Well said / written. It lays bare the hypocrisy of those desperately trying to create some kind of equality and outrage between the very real attempt to overturn a valid election along with other crimes done by trump with a rarely ever charged crime of failure to fully pay taxes which was paid after and a firearms form that is never prosecuted. All to protect Mr. trump while trying to smear President Biden using his son. Hugs
Category: History
TERFs Are Wrong About Biological Sex
Very interesting, wonderful calm delivery. Informative. Well reasoned with out a lot of science or medical jargon, just cutting through the bullshit. Towards the end she even addresses those that still claim gametes are the real determining factor of a persons sex. I enjoyed this. Hugs
THIS Right Wing Grift Is INSANE | HasanAbi reacts
This INSANE PragerU Propaganda Will be Taught to Kids in Florida Schools
Senior DeSantis Aides Were Thrilled With Nazi Video
The candidate hires Nazi thugs. The Governor hires Nazi fascist thugs. Nazis and gang thug militia groups that try to force by violence their demand that others live as the right Nazi fascists tell them they must. So what does that mean. It means the governor and his supporters are Christian nationalist fascists. And think what that means as they work to gain control over the US government. Hugs
Semafor reports:
Senior aides to Ron DeSantis oversaw the campaign’s high-risk strategy of laundering incendiary videos produced by their staff through allied anonymous Twitter accounts, a set of internal campaign communications obtained by Semafor reveals. The videos include two that have created recurring distractions for his campaign in recent weeks: an anti-Trump video that featured a fascist symbol, and another that attacked Donald Trump for past comments supportive of LGBT rights.
The meme-filled videos emerged from a Signal channel called “War Room Creative Ideas,” screenshots of which were shared with Semafor and whose authenticity was confirmed by a second source familiar with the campaign. The chat in Signal, an encrypted messaging app, offers the first clear look into the “war room” that has defined the Florida governor’s candidacy, and is presided over by his high-profile and confrontational director of rapid response, Christina Pushaw.
Read the full article.
The creator of the Nazi clip, Nate Hochman was fired. Hochman last year appeared in a Twitter Spaces event with Nazi Nick Fuentes, during which he gushed over Fuentes.
Unsurprising.
How it started:
Where it went:
Where it is now:
Florida’s conservative PragerU teaching texts labeled ‘indoctrination’
Again none of what DeathSantis and the right is doing has nothing to do with protecting children from something that confuses them, sexualizes them, or makes them something they are not. This is about removing any representation from society of something Christian fundamentalist conservative dislike. This is about denying that LGBTQ+ people / kids exist. The goal is to indoctrinate kids into a 1950s social mindset in an attempt to lock them into a right wing republican way of thinking, of seeing the world. All because they can not accept nor adjust to the current society. They don’t want to allow others to live openly as who they really are with equality to themselves. They want a society where whites were automatically privileged and Christianity was forced on kids and prevalent in society. It is about forcing how they live on everyone. Republicans understand they are a minority party whose members are dwindling and dying out. Most conservatives are older white people. Instead of changing the party to appeal to more people, the party wants to force kids to be indoctrinated in to their views with no other representation. The republican leaders want to create their voters rather than appeal to those voters. Some religions are against higher education because their kids are exposed to different ways of thinking as adults than was forced on them as kids. That is why Christians had to create their own colleges and universities. Same with republicans and higher educations. Older teens would move away from restrictive conservative homes / communities to the wider more progressive view of looking at the world and they would often change their way of thinking before. Conservative religious republicans can not tolerate that and so again have to indoctrinate students at all levels. Florida is the first state that the experiment is being pushed, despite the majority of the public against it. Hugs
A quote from the article. “We are in the mind-changing business and few groups can say that,” Prager says in a promotional video for PragerU as a whole. He reiterated that sentiment this summer at a conference for the conservative group Moms for Liberty in Philadelphia, saying it is “fair” to say PragerU indoctrinates children. “It’s true we bring doctrines to children,” Prager told the group. “But what is the bad of our indoctrination?”
Critics of the material approved by Gov. Ron DeSantis say it aims to influence young minds. Its founder says that’s true.
By
- Ana CeballosTimes/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
Published July 31|Updated Yesterday
TALLAHASSEE — Gov. Ron DeSantis repeatedly says he opposes indoctrination in schools. Yet his administration in early July approved materials from a conservative group that says it’s all about indoctrination and “changing minds.”
The Florida Department of Education determined that educational materials geared toward young children and high school studentscreated by PragerU, a nonprofit co-founded by conservative radio host Dennis Prager, was in alignment with the state’s standards on how to teach civics and government to K-12 students.
