Two anthropology organizations co-hosting a conference this fall have removed from the program a panel presentation entitled “Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology.”
The panel had been slated for the joint annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA), to be held in Toronto in November.
In a letter informing the panelists of the decision, Ramona Pérez and Monica Heller, presidents of the AAA and CASCA, respectively, wrote that the executive boards of the two groups had reviewed the submission “at the request of numerous members” and decided to remove it from the conference program. They wrote:
This decision was based on extensive consultation and was reached in the spirit of respect for our values, the safety and dignity of our members, and the scientific integrity of the program(me). The reason the session deserved further scrutiny was that the ideas were advanced in such a way as to cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large.
While there were those who disagree with this decision, we would hope they know their voice was heard and was very much a part of the conversation. It is our hope that we continue to work together so that we become stronger and more unified within each of our associations. Going forward, we will undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings and will include our leadership in that discussion.
Pérez and Heller did not respond directly to our request for comment, but forwarded our message to an association spokesperson, who sent us a statement titled “No Place For Transphobia in Anthropology.” The association writes, in part:
The function of the “gender critical” scholarship advocated in this session, like the function of the “race science” of the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries, is to advance a “scientific” reason to question the humanity of already marginalized groups of people, in this case, those who exist outside a strict and narrow sex / gender binary.
The AAA/CASCA decision was a “shock,” according to an open letter written by Kathleen Lowrey, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Alberta who organized the panel, and her co-panelists. In the letter, they said none of the panelists had heard from AAA or CASCA with any concerns about the panel until the letter notifying them of the decision to cancel the event.
They defended the content of the panel against what they said was the “false accusation” the ideas were harmful. The letter concluded:
Your suggestion that our panel would somehow compromise “…the scientific integrity of the programme” seems to us particularly egregious, as the decision to anathematize our panel looks very much like an anti-science response to a politicized lobbying campaign. Had our panel been allowed to go forward, we can assure you that lively contestation would have been welcomed by the panelists and may even have occurred between us, as our own political commitments are diverse. Instead, your letter expresses the alarming hope that the AAA and CASCA will become “more unified within each of our associations” to avoid future debates. Most disturbingly, following other organizations, such as the Society for American Archaeology, the AAA and CASCA have promised that “Going forward, we will undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings and will include our leadership in that discussion.” Anthropologists around the world will quite rightly find chilling this declaration of war on dissent and on scholarly controversy. It is a profound betrayal of the AAA’s principle of “advancing human understanding and applying this understanding to the world’s most pressing problems”.
Lowrey’s directory page at the University of Alberta states the institution “has reacted punitively to my outspoken criticisms of trans activism and gender ideology.” In 2020, Lowrey was removed from an administrative role as associate chair of undergraduate programs for the department of anthropology, which she attributed to her views.
Lowrey told us that several of the panelists had “spent quite a lot of money on travel arrangements, as the panel was accepted in July, and we were all stunned to receive the letter “removing” us on Monday.”
She said she was not aware of another instance when AAA or CASCA had removed a panel from the meeting.
Lowrey told us the implications of the cancellation were “quite unsettling”:
The AAA is the largest professional association of anthropologists in the world, and the joint conference with CASCA (which happens every third year, I believe) is the Big Kahuna of anthropology conferences. I organized the panel in order to bring together two kinds of anthropologists concerned with the replacement of biological sex by “gender”: one the one hand, scholars like Elizabeth Weiss and Carole Hooven who have an interest in human evolution (for which sexual reproduction is a relevant process!) and on the other, scholars like Silvia Carrasco, Michele Sirois, and Kathleen Richardson who have an interest in feminist issues (for which sex based oppression is a relevant process!). I have interests in both domains, and thought it would be great to bring together scholars concerned for very different reasons with sex as a category of anthropological analysis in order to see where our concerns overlap and where they diverge.
I truly do not understand why anyone who disagrees with any of this wouldn’t simply turn up to the panel and engage us in discussion. That’s what conferences are for. I would be sincerely interested to hear AAA and CASCA representatives elaborate on why they think talking about biological sex is threatening and harmful to trans identified people or to what they term the “LGBTQI” community.
