Of all the absurd and ill-informed clichés being parroted by today’s politicos, the notion of science as a saber wielded exclusively by the left is among the most laughable.
Fear mongering over GMOs and absurd arguments about when life begins (and should end) have done plenty to damage the left’s scientific street cred.
But liberals’ willful scientific ignorance has now gone stratospheric with arguments surrounding sex and gender that grow more outlandish seemingly by the hour. In fact, the “party of science” now appears fully prepared to slaughter its most sacred cow: evolution.
Long before squabbles over the thickness of polar ice caps, the debate over the origins of life, and more specifically mankind, pitted religious conservatives against more science-minded folk.
This early flashpoint in the culture war was long heralded as a quintessential victory by the secular left and helped to establish evolution as scientific “fact” for much of the country. And in many ways provided the precursor for liberals’ current claims of scientific ownership — claims now being abandoned for the sake of social justice.
Regardless of one’s own views toward evolution, the irony of the left eating its own, on what was once sacred secular ground, is undeniably rich.
Consider the progressive crusade to have logically minded people acknowledge a seemingly infinite number of genders (Facebook recognizes 58 last time I checked), or the idea that sex and gender can be turned off and on like a light switch, both of which grossly contradict accepted evolutionary theory.
Of course, liberals attempt to skirt this inconvenient truth by declaring sex and gender separate concepts, but the laws of nature recognize no such distinction; in fact, the literal definition of “gender” is “the state of being male or female,” and attempts to account for such a separation have instead found that:
The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex — that a person might be “a man trapped in a woman’s body” or “a woman trapped in a man’s body” — is not supported by scientific evidence.
The process of sex itself exists solely for the sake of reproduction, not for convenient cultural identity. And when it comes to 99 percent of all multicellular species, humans included, sexual reproduction (involving both sexes) is the preferred method for a very good reason.
While asexual reproduction offers distinct advantages, it doesn’t allow for the passing on of “learned” information in the form of beneficial mutations that enable species to thrive. This is a cornerstone of Darwin’s natural selection, itself a cornerstone of evolutionary theory.
By diluting the binary nature of sex, and to some degree stigmatizing heterosexuality, the buffet of gender options being proffered by the left impedes human progress, biologically speaking.
While in many ways we humans have separated ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom, we are still playing by the same evolutionary rules — notice you don’t see any “non-binary” penguins or “two spirit” giraffes walking around. That’s because our animal brethren strive to thrive, not stifle their own progress by pretending that personality quirks constitute a rewriting of scientific fact.
Of course, the very act of sexual reproduction requires that men and women have evolved somewhat separately. These separate evolutions are physically apparent in things like breasts, and the fact that fewer than 15 percent of women pass the Marines’ required combat testing.
But the obvious physical differences may well be eclipsed by the mental discrepancies among the cruder and fairer sexes.
Despite recent attempts by social justice warriors and social media giants to refute basic neurology and psychology, the consensus among leading thinkers in the aforementioned fields is clear: men and women are hard-wired, and therefore likely evolved, very differently.
What for generations was common sense has become a point of controversy in today’s “tolerance” echo chamber, and those on the side of science can pay dearly.
Just ask James Damore, the Google engineer who was fired for pointing out that the tech giant’s diversity policies ignored fundamental differences in the psychologies of the sexes. Despite his firing Damore’s assertions were largely in line with established scientific and evolutionary paradigms.
Consider research featured in Psychology Today that characterizes male brains as more geared toward “figuring things out,” and female brains as more concerned with “understanding people.” Or as the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences puts it:
… male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes.
Such findings have been repeatedly buttressed by keen observations in educational environments and the workplace, many of which have been nicely summarized by University of Missouri professor David C. Geary at the Institute for Family Studies.
Of course, none of this is to say that there aren’t capable and extraordinary female engineers, but rather that evolution has reduced their inclinations toward such pursuits in favor of other pursuits that are equally worthy.
Women have made outstanding contributions to mathematics and engineering, but there is broad scientific consensus that a smaller percentage of women than men are drawn to such callings. And, conversely, that men will likewise be underrepresented in fields preferable to females.
But this is 2017, and truth seems to have taken a permanent back seat to social justice and the whims du jour of the far left. Things are so upside down that beloved leftist mouthpiece Slate recently declared that we should “stop equating science with truth.”
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.