The content — some of which is narrated by conservative personalities such as Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson — features cartoons, five-minute video history lessons and story-time shows for young children and is part of a brand called PragerU Kids. And the lessons share a common message: Being pro-American means aligning oneself to mainstream conservative talking points.
“We are in the mind-changing business and few groups can say that,” Prager says in a promotional video for PragerU as a whole. He reiterated that sentiment this summer at a conference for the conservative group Moms for Liberty in Philadelphia, saying it is “fair” to say PragerU indoctrinates children.
“It’s true we bring doctrines to children,” Prager told the group. “But what is the bad of our indoctrination?”
The governor’s office and the Florida Department of Education declined to say how PragerU’s mission and statements align with state law and DeSantis’ vow to ensure Florida classroom instruction does not indoctrinate or persuade students to accept a specific viewpoint.
PragerU is not an accredited university, and it publicly says the group is a “force of good” against the left. It’s a nonprofit organization based in Los Angeles that produces videos that touch on a range of themes, including climate policies (specifically how “energy poverty, not climate change” is the real crisis), the flaws of Canada’s government-run health care system (and how the American privatized system is better), and broad support for law enforcement (and rejection of Black Lives Matter). In some cases, the videos tell kids that their teachers are “misinformed” or “lying.”
Some videos talk about the history of race relations and slavery. In one video, two kids travel back in time to meet Christopher Columbus, who tells them that he should not be judged for enslaving people because the practice was “no big deal” in his time. Columbus argued to the kids that he did not see a problem with it because “being taken as a slave is better than being killed.”
In another video titled “A Short History of Slavery” and narrated by Owens, she says that the first thing kids need to know is that “slavery was not invented by white people” and that it also took place in Africa, the Middle East and Asia. She also says “white people were the first to put an end to slavery” when it was abolished by Britain in 1834.
“After centuries of human slavery, white men led the world in putting an end to the abhorrent practice. That includes the 300,000 Union soldiers, overwhelmingly white, who died during the Civil War,” Owens says, while adding that “no one, regardless of skin color, stands guiltless,” noting that white slaves have also existed.
In a statement, Florida Department of Education spokesperson Cassie Palelis said the state agency “reviewed PragerU Kids and determined the material aligns to Florida’s revised civics and government standards.”
“PragerU Kids is no different than many other resources, which can be used as supplemental materials in Florida schools at district discretion,” Palelis said. She added that PragerU Kids did not submit a bid to be included in 2022-23 instructional material list, but did not answer when asked if it had submitted a bid for the 2023-24 school year.
Florida approves PragerU content for use in schools
That type of content can now be used in Florida classrooms at the discretion of schools. The option is becoming available as the DeSantis administration and Republican lawmakers add other right-leaning educational choices to students, including a Classic Learning Test, revised K-12 standards and an overhaul of college-level course offerings.
Adrienne McCarthy, a Kansas State University researcher who co-authored a case study on PragerU after viewing hundreds of its videos, said in an interview that the content has a “very strong agenda.”
“The videos have this very strong us-versus-them dichotomy, and it’s usually the evil, immoral leftists versus the moral Judeo-Christian right,” McCarthy said. “They are attacking culture and trying to change rhetoric.”
With colorful animation, catchy melodies and adventurous child protagonists, the content is seemingly harmless and friendly, she says. But she argued the content could potentially serve as a “gateway for right extremism.”
“If we’re teaching ideologies that overlap with far-right groups, and that becomes normalized, then it’s easier for those far-right groups to become more brave and grow,” McCarthy said.
Melissa Streit, the chief executive officer of PragerU, said in an interview that the group’s content is meant to “create an even playing field” in schools — and that the only ones accusing them of indoctrinating students with a right-wing ideology are “probably the teachers unions,” which she said don’t want to lose control of the system.
Teachers unions have criticized the organization. In a video posted on TikTok, Florida Education Association president Andrew Spar said the group has a “political agenda” as it goes over some of its content.
“We believe in teaching an honest history, a complete history. We believe in teaching the truth,” Spar says in the video. “Teachers are not pushing an agenda, they are pushing to educate children. This (PragerU) is pushing an agenda. You don’t have to take my word for it, check it out for yourselves. This is part of the agenda of Ron DeSantis.”
Streit defended the group’s content and messaging in a phone interview.
“To label PragerU as right wing, one should also label at the same time virtually 80% of what’s in American schools right now as extreme left wing,” Streit said. “The ideology that we promote is a pro-American ideology, the ideology of which America was essentially built upon that has created this nation. But we are not a political enterprise, we are a pro-American enterprise.”
