Look, as Barry Arrington noted recently, you can’t even publish research today that suggests that some teen girls believe they are boys mainly because of teen groupthink even though such a conclusion must be obvious to anyone who has spent time with teens.
Now, a Darwinian has blundered in front of the overloaded freight train of Non-Binary Progress:
A sturdy defender of Darwinian evolution, he was drawn into a discussion of gender studies a couple of years ago. In interviews he argued that gender ideology is incompatible with biological facts and theories. After severe criticism from feminists and gender theorists, he published a controversial book in 2016: Das Gender-Paradoxon. Mann und Frau als evolvierte Menschentypen (The Gender-Paradox. Man and Women as evolved types of Humans). A second edition appeared earlier this year (1).
…
MercatorNet: You criticize gender studies as unscientific. Why? And how was your book received in Germany?
U. Kutschera: Based on my studies of the reproductive behaviour of a number of animal and plant species, plus my debates with German creationists, I was well prepared to explore the strange world cultivated in some university humanities-departments.
From my historical research I learned that the basic tenets of the gender worldview can be traced back to the writings of the American psychologist John Money (1921–2006). Based on studies on intersex-babies (which he erroneously regarded as “hermaphrodites”), Money argued in 1955, with reference to his work on “hermaphroditism”, that “sexuality in humans is undifferentiated at birth and becomes differentiated as masculine or feminine in the course of the various experiences of growing up” (1).
However, Money’s idea of the alleged birth of unisex babies, followed by socialization as boys or girls, has been refuted. The tragic case of David Reimer (1965–2004), whose parents followed Money’s advice, helps to prove that. Today, we know that in 99 percent of all humans, gender-identity is fixed long before birth and only marginally modifiable by education.
In my book, I describe the basic tenets of gender ideology or “Moneyism” and reject its basic claims. As expected, it was sharply criticized, mostly by social scientists involved in gender studies. However, quite a number of readers were delighted with its arguments.
…
Ulrich Kutschera, “An evolutionary biologist dissects gender theory” at MercatorNet
Kutschera doesn’t seem to get it. Darwinists are safe from non-binary progressives as long as all they do is blather nonsense like why men pay on the first date.
But now, you really want to get in the way of their racket? Look, there are progressives out there who are taking dead aim at math, never mind Kutschera’s kind of stuff.
Won’t it be a gas if we end up having to defend a Darwinist who got himself run over by The Train Called Progress?
Note: Kutschera thinks “Disdain for fundamental biological facts is part of its anti-Darwinian outlook.” He ought to ask himself why almost no one who doubts Darwin has signed on with the non-binary gender crowd. It’s because the progressive war is with reality, period. For them, all lesser concerns, like 2+2=4, are beside the point or downright dangerous. Darwin, right or wrong, doesn’t rate.
Who knows, maybe he’ll live. His book doesn’t seem to be out in English yet.
See also: Gender theory goes barking mad
Mortarboard mob “disappears” respected mathematician Colleagues, we are informed, were “appalled” but nothing happened, of course, except that the harridans continued, unabated and unabashed. He and Gunter Bechly should talk.
and
Progressive war on science takes dead aim at math