According to the publication, the “misinformation” of there being just two sexes is “oversimplifying scientific knowledge, fabricating and misinterpreting research, and promoting false equivalencies.”
It also claims that this so-called misinformation is “being used against transgender people” and as part of an effort to go after “gender-affirming medical care” – nevermind the fact that it is causing irreversible harm to young people and leaving them with a lifetime of regret.
Of course, none of the arguments in the piece hold water. For example, it claims: “Many of the arguments against trans rights center on the idea that transness itself is not legitimate—that there are just two sexes, period.”
However, you don’t need a science degree to know that there really are just two sexes, and calling this misinformation because you don’t like to hear it and want to continue pretending to be something you’re not doesn’t make this fact any less true.
Many trans activists like to claim that these are complicated scientific concepts and people who don’t agree are just not intelligent enough to understand. It may be inconvenient for those who want to exploit and profit off of young people by convincing them they are trapped in the wrong body, but this is Biology 101.
We are building the infrastructure of human freedom and empowering people to be informed, healthy and aware. Explore our decentralized, peer-to-peer, uncensorable Brighteon.io free speech platform here. Learn about our free, downloadable generative AI tools at Brighteon.AI. Every purchase at HealthRangerStore.com helps fund our efforts to build and share more tools for empowering humanity with knowledge and abundance.
The piece contains calls for people to “shut down misinformation” and speak up loudly when the unenlightened masses insist there are just two sexes.
“We need people to be loud enough to counter any impression of a silent majority. You can also help trans people materially. Give them a job, help them get housing, help them pay for transition-related medical care,” they quote law professor Florence Ashley as saying, as if throwing money at gender-confused people will somehow change biological facts.
This isn’t the first time Scientific American has taken this decidedly unscientific stance; in 2018, they published an article entitled “Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic” that maintains that gender is actually a spectrum rather than binary female and male.
Researchers who expose the dangers of "gender-affirming care" are being threatened
Their latest nonsensical article comes as a major long-term study has been making headlines for concluding that so-called gender-affirming care was built on “shaky foundations” and that there is simply “no good evidence to support the global clinical practice of prescribing hormones to under-18s to pause puberty or transition to the opposite sex.”
The review’s author, a former president of the UK’s Royal College of Paediatrics, Dr. Hilary Cass, warned that the evidence supporting the drugs given to people who want to transition is “remarkably weak” and said that transgender activists are the ones who are spreading misinformation. It was commissioned by England’s National Health Service four years ago, and the agency has since decided to discontinue the practice of prescribing puberty blockers to children outside of research trials.
Dr. Cass has been the subject of mockery and abuse by those in the trans community since the review was published, and she has said that she can no longer take public transportation due to safety fears.
However, personal safety aside, she says that her biggest cause of concern right now is that the falsehoods the trans community is trying to spread about her work are endangering children.
She said: "If you deliberately try to undermine a report that has looked at the evidence of children's healthcare, then that's unforgivable. You are putting children at risk by doing that."
It is sad that this issue is being used to prey on young people during what is often a confusing and emotional time, and it’s worrying that scientific publications that used to be respectable are now pushing this false narrative. Isn’t the aim of science to understand reality, not deny it?
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.