Conservative activism in education
Streit said PragerU Kids was launched two years ago. Around the same time, groups like Moms for Liberty stepped into the mainstream political world, and school board meetings across the country became engulfed by partisan culture wars as parents and activists debated pandemic restrictions, race and gender issues.
“We launched because we realized that there are many parents who want their kids to learn more than what they’re learning in schools,” Streit said. “We are very, very big believers in education choice, and we believe that parents should be involved and have the right to really make sure that their kids are learning what it is that they believe that they should learn.”
In Florida, the state approved the content to be used as a supplemental material in classroom instruction. It does not mean that PragerU will be writing the curriculum at a school, but that if a school approved the use of the material, a teacher could use it as an aid to teach a class.
The materials could be used starting in the upcoming school year, but some districts — including Broward, Miami-Dade, Pasco and Pinellas — say that curriculum guides remain under development and that no decisions have been made to accommodate PragerU content.
They said they have no plans to review the materials for inclusion, unless PragerU submits a bid to be considered.
Streit said the group believes in transparency and that anything that would be made available to classrooms would be made available online for parents to see.
The group’s website, prageru.com, includes links to dozens of video clips, its mission and information for those who want to learn and donate to their cause.
It also includes a list of its presenters, which include conservative activist and Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk; David Rubin, a conservative commentator and political supporter of DeSantis; and Will Witt, a longtime influencer for PragerU and the editor-in-chief of the conservative media outlet The Florida Standard, which DeSantis and his office turn to frequently to amplify their message.
The website does not include information on who is creating the content or its reference sources.
When asked for more information on the content creators, Streit said there “are a lot of people involved” with different expertise, but that the group does not intend to disclose their names or credentials on their website because “we live in a world where people attack people who they disagree with.”
How PragerU came to Florida
Streit has found supporters in Florida. She said talks of bringing PragerU Kids to Florida — the first state in the nation to approve its content — began over the summer with Education Commissioner Manny Diaz and K-12 Chancellor Paul Burns.
“The state did not approach us,” Streit said. “I would say that we got to know each other through mutual friends and we started talking about how we can be helpful. It is not that they came and applied for us to do something.”
Before the initiative was launched in Florida, Streit said she also crossed paths with Florida’s first lady, Casey DeSantis. Streit did not specify when or where, but she said that is how she learned that the DeSantis family showed PragerU videos to their young kids.
“So I imagine that if he thinks it’s good enough for his own children, why wouldn’t it be good enough for other Floridians?” Streit said.
DeSantis’ office did not respond when asked if this was true.
Times staff writer Jeffrey S. Solochek contributed to this report.
https://www.mediamatters.org/media/4009031/embed/embed
SkokieDaddy – wiener dog dad5 days ago
The REASON you have to indoctrinate children is because if you waited till high school or college to educate persons about religion, there would almost no religious people.
Seriously, a college class explaining (for the first time) to a student that the world was created in 6 days and woman from Adam’s rib, the ark, crucifixion, etc. The teacher would struggle to be heard over the laughter.
PhillyProfessor SkokieDaddy – wiener dog dad5 days ago
High school students are a MAJOR, MAJOR target. Young Life Ministries has it down to a science. They start by recruiting the cool kids, the jocks from the football and basketball teams especially. They then use the jocks to recruit the average kids that are dying to fit in. And then they gently pressure the kids to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. Often with a version of Liar, Lunatic or Lord. ( conveniently leaving out the option of Legend). They got me and my sister. I got out. Not my sister.
For many years I drove by a Christian elementary school and never gave it a thought.
Of late though I get angry.
It’s a place intended to groom children.
Wonderdogabides Ross5 days ago
And that is how Fox News viewers, Trumpers, & QAnon’s are being groomed to react to gays, trans, and drag queens.
“But what is the bad about our indoctrination?”
How much time you got?
No one is born christian. They have to be indoctrinated into it.
Philly Mike 🐸 The_Wretched5 days ago
It isn’t enough for them to have a bible school every 3 miles but now they want to spew their blather in public schools.
PragerU has the same credentials and credibility as tRumpU.
I think it has no accreditations of any sort, except “Endorsed by Jesus.”
So they ARE okay with kids being “groomed” as long as it’s right wing hate.
Oh thank you for admitting it’s indoctrination. Makes the inevitable lawsuits easier when you come out and say you’re trying to use schools to indoctrinate kids
Yeah, this is clearly a violation of separation of church and state. Especially profiting off of taxpayers dollars. If only there was a SCOTUS that would enforce that..
The_Wretched jimbo655 days ago
Goresuch struck the establishment clause from the Constitution in bremmerton last year.
