It’s a simple point.
Someone on TikTok pointed out there are more kids in Texas with measles than trans college athletes in all of America.
Guess which they want you focused on?
Be there!
Good news from Montana: the legislature was flooded with anti-trans laws, but they’ve all been defeated. They failed because a few eloquent trans advocates stood up and persuaded 29 Republicans to change course. Here’s one of the speeches, this one by Zooey Zephyr, with support by a Republican representative:
“Here I am again to rise on another bill targeting the LGBTQ+ community,” she said, exasperated. “At its very core, drag is art. It is very beautiful art. It has a deep history in this country, and it is important to my community. You know, if you are a woman in this body wearing a suit today, you are in some way challenging gender norms that existed long ago… There were three-article-of-clothing laws 50 years ago that said if you wore three articles of clothing that were indicative of the opposite gender, they could stop you, arrest you… it was those laws that led to the police raiding an LGBTQ+ bar that led to the Stonewall riots, one of the most important civil rights moments in my community’s history,” she began.
“When the sponsor closed on this bill, he said, this bill is needed… and I quote his words… ‘because transgenderism is a fetish based on crossdressing.’ And I am here to stand before the body and say that my life is not a fetish. My existence is not a fetish. I was proud within a month ago to have my son up in the gallery here. Many of you on the other side met him. When I go to walk him to school, that’s not a lascivious display. That is not a fetish. That is my family. This is what these bills are trying to come after… not obscene shows in front of children, we have the Miller test for that, we have laws for that. This is a way to target the trans community, and that is in my opinion, and in the speaker’s own words.”
Then something even more remarkable happened: A Republican, Representative Sherry Essman, rose to defend Rep. Zephyr and chastised the bill’s sponsor. “I’m speaking as a parent and a grandmother. And I’m very emotional because I know the representative in seat 20 is also a parent. No matter what you think of that, she is doing her best to raise a child. I did my best to raise my children as I saw fit, and I’m taking it for granted that my children are going to raise my grandchildren as they see fit,” she began.
“Everybody in here talks about how important parental rights are. I want to tell you, in addition to parental rights, parental responsibility is also important. And if you can’t trust a decent parent to decide where and when their kids should see what, then we have a bigger problem,” she turned to parental rights and spoke about how people who claim those rights should vote against the bill.
And then, she closed by chastising the bill’s sponsor for bringing the bill, “Trust the parents to do what’s right, and stop these crazy bills that are a waste of time. They’re a waste of energy. We should be working on property tax relief and not doing this sort of business on the floor of this house and having to even talk about this.”
There’s more at the link. I also appreciate this criticism of weak Democrats.
At a time when anti-trans bills are sailing through red-state legislatures, many are left wondering how they can be stopped. Some Democrats, like Gavin Newsom, have chosen appeasement—standing alongside anti-trans hate leaders like Charlie Kirk instead of standing up for transgender people. But Representatives Zooey Zephyr and SJ Howell offer a different path. As transgender lawmakers in a Republican-dominated government, they have shown that representation, relationships, and the power of speaking truth in hostile spaces can move hearts and minds. Their success is a reminder that even in the most challenging environments, refusing to back down can make a difference.
Gavin Newsom, the governor of California who also has aspirations to the presidency, has destroyed any chance he has of achieving that higher office, by creating a podcast.
The first guest on that podcast? Charlie Kirk. The unqualified white nationalist backed by far-right millionaires.
Aww hell no. I’m never going to support a candidate who gives air to evil lunatics like that.
Even worse…what did they talk about? They found common ground in their shared hatred of transgender athletes. It’s insane. Transgender kids participating in sports is a good thing that should not be of concern, and only bigots are furious at trans boys and girls. Especially since…
Newsweek also spoke to Gillian Branstetter, a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who told Newsweek that Save Women’s Sports, a leading voice in the bid to ban transgender athletes from competing in girls’ sports, identified only five transgender athletes competing on girls’ teams in school sports for grades K through 12.
Yes, that’s right. Not 5000, not 500, not even 50 – just five trans student-athletes. All of this legislation, work, lobbying and anger – is aimed at preventing a tiny handful of young people from playing school sports.