The panel description contained this summary:
While it has become increasingly common in anthropology and public life to substitute ‘sex’ with ‘gender’, there are multiple domains of research in which biological sex remains irreplaceably relevant to anthropological analysis. Contesting the transition from sex to gender in anthropological scholarship deserves much more critical consideration than it has hitherto received in major diciplinary [sic] fora like AAA / CASCA. This diverse international panel brings together scholars from socio-cultural anthropology, archaeology, and biological anthropology who describe why in their work gender is not helpful and only sex will do. This is particularly the case when the work is concerned with equity and the deep analysis of power, and which has as an aim the achievement of genuine inclusivity. With research foci from hominin evolution to contemporary artificial intelligence, from the anthropology of education to the debates within contemporary feminism about surrogacy, panelists make the case that while not all anthropologists need to talk about sex, baby, some absolutely do.
Lowrey added:
The rise in anthropology of multiple schools of thought that cannot withstand any scrutiny, any challenge, or even sustained contentious inquiry, is a growing disaster for the entire discipline. I feel like I’m trying to shout that the bridge is out ahead and no one is listening. It’s very frustrating.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
Remember when creationism felt like a major threat to basic scientific thinking?
Turns out all that needed to happen was for their logic to be proven as BS and their ties to conservative extremists be exposed 😂
These people are against Darwin, too. Their position is genius: they don’t censure answers they censure the QUESTIONS!
RetractionWatch.org seems an odd forum to slander anyone, much less slander them anonymously. Which of “these people” are against Darwin, and what have they published on this?
What does evolution say about how many sexes there are in humans? What does evolution say about wether humans can change sex?
To me, this is murdering scientific facts on the cross road of political and assumptive ideology.
In a (maybe not so) long run this the whole alphabet-protective affair migh deal a blow to medical science. Like it or not, females and males should need different medical treatment in so many cases.
You should look at the recent sex imbalance in young people going to gender clinics and getting risky, invasive treatments that don’t have any good evidence behind them. You should look at how major medical organizations like the AMA and AAP, scientific journals like Nature and Science and sites like science based medicine etc. have backed this quackery. The harm has been done.
Politics & science: Lysenko
What on earth has happened to science when an unevidenced ideology can exert such a grip?
So basically, the existence of controversial ideas is a threat to people’s identities, therefore an issue should not be discussed. That is pretty anti-science. This is the kind of action that drives people with gross views underground and doing harm rather than exposing the weak spots in their arguments. When you can’t even let someone talk, that says something about your confidence in science being on your side…
Would you make the same argument if a panel pushing racist science was booted? The panelist referred to her own “outspoken criticisms of trans activism and gender ideology” and situated herself politically on the side of those persecuting trans people. At a moment when the safety and right of trans people to exist is under threat in this country, promoting anti-trans ideology over science seems like… bad science. And there’s a huge difference between “letting someone talk,” and letting them spew thinly masked hate speech at your professional conference. I mean really… the Tuskegee experiments… for or against? Not a conversation we need to have at a professional conference, and neither is this.
Where does the author say she persecutes trans people? What does that mean?
* Lowrey has situated herself and is guilty by association…
* Tuskegee (and are we “for or against”) is whataboutism ….
* Kali wants to silence Lowrey because Kali holds the opinion that Lowrey’s position amounts to thinly masked hate speech
* Based on Kali’s interpretation of Lowrey’s work, Kali wants to decide what conversation we need?
Well I think I prefer “letting someone talk”. If the talk is “thinly masked hate speech”, I am sure that we (perhaps including Kali) will have no problem at all to muster the *coherent and convincing* arguments to demonstrate this.
Thanks but no thanks for your paternalism, Kali. We’d like to decide for ourselves which conversations we need to have.
‘When you tear out a man’s tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you’re only telling the world that you fear what he might say.’-Tyrion Lannister.
The question you and others like you need to ask yourselves is what truths are you so afraid to hear and why.
Thank you!! It’s just anti trans garbage dressed up as a scientific discussion. This isn’t silencing anybody, just making it clear that these associations don’t condone bigotry
“Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology” = anti-trans garbage?
Doesn’t this assertion presume that there would be no basis for biological sex being a necessary analytic category in anthropology, at the very least?
“Anthropology is the systematic study of humanity, with the goal of understanding our evolutionary origins, our distinctiveness as a species, and the great diversity in our forms of social existence across the world and through time.”
-UC Davis website
So, if we are going to study this, then I don’t understand how we can just toss out biological sex. What about trends in reproduction and kinship? Health and medicine? Human development/evolution? Material culture? Even intersectionality!?