Gregory In Seattle The_Wretched5 days ago edited
Specifically, Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. “Held: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal; the Constitution neither mandates nor permits the government to suppress such religious expression.”
https://www.supremecourt.go…
That is to say, while a school district cannot push religion, a teacher or group of teachers or teachers and administrators can as long as they at least make it seem like they are acting under their own authority and not under government order.
thatotherjean5 days ago edited
Oh, please. Mr. Prager, there is nothing good about indoctrination, and–so far as I can find out–nothing good about anything with which you associate.
PRW Professor Barnhardt4 days ago
Christopher Columbus, who tells them that he should not be judged for
enslaving people because the practice was “no big deal” in his time.
Uh … the Spanish Inquisition got up in his business for overdoing it; it was indeed a ‘big deal’ in his own time.
If you want to know what right wingers are actually doing, look at their accusations against liberals. That is what they are doing.
They have to try much harder now. Recent polls show more than half of Americans don’t belong to a religion. Soon they will be a clear minority.
‘Til Tuesday 🎧 Blue Bear DJ 🎸 NotMiguel5 days ago
Unfortunately if they have people in the right positions of political power, it doesn’t matter how few in number they are – they still can wield incredible power over the lives of others.
““But what is the bad about our indoctrination?””
It’s encouraging hate and violence against lgbt people, women, and minorities.
GROOMING!
DeSantis appointee to Disney board taught seminar using discredited research claiming White people were slaves in America
Yes because anything to defend white people holding black people as property and what the white people did to them. Don’t mention the bad thing, the rapes, humiliations, the being told what, when, where you were allowed to do anything including pee (sounds like how Amazon treats workers only without them being able to say no or go home) how and when they could eat, basically a white person had complete control over those black people and their bodies. Let’s obscure and fudge that anyway possible, even making up that white Irish people were also chattel slaves. That is a complete lie. But the people that wanted to push it built a whole mythology around the idea. Just like the anti-trans people have done with every mythical idea they can to try to discredit the idea of a person identifying as the gender not assigned at birth by a visual inspection of the genitals. What is it with these type people that they cannot simply accept the truth, the history, the science? Why is it so damn important for the to deny all of the science and history to protect their feelings or their views of the world? Hugs
DeSantis appointee to Disney board taught seminar using discredited research claiming White people were slaves in America
By Andrew Kaczynski, Em Steck and Steve Contorno, CNN
Published 7:00 AM EDT, Fri August 4, 2023
Ron Peri, a member of the Board of Supervisors for the Reedy Creek Improvement District, listens during a monthly meeting on June 21, 2023 in Reedy Creek, Florida.
An appointee by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to an oversight board of Disney’s special tax district taught a seminar in 2021 falsely claiming “Whites were also slaves in America,” using discredited research to say there was an “Irish slave trade.”
The comments were made by Ron Peri, one of five people DeSantis appointed earlier this year to oversee the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District to replace the old board after the company spoke out against what critics dubbed the “Don’t Say Gay” law in Florida.
Peri, an Orlando-based pastor and CEO of a Christian ministry group called The Gathering, made the comments in an hourlong class for his group posted on YouTube about critical race theory called “Cunningly Devised Fables.”
In other comments Peri spread false claims that Irish slaves were forcibly bred with enslaved Africans. He also said a “significant” number of free Blacks in the antebellum era owned slaves, claims disputed by reputable historians who say the number was minimal. CNN archived Peri’s comments from 2021, which he deleted from YouTube following his appointment to the Disney oversight board.
The oversight board, previously called the Reedy Creek Improvement District, governed Disney’s sprawling 25,000 acre footprint around Orlando. Created in 1967, its duties include providing services like sewage, fire rescue and road maintenance and issuing debt for infrastructure projects supporting Disney’s theme park empire.
“Slavery is a moral wrong wherever it exists or existed and is one of America’s great historical wrongs,” Peri told CNN in a statement Tuesday. “Similarly, racism is likewise wrong. I countenance neither to any degree, so the criticism of the belief that thousands of people being held in slavery was significant and a terrible wrong is severely misplaced. Even one person in slavery is egregious and morally reprehensible, regardless of race.”
The DeSantis administration but did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.
Peri’s 2021 comments came in the context of him pushing back on claims of “systemic racism” in the United States from past White ownership of slaves.
“Look at old newspapers, as old as you can find, and you’ll find that Whites were also slaves in America,” said Peri. “The Irish slave trade began when James II sold 30,000 Irish prisoners as slaves to the new world. His proclamation of 1625, which you can go back and see, required Irish political prisoners be sent overseas and sold to English settlers in the West Indies.”