It shouldn’t matter whether there are 5 or 5 million — denying rights to any group of people is wrong. Newsom is just pandering to the perception that Americans all hate trans people.
Yesteray, I took my required online training course in Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, and Retaliation Prevention and Response (SMPP). This is an administrative mandate, where the university periodically tells me I have to take some particular training; I’ve had courses on implicit bias, COVID awareness, and responsible conduct of science, for instance, and they generally are reminders of what we’re expected to do in our job. It’s not at all like signing a EULA, though. EULAs are legal noise that are designed so you won’t bother to read the whole thing. These are detailed step-by-step breakdowns of our legal obligations, where we have to verify that we’ve read each short section, and there are example scenarios and descriptions of situations and proper responses, with short quizzes to make sure you understand the points. It sounds like a lot, but I cruised through it in under a half hour and it was easy.
It starts with a reminder of the official policy of the Board of Regents.
The University shall:
(a) provide equal access to and opportunity in its programs, facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, gender, age, marital status, familial status, disability, public assistance status, membership or activity in a local commission created for the purpose of dealing with discrimination, veteran status, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;
(b) establish and nurture an environment for faculty, staff, students, and visitors that actively acknowledges and values diversity, equity, inclusion, and equal opportunity, and is free from identity-based prejudice, intolerance, or harassment; and
(c) promote and support diversity, equity, inclusion, and equal opportunity through hiring and admissions processes, academic programs, employment policies and practices, the delivery of services, the purchase of goods, materials, and services from businesses of the diverse communities it serves, and all of its other programs and activities.
We also get a dose of Title IX.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination based on sex in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Title IX states “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance[.]” All federal agencies that provide grants of financial assistance are required to enforce Title IX’s nondiscrimination mandate. ED gives grants of financial assistance to schools and colleges and to certain other entities, including vocational rehabilitation programs and libraries.
Yeah, I kind of rolled my eyes at most of it, because I’d never even consider breaking those rules. It is, however, good to be reminded of the social chains that bind us, especially since they impose no painful constraints — the chains are light, they don’t limit me from doing what I want to do, and they can double as armor in case anyone wants to violate my boundaries. So it’s all good. I’m happy to work within the system.
And then I read about Iowa.
Iowa lawmakers became the first in the nation to approve legislation removing gender identity protections from the state’s civil rights code Thursday, despite massive protests by opponents who say it could expose transgender people to discrimination in numerous areas of life.
The measure raced through the legislative process after first being introduced last week. The state Senate was first to approve the bill on Thursday, on party lines, followed by the House less than an hour later. Five House Republicans joined all Democrats in voting against it.
The bill would remove gender identity as a protected class from the state’s civil rights law and explicitly define female and male, as well as gender, which would be considered a synonym for sex and “shall not be considered a synonym or shorthand expression for gender identity, experienced gender, gender expression, or gender role.”
The measure would be the first legislative action in the U.S. to remove nondiscrimination protections based on gender identity, said Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ+ rights think tank.
I remember back in 2009, when Iowa first legalized gay marriage. They beat Minnesota to it. I was impressed that stodgy, conservative, Republican Iowa could approve something so progressive. What happened?
I am confident that my colleagues in Iowa naturally accept the same principles we sign off on here in Minnesota, but I do wonder about those people who celebrate the removal of explicit protections. Are they now thinking it’s OK to disrespect people’s gender identity? Are they now happily planning to sneer at gay or transgender people? Why did they want a constraint removed, other than to allow some people to violate the rights of others?
Someone in Iowa needs some sexual discrimination training.
This drunken sot and serial sexual harasser, Pete Hegseth, was appointed Secretary of Defense by a president who doesn’t give a damn about competence. Hegseth recently banned transgender people from serving in the military, and is starting to make noises against any non-heterosexual people, and is now going on a triumphal tour of military bases around the world.
Military families protesting the Defense Department’s anti-DEI push heckled Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on his arrival at United States European Command headquarters in Germany on Tuesday.
On a visit to the U.S. military’s key European military hub in Stuttgart, Hegseth was booed by around two dozen people who live at the base in an apparent demonstration against the policies currently being implemented by the Trump administration.