Most amazingly, from my perspective, is that biological sex is a critical component of, and therefore a necessary analytical category for, discussions and analysis regarding the wellbeing of trans people. More to the point, if you are going to study anything regarding trans people and their wellbeing, then you necessarily have to compare to a population that is not trans-sex, ergo you would need biological sex to even make that distinction and define the groups as distinct. By asserting that biological sex has no basis in anthropological analysis, you are actually inhibiting the study of the wellbeing of trans people as a part of humanity, which on its face would be anti-trans if anything can be.
Have you examined this belief/assertion critically? What are the ideological presuppositions that would drive you to think and interact with others in this way?
Literally no one at this panel is talking about trans people. It is a panel about the usefulness of sex vs social gender in studying anthropology. That’s it. The panel even had talks about accommodating gender identity in the process of sexing corpses.
Not at all the same.
The chemical and surgical mutilation of children is far worse than the Tuskegee experiment. Those men had a disease that was incurable. Interfering with puberty and the destruction of healthy reproductive organs in children is vastly worse than observing men with an incurable disease.
syphilis was curable with penicillin. The US government knew but wanted to see how the disease progressed.
That is all I want to say.
First off, nobody is “surgically mutilating children.” This is a right wing talking point not backed up by any evidence. Puberty blockers cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be called either surgical or mutilation. People of 18 who elect to have gender conforming surgery are not “children.” Second, you have no idea what you’re talking about when you refer to the Tuskegee experiment, which a huge body of literature documents as racist. What you wrote tells us a lot more about you and your opinions than it does about the world.
To Kali’s claim that it’s not happening:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/transgender-top-surgery-canadian-children
It’s interesting that Kali is aware of the body of the literature on the whataboutism Kali raises i.e. the Tuskegee experiment. But Kali not only denies any knowledge of what a 2 minute google search about minors undergoing gender reassignment surgery will show. Kali says (but does not show) that any evidence to the contrary must be ‘right wing’ and, presumably, takes it as given that for that sole reason such evidence must not be given any consideration at all.
All of the above show why we cannot not leave it to the Kalis of this world to decide what conversations we need to have.
Which country are you referring to by “this country”? The conference is on Canada, where LGBTQ people have not only full rights but also special protections, get married etc.
Wrong racial concepts were actually proven wrong by science, not by silencing it. So your argument against using science is actually for. The only reason to silence it would be fear of what it may find.
Isn’t that pretty much modus operandi for everything these days… politics, language, curriculum, science, freedom of speech, race, religion …. that’s how all of it is presented and polarized… it’s all US vs THEM, where we’re all told that no one else is reasonable or reasoning any longer. Our society paints the dissenters as opposition and as crazy and unable to understand alternatives or moderation. Thereafter everyone is shuttled into echo chambers of their own views from which they wage war on the crazy, evil, THEMs.
Even the title of the seminar….. Stop trying to make this issue fun. The fact that trains and boats are different isn’t fun. It’s just a fact that everyone knows and you can justify it. You can get really technical on how they’re different, but ultimately everyone just knows.
The minute you allow it to be a debate it’s over because it’s too simple of an issue. When you try to debate things that are so basic it inevitably devolves into nonsense because there’s no divisible parts. It’s like there’s chromosomes and then it makes people A or B and then that causes cultures to develop certain way. There’s nothing to parse or disagree over. It’s simple and observable is irrefutable.
You have to end it as quickly as possible. Genesis especially bad when you’re debating something and the side who’s against you doesn’t have a coherent definition of anything. Of course they don’t think that sex ever matters because they are trying to convince themselves actively all the time that it’s not real despite **constantly** being presented with examples where it is.
When you’re talking to progressives about something like this, you should bring up women and say “how do you know what the treatment of women was if you can’t to find one and then when they define it you’re like okay so why is it different now? Why is there no longer any such thing as a woman but there was then?” These two questions force them to confront their hypocrisy over supporting women’s rights and women’s history and stuff like that, and it entirely deconstructs their concept of; ie it shows that they don’t actually believe what they think they believe.
Anybody who still would reject that at this point you just have to consider them to be like pathologically delusional. Either because they feel that we hurting their friends or something who are trans if they disagree with it or they’ll get excommunicated from their social group. There’s lots of reasons why they would do it and how they can have the motivation to convince themselves to think they believe it.