“By the mid 1600s, the Irish were the main slaves sold to Antigua and Montserrat,” Peri added. “From 1641 to 1652, over 500,000 Irish were killed by the English, and another 300,000 were sold as slaves.”
“The settlers began to breed Irish women and girls with African men to produce slaves with a distinct complexion,” Peri added.
Peri’s claims are based on fabricated material that has circled the Internet over the last two decades and has been the subject of repeated debunkings from news organizations like the New York Times, Reuters, the Associated Press, Snopes, and frustrated historians – many of whom signed an open letter in 2016 disputing the claims.
Even the article Peri cited as evidence was updated before he used it in the seminar to note it contained a number of factual errors.
Historians who spoke to CNN said that the research Peri cited is ahistorical and based on invented research: Whites were never considered slaves in America, legally or socially; 300,000 Irish were not sent as slaves to the Americas; English King James II – who Peri cited as issuing the proclamation in 1625 – was not born until 1633 and did not take the throne until 1685. Even then, no proclamations by King James II on Irish slaves exist. The Irish did not “breed” with African slaves, as Peri claimed.
Irish immigrants in North America and the Caribbean were never considered slaves but were indentured servants, said Matthew Reilly, a professor of anthropology at City College of New York.
Indentured servitude consisted of a fixed period of time, usually five to seven years, and was not inheritable. Whereas the race-based chattel form of slavery kept enslaved people as property for life and children would inherit their mother’s status.
“The conditions may have been like that of slavery, but socio-legally, it was a very different form of unfreedom,” said Reilly.
In another comment, Peri used data attributed to the 1830 census to say the numbers showed a “significant” and “large number” of free Blacks owned slaves. However, the 1830 census data cited by scholars show that out of 2,009,043 slaves in the United States, 3,776 free Blacks owned 12,907 slaves – 0.006%.
“The justification that they have for it is they claim that systemic racism emanates from White ownership of slaves,” Peri said. “Therefore, all White wealth is based on the hard work and abuse of Black slaves and women. That’s their justification. Well, the reality is all races owned slaves.”
“A significant number of these free Blacks were the owners of slaves,” Peri added.
Historians, like esteemed Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr., have noted that a large number of those Black slave owners “owned” their own family members to protect them – oftentimes by purchasing a family member. And that pointing to other races owning slaves is a way to minimize the brutal realities of slavery.
“The vast majority, the overwhelming majority – to the tune of millions of people who were brought from West and West Central Africa to the Americas – they were enslaved. Not people who were perpetrating slavery themselves,” Jenny Shaw, a professor of history at the University of Alabama, told CNN. “There’s a small number who did because they rose up in society and did what society was doing, which was enslaving people.” And that some people of African descent enslaved people because they were family members bringing them into their households with the intent of freeing them.
Peri’s unearthed comments come amidst the controversy over the Florida Board of Education’s new standards for teaching Black history.
Disney and DeSantis
Peri’s appointment to the Disney oversight board followed a clash between the company and DeSantis over a state law that would restrict certain classroom instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity. While Disney first declined to weigh in publicly on the legislative fight over what critics called the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, then CEO Bob Chapek, under immense pressure from the company’s employees, later changed directions, and shared his concerns with the legislation. Later, after it became law, the company in a statement said it would work to get it repealed.
However, Peri has also accused Disney in the past of adopting teachings of critical race theory in its company training. The comments touched on another top concern of DeSantis, who sought to ban employers from training workers about privilege and systemic racism when he signed the Stop Woke Act, parts of which were blocked by a federal judge from going into effect.
“We’re seeing companies embracing CRT,” Peri said in his Zoom. “I’m gonna just share two – Walt Disney you’re quite familiar with. You know, down here in Orlando.”
DeSantis has faced backlash in recent days over Florida’s board of education approving controversial new standards for teaching Black history in the state, which includes teaching “how slaves developed skills which, in some instances, could be applied for their personal benefit.” DeSantis has defended the state’s curriculum.
Peri previously faced scrutiny after CNN’s KFile uncovered that the Orlando pastor had suggested tap water turned people gay. Peri disputed that he made the remark during a May 1 Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board meeting, saying from the dais, “I never said that. I don’t believe it, certainly.”
The latest revelations about Peri’s beliefs come as DeSantis’ conflict with Disney is embroiled in dueling legal challenges. Peri is named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by Disney, which alleges that the Florida governor has punished the company for exercising its First Amendment rights while describing his hand-picked board as a pawn in his “retribution campaign” against the entertainment giant.