The demonstrators at the short protest repeatedly chanted “DEI,” apparently in a reference to the recent ban Hegseth has placed on some books in defense department schools. Hegseth last week ordered the restriction of learning materials covering subjects that included psychology and immigration in DOD schools.
Is anyone else ironically amused by the fact that all these regressive people have been whining that DEI is weakening the country and corrupting governing agencies and universities, but now it turns out that the anti-DEI fanaticism is the force tearing everything apart? All you had to do was accept that some women have penises and some men can get pregnant, and there was absolutely no problem and we could all get along, but now that they’ve acquired a taste of power the heterosexual purity brigade is using their obsession to do harm. They need to realize that they’ll get the tolerance they’re willing to give.
I have been told that I’m merely a “social justice” dishonest whackjob
and that There are only two sexes, therefore only two “genders”. For a biology professor to insist otherwise is a disgrace
, so I have to say just how right that is. I’m a wackjob, totally out of tune with contemporary scientific thinking, unlike Richard Dawkins.
Oh, wait. The American Society of Naturalists just sent out a letter about the White House’s policy.
Dear members of the American Society of Naturalists:
Recent actions by the Executive branch of the United States Government threaten to freeze scientific funding, disable public and scientific resources, inhibit academic freedom and free speech, and dismantle the scientific infrastructure of the United States. These actions will harm science, the people who contribute to science, and humanity as a whole which benefits from science. The Executive Council of the American Society of Naturalists wishes to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the core principles that have long guided our organization. Our mission as a society is to advance understanding of biological sciences, advocate for education and the environment, and foster an inclusive and equitable community. Political changes within the United States only serve to highlight the importance of our mission and strengthen our resolve to pursue our mission.
The pursuit of scientific knowledge requires adequate and reliable funding free from political pressures. We remain steadfast in our advocacy for both governmental and private scientific funding that allows researchers to follow evidence wherever it leads. Inquiry must not be curtailed, or data hidden, simply because the conclusion is unpopular with political leaders. Our organization will increase efforts to engage with policymakers to advocate for continued scientific funding, scientific free speech and inquiry, and rigorous application of scientific discoveries to guide policy. We will emphasize the crucial role of science in addressing society’s most pressing challenges, including the reality of global climate change, importance of conservation, or the complex nature of sex and gender. Our core disciplines of evolution and ecology are pertinent to many applied topics including public health, epidemiology, medicine, agriculture, and conservation, yielding benefits to human well-being and to nature. To suppress inquiry and ignore established knowledge is to forgo these benefits and cause active harm.
Equally important is our dedication to protecting and promoting free speech within scientific discourse. The scientific method thrives on open debate, challenging established ideas, and rigorous peer review. Efforts to police use of particular words instill fear, mistrust, and wall off important areas of research from discovery. As a society we have long supported open inquiry: funding student research grants, supporting scientific conferences, and holding debates on controversial topics. In the current state of politicized (and perhaps curtailed) federal funding, these initiatives are more important than ever, and the ASN Council will be looking into ways to expand such support to help our members (especially students) through the next few years.
Our society has always understood that recruiting, supporting and promoting our diverse membership is not just a goal, but a fundamental value. Fair treatment and equitable opportunity for our members, and for all people, are moral imperatives. Also, diverse perspectives, experiences, and approaches lead to more innovative solutions and more robust scientific outcomes. We will continue to actively support and expand opportunities for historically underrepresented groups in science. Everyone should be welcomed and able to contribute to scientific progress. These commitments—to reliable support for science, free scientific discourse, and inclusive opportunities to ensure that diverse people can participate in science —are not separate from our scientific mission but essential to its success. We want our members to know that the American Society of Naturalists will not shy away from our principles and will not self-censor. Our principles will continue to guide our actions and decisions. The Society will work to help our members through this difficult time (both within the United States and our international members affected by events in the US). We also encourage our members to advocate strongly for scientific funding, the use of sound science in guiding policy, and for diversity and equity within science. The ASN council will be discussing avenues to help our membership do so. Together, we will advance scientific knowledge while building a stronger, more inclusive scientific community that serves the interests of all humanity.