“I truly do not understand why anyone who disagrees with any of this wouldn’t simply turn up to the panel and engage us in discussion.”
Oh no, we know exactly why they try (and too often succeed) to completely shut down debate on the issue.
The panelists have asked the AAA and CASCA Presidents, Drs. Ramona Pérez and Monica Heller, to clarify whether the statement from the “spokesperson” linked above is in fact the official position of the associations on our panel, and whether they as association presidents endorse it fully.
This is not meant in any way as a challenge to Retraction Watch’s reporting: we simply want to understand the chain of responsibility for this statement more fully before we respond.
The framing of this article and the comments under it really showcases why this panel shouldn’t be allowed in its current settup. Saying that removing the panel is taking away from any “scrutiny” or “challenge” to the discussion of gender and sex doesn’t make sense; I can’t imagine any time gender and sex have been discussed in a public setting where there isn’t some gender critical opinion trying to push back on what trans and non-binary people are trying to say. The description of the panel seems to imply that trans and non-binary people are unaware of the importance of biological sex; I would say they are the people that would be most aware of how the sex someone is assigned at birth would influence their physiology, how they are raised to act, and how society treats them in comparison to their gender. If this was really a panel trying to explore the importance of biological sex in anthropology, the panel should have included trans and non-binary people to add nuanced viewpoints to the discussion and provide points of comparison. Instead, they would have been forced to start a “debate” with the panel, which would not be nearly as productive as having them included from the beginning and likely would not lead to any constructive conversations. They would be left feeling unwelcome and unrespected as members of the conference, discouraging them from participating in the conference or any future conferences.
In my opinion, this panel did not seem to actually be academically curious about the topics of sex and gender, and instead would discourage actual contributions to these interesting topics. I highly recommend those reading this to look into the work and discussions being done by trans and non-binary people; their experiences have led to many introspective and interesting opinions that challenge ideas we may take for granted, allowing us new avenues of science and analysis.
The framing of this comment shows exactly why the panel should be allowed it its current setup.
Those trying to suppress this discussion seem to have forgotten the significance of the recognition by earlier cultural anthropologists of the distinction between sex and gender and the struggle to then win acceptance of this by other social and biological sciences.
When an idea can’t be openly discussed it must be because the opposition’s position is so fragile that it can’t stand up to open examination.
I agree that it would be more constructive to have non-binary representation in the panelist spots, as that would ensure non-binary audience would feel more encouraged to participate and sustain a conversation that needs to happen. Also, the title of the panel, with the whole baby! thing is cringe and smells of paternalism. All that said, this discussion does need to happen, I do believe cancelling the panel is the wrong decision from a scientific standpoint. If their discussion was going to be mined by political hate, let them go up there and expose themselves, that would undermine their arguments and position. But as someone who works in molecular biology, we as a community need to reach a consensus in which sex and gender are concepts clearly defined and differentiated, and we should be able to discuss and clarify that the necessity of referencing sex doesn’t necessarily mean we are trying to hurt or damage non-binary communities. It’s a difficult topic that will have to be tackled by the scientific community sooner or later.
It is not a difficult topic. Transactivism comes with in a package of mindless mantras:
-transwomen are women
-children can be born in the wrong body
-sex is a spectrum and is mutable
etc.
I would definitely not want to hear from people espousing this type of magical thinking in a scientific discussion that discusses the importance of facts that are diametrically opposed to this magical thinking.
Your very uninformed comment also exemplifies why this discussion needs to happen. An academic on gender studies would easily dismantle your misinformed ideas on trans activism. Facts are not absolute and any scientist will tell you that, reaching consensus requires debate, discussion and dissenting opinions even if you do not want to hear them. Scientific paradigms fall and what often was thought off as dogma theories have been shown to have exceptions, it’s the nature of science. You are asking for an academic environment that is afraid of disagreement and confrontation, just like the AAA
What exactly is misinformed in my comment?
What facts aren’t absolute? Is the speed of light in a vacuum not immutable, except by outside forces?
I agree that there’s a lot of discussions that can and should be had, though I disagree that the panel as is should stay. The only way that I can see it staying would be to have another panel dedicated to trans and non-binary voices, with heavy moderation in both panel discussions to keep them on topic. Otherwise the conference will look like its supporting just the panel’s viewpoint. I also feel like a debate risks those participating operating under the idea of winning instead of conversing in good faith, and I don’t think a conference is necessarily the best setting for one to occur unless there was a lot of pre-planning involved.
