It must be painfully instilled against evolved psychological self defense mechanisms.
1/ The are several ways cancel culture erodes academia:
1. Directly getting people fired for their heterodox views. 2. Getting other academics to stay silent &/or avoid certain questions/topics out of fear. 3. Causing heterodox students to avoid going into academia altogether.
2/ I've seen & received many emails from all of these groups.
This not only puts suffocating limits on the idea space academics are allowed to explore, but also creates a feedback loop that leads to more & more ideological skew over time.
It's an epistemological death spiral.
3/ Before social media/internet university search committees had very limited information about a candidate's political views. Asking such superfluous questions is, rightfully, considered taboo during an interview. If you're hiring a microbiologist, their politics don't matter.
1/ Common dismissal tactic here. No, I will not share private emails sent to me by department chairs in confidence, or out those who I've spoken with on the phone. I don't care if you're convinced. I know what I went through.
2/ Unfortunately it's a lot easier to cancel someone by poisoning their reputation to the point where they have difficulty receiving job offers than it is to outright fire someone in a spectacle.
I can't prove how many interviews or job offers I DIDN'T get because of it.
3/ I can only say that my CV was extremely competitive for my career stage, and in the 2 years and 150 jobs I applied for, I only received 3 phone interviews. Meanwhile woke colleagues with substantially worse CVs received many interviews and job offers.
The above is a tweet I deleted a while back because people were attempting to cancel me for it. It is oversimplified. Social contagion is one plausible explanation, among others, for the dramatic rise in youths claiming to be gender dysphoric.
I regret originally caving to the mob's attempt to cancel me for it. So here it is again. The tweet isn't perfect, but I don't care.
We need to be allowed to tweet imperfections without worrying we'll lose our jobs.
1/ Many scientists, including me, ignored critical theory for so long. It's very hard to believe, as a scientist, that anyone could take it so seriously. It felt akin to Flat Earthism.
Why supply the oxygen of attention when ignoring it should cause it to suffocate on its own?
2/ This is/was very naive. This has happened before during the so-called "Science Wars" of the 90s. This is something I've had to research myself, since somehow this era was never mentioned in any biology class I've ever taken.