In its complaint, filed in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern District of Florida, Disney alleged DeSantis picked board members who would “censor Disney’s speech and discipline the Company” and that DeSantis’ action against the company “threatens Disney’s business operations, jeopardizes its economic future in the region, and violates its constitutional rights.”
Peri, meanwhile, voted with the rest of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board to sue Disney in state court. In the past week, a Central Florida judge rejected Disney’s request to dismiss the state lawsuit. In the federal case, lawyers for DeSantis have asked the court to delay a trial until after the presidential election while Disney attorneys suggested a timeline that would put the case before jurors next July.
The board installed by DeSantis has said much of its power was stripped by Disney in an agreement reached before the governor’s appointees took over in February.
Since then, DeSantis and the board have focused on clawing back authority while threatening to develop the land around Disney – including by building a prison or a competing theme park next to Disney World.
The Science of Biological Sex
The medical science is in, the debate is over. Yes it is hard for some people to understand or change. All their lives they really thought biology of sex, who was male or female came down to if your part was an outtie or an innie. If it dangled outside the body or if you could put something in it. That is not how biologists classify male and female anymore. The notion that sex is not strictly binary is not even scientifically controversial. Among experts it is a given, an unavoidable conclusion derived from actually understanding the biology of sex. It is more accurate to describe biological sex in humans as bimodal, but not strictly binary. In order for sex to be binary there would need to be two non-overlapping and unambiguous ends to that continuum, but there clearly isn’t. There is every conceivable type of overlap in the middle – hence bimodal, but not binary.
There are two paraghraps that address the question of gametes and of sexual organs, again proving that they are not binary. Also the article address differences in sexual organs and how they are not the rare differences they once were thought to be. They are in fact much more common. This article is very informative and easy to read. It is a bit longer than some want to read but if you want to know the truth about sex, trans gender, and biology you will read it. If not you will repeat and stick to the same failed incorrect talking points. Hugs
What does the science actually say about biological sex?
Steven Novella on July 13, 2022
The debate over how best to approach people who identify as transgender or non-binary is many-layered and can be complex. Medical questions about the evidence for the safety and efficacy of specific interventions, and the ethics of treating minors, deserve thoughtful and open discussion. The optimal way to incorporate transgender athletes into competition also could benefit from a good faith debate.
Unfortunately, discussion around transgender issues suffers from at least two sources. First, it has been coopted as part of a politically-motivated culture war. This reality is exactly the opposite of thoughtful good-faith discussion. Second, for most people wrapping their head around a reality that may not conform to traditional notions of strictly binary sex and gender takes a lot or processing. Misconceptions about the basic science are rampant, and are, in fact, encouraged by the culture warriors.
Many of those who are pushing back against trans healthcare and broader acceptance are explicitly premising their position on the claim that biological sex is strictly and obviously binary. They portray themselves as taking the scientific high ground, and anyone who questions this obvious biological fact are the ones engaged in pseudoscience.
For example, in a recent article by James Lyons-Weiler (“Biology is the biology is the biology“) he begins:
Most of us are born male or female. This is not our “assigned gender”: it’s our biological sex. An individuals’s sex is determined in animals (and plants) via the chromosomes one is born with.
Wrong, right out of the gate (as I will detail below). He goes on:
For most of us, we ARE male, or we ARE female. Unfortunately, early scientific articles conflated “gender” and “sex”, and much of society conflate them this as well. Depending on context, someone might need to know your sex (karyotype).
He is saying that sex is strictly binary, it is entirely determined by karyotype, and it is completely distinct from gender. While these views are common, especially among those who are critical of the trans identity, they are also demonstrably scientifically wrong.
Biological sex is not binary
The notion that sex is not strictly binary is not even scientifically controversial. Among experts it is a given, an unavoidable conclusion derived from actually understanding the biology of sex. It is more accurate to describe biological sex in humans as bimodal, but not strictly binary. Bimodal means that there are essentially two dimensions to the continuum of biological sex. In order for sex to be binary there would need to be two non-overlapping and unambiguous ends to that continuum, but there clearly isn’t. There is every conceivable type of overlap in the middle – hence bimodal, but not binary.
This matters, and in fact it is the overlapping middle that is the very point of the discussion. Denying a trans identity is denying that overlapping middle. Let’s review the biology of sex to see what I mean.
It is absolutely true that humans display sexual dimorphism, with a typical male and typical female set of traits. There is no third sex, or pole, or sexual archetype. This can be distinguished, for example, from body type which is understood as trimodal – ectomorphic, endomorphic, and mesomorphic – forming a triangle with individuals falling somewhere between the three poles. Biological sex has only two poles, with one axis of variation between them. (See the main image for a good visual representation of binary vs bimodal.)