There’s a lot of interesting avenues that need to be explored, especially in the medical field. Considering how relatively recent it was that it was discovered that heart attacks show different symptoms in cis men and women, we need more knowledge of symptoms and treatments for people who aren’t cis men. Just clarifying someone’s sex assigned at birth won’t fix everything though. Trans people are aware that their physiology is not the same as a cis person of the same gender, but you can’t consider them as just their assigned sex. If someone is taking hormone treatments, how will that affect things? Is a trans woman with breast tissue now at the same level of risk for breast cancer as a cis woman, or are their risks different? It’s something we’d have to conduct research with that in mind to find out. If we consider it as just a “male/female” dichotomy, we’ll miss a lot of potential nuance.
“If we consider it as just a “male/female” dichotomy, we’ll miss a lot of potential nuance.”
Many of us do not subscribe to the ideas that “cis” and “trans” are meaningful descriptions of people. They seem to mean little more than religious affiliation/clothing choices/personalities etc., and these things are not interesting in many contexts. None of those ever should replace sex in any serious study since sex is a key biological variable:
https://orwh.od.nih.gov/sex-gender/nih-policy-sex-biological-variable
We’d rather say “men taking exogenous estrogen” etc. Whatever personalities/clothing choices etc.
“Just clarifying someone’s sex assigned at birth won’t fix everything though.”
Maddy, do you think you might be addressing a straw man there? Who in there right mind thinks that biological sex is the only relevant factor with regard to the risk of illness/medical conditions? The point is that sex matters. Other relevant factors include: age, pre-existing conditions, lifestyle, and (as you say) whether one has undergone medical transition. I can well imagine that males who identify as women and who have undergone hormone treatment have a different risk profile to males who have not.
None of this alters the fact that biological sex is binary: there are only two of them, and (since we’re mammals) each of us fit neatly into either one.
The only factor I was talking about was sex-related biology, not age or any other factors. When I said that you can’t just clarify someone’s sex assigned at birth, I mean that someone’s sex assigned at birth will not fill in all of the information that may be needed about someone’s physiology that is related to sex. There’s a lot of nuances to how “biological sex” is expressed in people, even if someone isn’t undergoing any treatments. There’s not just one level of testosterone that cis men can have; there’s a range of levels across a population, and what is normal for one cis man may be different for another. Sex definitely matters, but you can’t just look at a category that someone fits in without acknowledging that there’s variation within the category.
Saying that sex is binary excludes intersex people; healthy people that don’t fit all of our assumptions about male/female physiology. Its more appropriate to say that sex exists as a bimodal distribution, where most people fit under two categories but there are cases that may not fit neatly into either.
“When I said that you can’t just clarify someone’s sex assigned at birth, I mean that someone’s sex assigned at birth will not fill in all of the information that may be needed about someone’s physiology that is related to sex.”
Why so many theological contortions around sex? Sex is established at conception. CAH females or AIS males are just that. “Sex assignment” is the dubious practice of deceiving such children about their sex with the collusion of doctors and parents.
“Its more appropriate to say that sex exists as a bimodal distribution, where most people fit under two categories but there are cases that may not fit neatly into either.”
No it is not. Which conditions are you referring to? “Intersex” is not a clinical term, it is more like a political term used to describe venerable efforts against the type of deception and risky/invasive procedures performed on male and female children of the sort I mentioned. These interventions are associated with questionable ethics and benefits.
“Also, the title of the panel, with the whole baby! thing is cringe and smells of paternalism.”
It’s the lyric of a song by SaltNPeppa from the 90s.
