The Fall of “Scientific American” By Brian Simpson
Scientific American has always been bad, in recent woke times on race, but now has embraced the gender agenda, or at least the radical trans branch of this tree. Western science invented the two sexes model to serve the interest of the white supremacist patriarchy. No matter that all other cultures on Earth, past and present, who are not part of Western liberalism, hold to the common-sense model. When Africans laugh at this, as depicted in a recent documentary by Matt Walsh, What is a Woman? does the Left dare call them … racists, or transphobe? And, do these cultures, which will exist when woke culture is dust, care a pickle?
“Science isn't what it used to be. And I don't mean because Dr. Fauci is getting old and is about to retire.
(Yet another) case in point: Scientific American Magazine, a once respected monthly, recently put out a bizarre series of tweets effectively suggesting that earlier Western scientists just concocted the idea of two sexes...to serve the interests of the white supremacist patriarchy.
The magazine's preposterous assertions were part of a Twitter thread decrying the notion of binary sexual identity in a pathetic attempt to get in lockstep with the transgender agenda and curry favor with woke supremacist whackos. After all, what is science for?
One of the tweets read: "Before the late 18th century, Western science recognized only one sex — the male — and considered the female body an inferior version of it. The shift historians call the 'two-sex model' served mainly to reinforce gender and racial divisions by tying social status to the body."
Those assertions would make the Babylon Bee blush. Western science always recognized the existence of females. Good thing, too, or a lot of us wouldn't be here now. Ironically, it's the trans activists — supported by entities like the Scientific American — that no longer recognize women. They can't or won't make the distinction and allow females their own sports teams, locker rooms, and bathrooms.
Scientific American's website says the magazine "is also well-known for its constant accuracy in anticipating advances and leaps on a broad range of topics within both the physical and social sciences. This monthly magazine dynamically presents the remarkable efforts of world-renowned scientists and Nobel laureates." Constant accuracy? It is now far too concerned with making broad leaps in "social sciences" to worry about being accurate. (Sorry, my use of the term "broad" there might have been problematic.)
Someone once said, "'She blinded me with science' and failed me in biology." Now it is the scientists and "experts" who try to blind us...and who are failing biology.”
Comments