Ooops. Who is out of alignment with contemporary scientific thought, again?
In addition, here’s an older letter a 2018 letter to the HHS secretary from Hopi Hoekstra that is even stronger.
As scientists, we write to express our concerns about the attempt by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to claim that there is a biological basis to defining gender as a strictly binary trait (male/female) determined by genitalia at birth.
Variation in biological sex and in gendered expression has been well documented in many species, including humans, through hundreds of scientific articles. Such variation is observed at both the genetic level and at the individual level (including hormone levels, secondary sexual characteristics, as well as genital morphology). Moreover, models predict that variation should exist within the categories that HHS proposes as “male” and “female”, indicating that sex should be more accurately viewed as a continuum. Indeed, experiments in other organisms have confirmed that variation in traits associated with sex is more extensive than for many other traits. Beyond the incorrect claim that science backs up a simple binary definition of sex or gender, the lived experience of people clearly demonstrates that the genitalia one is born with do not define one’s identity.
Diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans. Our scientific societies represent over 3000 scientists, many of whom are experts on the variability that is found in sexual expression throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. If you wish to speak to one of our experts or receive peer-reviewed papers that explain why there is a continuum of sexual expression, please contact us at president@evolutionsociety.org.
Damn. I know I try to keep what I teach consonant with what the scientific literature says, for the benefit of my teaching. I can think of a few biologists who are so far behind the times that we shouldn’t be paying any attention to their ideas about biology.
You know, I could do this all day, producing position statements from major scientific societies that actively reject what Dawkins and Coyne say, but I fear that would get boring fast. But it’s OK, I’m amused by all the know-nothings calling me names.
Richard Dawkins has attempted to answer the question “what is a woman” by inventing a definition, while simultaneously decrying attempts to answer such a question with a definition. It’s a sad state when he is reduced to such blatant sophistry.
It’s a long, far too long, article, not at all crisp and succinct, which is what you can expect when a man is floundering to impose untenable nonsense as objective biological fact. I’ll give you the one key paragraph.
How can I be so sure that there are only two sexes. Isn’t it just a matter of opinion? Sir Ed Davey, leader of the British Liberal Democrat party, said that women “quite clearly” can have a penis. Words are our servants not our masters. One might say, “I define a woman as anybody who self-identifies as a woman, therefore a woman can have a penis.” That is logically unassailable in the same way as, “I define “flat” to mean what you call “round”, therefore the world is flat.” I think it’s clear that if we all descended to that level of sophistry, rational discourse would soon dig itself into the desert sand. I shall make the case that redefinition of woman as capable of having a penis, if not downright perverse, is close to that extreme.
I have to first mention that he’s wrong, that Davey is not imposing a definition in his argument; he’s making a reductio, that you can defeat a claim that a woman can’t have a penis by…finding a woman who has a penis. He has left open the criteria for womanhood, implying that it is a complex multidimensional problem that can’t be resolved with a single criterion.
To which Dawkins responds by inventing a single criterion that he calls the Universal Biological Definition
! If you’re going to complain incorrectly that someone has fallaciously tried to resolve a problem by simply defining the problem away, don’t then indulge in your own attempt to resolve it with a definition! But here we go, Dawkins’ Universal Biological Definition
:
I shall advocate instead what I shall call the Universal Biological Definition (UBD), based on gamete size. Biologists use the UBD as the only definition that applies all the way across the animal and plant kingdoms, and all the way through evolutionary history.
Problem: it is not a universal
definition, and Richard Dawkins does not have the authority to tell all biologists what is true. If you ask the American Society for Reproductive Medicine or the NIH (at least, recently — they may not say this anymore as the Trump administration takes a wrecking ball to our research institutions) what the universal
definition is, they’ll tell you:
The National Institutes of Health defines biological sex (“assigned sex”) as “a multidimensional biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones,” also referred to by some as “sex traits.” All animals, including humans, have a sex.
Ideologically driven policymakers have introduced or enacted legislation and policies defining legal sex based on biological characteristics at birth, such as genitalia, chromosomes, or reproductive anatomy.