>non-binary people’s experiences have led to many introspective and interesting opinions that challenge ideas we may take for granted
Maybe if you’re very conservative. It’s really not anything new or crazy that people of either sex can have various degrees/combinations of (current social notions of) masculinity and femininity. The AAA misrepresents the panel as fundamentally opposed to the concept of non-binarism, but it’s completely false. In fact, both sides are arguing that personality/social role/presentation are not and should not be defined by sex. But they’re arguing past each other because one side thinks gender is a useful notion for navigating current society as a gender-non-conforming person, and the other side thinks it ultimately inhibits the goal of a society where people can truly be free of gender roles. Obviously the AAA didn’t bother doing 2 seconds of googling about the panelists’ position. It’s almost insulting how they’ve managed to characterize it as the complete opposite of what it is. But this is a common lie used to shut down gender-critical discussions. I think a panel with non-binary people would be a good way to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of legitimizing gender as an academic concept, but this implication that the non-binary people would need heavy moderation to be protected from the bigoted TERFs is misguided. I am a female that presents and perceives herself as masculine. I am gender-critical because I think that a genderless society is conceptually and pragmatically ideal for people like me, but if I thought instead that a society where there’s a spectrum of genders would best allow people like me to be ourselves, I’d be non-binary. It’s just a disagreement about the means to get to a society where anybody can be whoever they are.
In an RCT of a new drug, is it or is it not important to know the sex of the participant? I would say it would be unethical to not consider that as a variable…
Which makes most drugs approved except in the last _maybe_ decade unethical in your view? As historically drug approval populations were male . . .
“As historically drug approval populations were male .”
You seem to have a habit of fibbing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4800017/
Under the Dreger article you claim that sex is bimodal, not dichotomous. How would you suggest that all these participants are male when you haven’t measured them across some unspecified set of characteristics?
It’s funny how if you work with animals to do biomedical research including both sexes and analysing data for sex differences is now almost-compulsory. But if you study humans or human culture you have to pretend it doesn’t exist. And both views are simultaneously advanced by feminist/progressives. I wonder if they’ve ever considered both ideas at once – a trans woman is a woman, but a male rat is not a female rat.
You can entertain two opposite ideas for ever – easily – if your goal is not finding which of them is right. The goal of these people is not science and not even justice. They are positioning themselves to be the priests of a “new age” manufactured by self fulfilling prophecies.
The fact that anthropology scientists must fear bringing up the previously accepted and never disproven concept of binary biological differences in humans because it might hurt a political activist’s feelings is alarming. Clearly, Leftists are dragging all of Western civilization and its scientists back into the dark ages, and no one, including the scientific community, seems to care. I’m astounded the scientific community outright refuses to offer even a reasonable objection to what is happening in the scientific community, as not doing so means the end of real science. In fact, if one didn’t know any better, it would appear as if the scientific community has become a willing part of the corruption destroying all of Western civilization. Smh…
See open letter from FIRE: https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/open-letter-american-anthropological-association-and-canadian-anthropology-society
In order for anyone to identify as trans, they need to first accept that there is a biological sex and they don’t identify with it. It’s in the very definition of the term. Without this, there’s no difference between woman and trans woman. In order for anyone to identify as gay, they need to identify the sex to which they are attracted. It’s impossible for that whole community to exist without juxtaposing itself against the very terms they want to reject. And which that panel was on.
Some people don’t care what is being said; they only care who’s right and especially who’s wrong. Some of them are, unfortunately, scientists. Interestingly, no matter what is done to root the wrong ones, their number never decreases because then, the right ones always need a comparison in order to exist, so why not stop this game from the beginning and just stick to math.
According to the AAA statement, sex and gender are united. Which seems to me to mean that if you’re not attracted to one sex exclusively, you’re a bigot.
Hi all,
Here is a commentary I wrote on this topic for a major Catholic publication. I quote favorably Dr. Lowry. https://www.ncregister.com/commentaries/settled-science-anthropologists-don-t-know-the-difference-between-men-and-women
Genuinely baffled at your belief that this is relevant. Your commentary reads something like “for the entire of human history, there have been four and only four humours: phlematic, choleric, bilious, and sanguine. what is the medical evidence for any humours but these four? cancer? sanguine plus bilious, simple as. germ theory is the product of sexually impotent people. christ shows us that weak nuclear bonds are illusory, so medical science does not need to undermine itself any further by examining ‘biochemistry.’”
its almost impossible to imagine how you got the idea that your bizarre catalog of fetishistic obsessions rises to the level of commentary, much less commentary relevant to scientific endeavor. what i absolutely must know and what i beg you to tell me about as soon as you possibly can is how you found this site. what a puzzle it must appear to you.
The comments on this just keep getting better, truly
Biological sex is important but also the term “trans identified” is offensive, its taken from “gay identified” which was a term used by conversion therapists to imply that gayness is not real but rather a temporary belief that can be repaired by therapy. I’m a transsexual person who is genetically male, not “trans identified”, because being trans IS real.