It is also true that most people tend to cluster around one of the two poles of biological sex. At first glance, looking superficially at the human population, it may seem binary. This is because binary and bimodal can look very similar if you don’t dig down into the details – so let’s do that.
First we need to consider all the traits relevant to sex that vary along this bimodal distribution. The language and concepts for these traits have been evolving too, but here is a current generally accepted scheme for organizing these traits:
- Genetic sex
- Morphological sex, which includes reproductive organs, external genitalia, gametes and secondary morphological sexual characteristics (sometimes these and genetic sex are referred to collectively as biological sex, but this is problematic for reasons I will go over)
- Sexual orientation (sexual attraction)
- Gender identity (how one understands and feels about their own gender)
- Gender expression (how one expresses their gender to the world)
Let’s start with genetic sex. This may seem like a home run for binary sex, with females being XX and males XY, but on closer inspection this is not true. Again, yes, most people fall into one of these two chromosomal patterns, but we also see other patterns, such as XXY, XYY, XXX, etc. Further, some people can be mosaics, with some cells having XX and others XY.
But I think even more important than these chromosomal states is the fact that chromosomes alone do not fully tell the story of the genetics of sexual dimorphism. There are a number of genes involved in sexual characteristics (not all located on the sex chromosomes), and they can vary dramatically within chromosomal sex types, and even among the cells in an individual person, and throughout one’s life. John Achermann, who studies sex development and endocrinology at University College London’s Institute of Child Health, characterizes the situation this way:
I think there’s much greater diversity within male or female, and there is certainly an area of overlap where some people can’t easily define themselves within the binary structure.
Another layer of genetic complexity is gene copy number. For example, XY individuals with extra copies of the WNT4 gene can develop atypical genitals and gonads, and a rudimentary uterus and Fallopian tubes.
Further still, genes alone are not the whole picture of biological sex. There are a host of epigenetic factors at play, including hormone levels at different stages of development, hormone receptor sensitivity, and metabolic factors. All of these influence the development of sexual characteristics, which can vary along a spectrum. For example, there are XY females who are chromosomal males but develop mostly or entirely female because of androgen insensitivity. There are, essentially, women walking around who have no idea they have XY chromosomes.
Let’s move on to the primary sexual characteristics, which are essentially the internal reproductive organs and external genitalia; for females that is ovaries, uterus, and vagina, for males it is testes, prostate and penis. Do these characteristics vary in a strictly binary or bimodal way? When it comes to gametes, these are strictly binary – egg or sperm. However, even here there are intersex individuals with “ovotestes”, some of which can make both eggs and sperm. It is fair to say when it comes to reproduction the system is binary, but sex is about more than reproduction.
This is another concept that many people get caught up on, thinking in evolutionarily simplistic ways. The argument often goes that “sex is only about reproduction”, and since gametes are binary, sex in total is binary. This is incredibly reductionist, and misses the fact that traits often simultaneously serve multiple evolutionary ends. Sex, for example, is also about bonding, social relationships, power, and dominance. Think about this – what percentage of the time that humans have sex is the express purpose reproduction? How many people have no desire to ever have children, but still have an active sex life? Can there be romance without sex? Why are there so many aspects of sex that are not strictly reproductive?
Beyond gametes, other primary sexual characteristics are clearly bimodal but not strictly binary. Developmentally, the penis is the male correlate of the female clitoris. Both vary significantly in size, in rare cases meeting in the middle in what is called “ambiguous genitalia”. Some labia may partially fuse into a scrotum. There is also no sharp demarcation for how large a clitoris has to be or how small a penis has to be in order to be considered “ambiguous”. Such conditions are also not uncommon. A 2000 review found:
We surveyed the medical literature from 1955 to the present for studies of the frequency of deviation from the ideal male or female. We conclude that this frequency may be as high as 2% of live births. The frequency of individuals receiving “corrective” genital surgery, however, probably runs between 1 and 2 per 1,000 live births (0.1-0.2%).
A 2015 review puts the estimate at 1.7%. Still, some may argue, this is all not relevant to the question of, for example, gender identity. However, it establishes the complexity of sexual development, which results from not only chromosomes but a host of genetic and epigenetic factors, hormone levels, hormone receptor sensitivity, and metabolic factors. There is no one measure that by itself determines biological sex. And, most importantly, even within the subpopulation who have unambiguously male or female chromosomes, gametes, and genitals, there is considerable variation in their secondary sexual characteristics, which also vary in a bimodal and not strictly binary pattern.