For example, a 2023 Kansas law defines males and females based on reproductive anatomy at birth, stating that females are individuals whose reproductive systems are developed to produce ovaries, and males are those whose systems are developed to “fertilize the ova” of a female. A 2023 Tennessee statute defines sex as a person’s immutable biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics at birth.
All the scientific societies I have been associated with say something similar. It is rather arrogant of Dawkins, who is not a reproductive biologist, a developmental biologist, an endocrinologist, or has any other relevant credentials to think that he can ignore a consensus and simply decree that his simplistic definition is absolutely and completely universal and true.
Dawkins’ expertise is as an ethologist, someone who studies animal behavior. I don’t understand how an ethologist can come to the conclusion that there is only one simple parameter that determines everything, but I guess that’s the power of motivated reasoning.
He tries to justify it ethologically, but this whole section falls flat.
If you define females as macrogamete producers and males as microgamete producers, you can immediately account for the following facts (see any recent textbook of Ethology, Sociobiology, Behavioural Ecology or Evolutionary Psychology):
- In mammals it’s the females that gestate the young and secrete milk.
- In those bird species where only one sex incubates the eggs, or only one sex feeds the young, it is nearly always the females.
- In those fish that bear live young, it is nearly always the females that bear them.
- In those animals where one sex advertises to the other with bright colours, it is nearly always the males.
- In those bird species where one sex sings elaborate or beautiful songs it is always the male who does so.
- In those animals where one sex fights over possession of the other, it is nearly always the males who fight.
- In those animals where one sex has more promiscuous tendencies than the other, it is nearly always the males.
- In those animals where one sex is fussier about avoiding miscegenation, it is usually the females.
- In those animals where one sex tries to force the other into copulation, it is nearly always the males who do the forcing.
- When one sex guards the other against copulation with others, it is nearly always the males that guard females.
- In those animals where one sex is gathered into a harem, it is nearly always the females.
- Polygyny is far more common than polyandry.
- When one sex tends to die younger than the other, it is usually the males.
- Where one sex is larger than the other it is usually the males.
Notice all the qualifiers? In this particular clade it works this way, “usually,” “nearly always,” “more common,” etc., etc., etc. Not so universal, then, is it, when even your best examples have to be padded with exceptions. Do polyandrous or monogamous species not exhibit anisogamy? If a female exhibits bright colours, is she no longer a true female (conversely, are drag queens the most female of us all)? If males of a species incubate eggs, are they all faggoty cucks, not deserving to be called male? It seems to me that anisogamy does not and cannot explain all of the complexity of sex. As his own examples show, sex is a diverse phenomenon that you can’t just sweep into one catch-all bin.
I would also note a fallacious sleight of hand: he starts by complaining about a definition of “woman” that allows for women having a penis, and then hinges his entire argument on gametes. Men and women are more than a pile of gametes! There’s a vast body of cultural baggage associated with the human categories of man and woman, and you don’t get to jettison them all as inconvenient to your claim…and similarly, you can’t pretend that all those ethological variations in the sexes of non-human species are unimportant. I know that Richard is exercising his well known penchant for extreme reductionism, but sometimes that just breaks and produces nonsensical visions that do not reflect biological reality at all.
An evolutionary biologist ought to embrace variation and diversity rather than discarding it. That only harms the individuals who are part of the normal range of variation, but don’t belong to the typical median — and this is particularly problematic when you’re dealing with a species that has exploded the range of cultural, phenotypic variation, as humans have done. We’re not penguins or hyenas or ticks, you know. Why ignore all the diversity within a species notorious for its behavioral flexibility?
I was watching this video — it’s very good, debunking all the nonsense anti-trans bigots regurgitate to justify their bias — when a face popped up at about 12 minutes that I recognized. Hey! That’s Jay Richards!
Jay Richards was predicting that in about 5 years there’s going to be a massive wave of kids who were duped into sex-change operations coming back to sue the public school system.
In case you don’t know about Jay Richards, he was formerly one of the leaders of the Discovery Institute (he’s now at the Heritage Foundation) who was predicting over 25 years ago that Darwinism was going to be dead and replaced with Intelligent Design creationism in about 5 years.