Some secondary sexual characteristics are present from a young age while others emerge during puberty, and include bone structure, fat distribution, shape of the pelvis, muscular development, height, pitch of voice, and degree and pattern of hairiness. For all of these characteristics there are clusters of typically male or typically female, but these are statistical with great variation within groups. For example, if the only thing you knew about someone was how tall they were, or how hairy they were, you would likely not be able to determine their sex. Men are statistically taller and stronger than women, but many men are shorter than or weaker than many women. I have less body hair than many women I know.
If what I have discussed up to this point were all there were to sex, I honestly don’t think the topic would be that controversial. All biological traits vary in a complex and messy way, and sexual characteristics are no exception (why would they be?). Most of the controversy surrounds sexual dimorphism and the brain. Again, here we see that there are statistical differences only, with greater variation within the sexes than between them.
One brain feature that gets a lot of attention, however, is sexual orientation. I know I am framing this with a conclusion that some people contest, that sexual orientation is essentially determined by brain development, but that is the current consensus of scientific evidence and opinion. People are generally born with their sexual orientation, even if it is not fully realized until they go through puberty. In fact, I would consider sexual orientation to be part of biological sex (which is why I divided up sexuality as I did above).
Especially before the science dealing with this issue was more mature, this was a controversial question. Those who opposed gay rights claimed (and some still claim) that homosexuality is a choice, or a product of social influences, perhaps even a mental disorder or pathology. Years of research has lead to the conclusion that sexual orientation among humans is simply more fluid than old-school strictly binary concepts. People are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, pansexual (romantic feelings are blind to sex or gender), asexual, and everything in between. I don’t think that anyone can reasonable defend today the position that sexual orientation is strictly binary, and any deviation is pathological.
If, then (as seems clear), sexual orientation is a brain function largely determined by genes, hormones, receptor sensitivity, and other epigenetic factors all affecting brain development and physiology, then it’s reasonable to consider sexual orientation an aspect of biological sex also. In a 2018 commentary published in PNAS, neurobiologist Dick F. Swaab begins:
Current evidence indicates that sexual differentiation of the human brain occurs during fetal and neonatal development and programs our gender identity—our feeling of being male or female and our sexual orientation as hetero-, homo-, or bisexual.
What does this mean for our binary vs bimodal sex question? I think it makes it pretty clear that biological sex is not strictly binary, because we can see any combination of morphological sexual characteristics and sexual orientation – you can’t know someone’s sexual orientation by looking at their genitals.
This is where communicating these ideas gets tricky, because some experts might express this reality by saying that there are more than two sexes. I think this may be counterproductive conceptually. I prefer the “bimodal but not binary” approach. But understand the real point – a strictly binary definition of biological sex cannot possibly capture all of the actual variation, which includes many possible states of sexual orientation. You can also see, on the other side, that claiming there are only two sexes because “gametes” is hopelessly reductionist and poorly informed.
And now gender
The situation gets more complex when we turn to gender identity. All the old arguments that were marshalled against homosexuality (that it is deviant, pathological, a choice, a social contagion) are now being applied to those with a non-traditional gender identity, and with just as little scientific basis. The scientific research is not as well developed as it is for sexual orientation, but what we have so far strongly suggests (just as it did in previous decades for orientation) that people are essentially born with their gender identity. Many people who identify as trans knew their gender identity from a very young age, similar to sexual orientation. The principle of parsimony would suggest gender identity is also a brain phenomenon, and therefore just another aspect of biological sex.
What researchers find when they simply describe gender in the population are people who display pretty much every combination of morphological sex, gender identity, expression, and sexual orientation. Gender identity does not appear to be binary at all, and does not even fall into categories as cleanly as sexual orientation. What we know is that a small percentage of the population does not identify with the sex that they were assigned at birth. Why would I say it that way? This too has become an issue of controversy, as if sex is an opinion. However, given everything I reviewed above, what is the alternative? “Biological sex” doesn’t work, because it probably includes gender identity, so that becomes self-contradictory. Sex is assigned at birth based entirely (in most cases – unless for some reason there was a genetic test) on examination of the external genitalia. Sure, because we are a bimodal species, this is a reasonable marker for biological sex for many people. But of course it does not capture all of the biological aspects of sex we reviewed (such as genetics and hormone levels), does not capture sexual characteristics that do not emerge until puberty, and does not capture anything to do with brain development and function.
To take the position that the gender assigned at birth is completely objective and unambiguous, the beginning and ending of biological sex, is to also believe that external genitalia as manifested at birth are 100% determinative of every other aspect of biological sex. But we know this not to be true. It’s definitely not true for secondary sexual characteristics, which can vary significantly, it’s not true for sexual orientation, and it’s not true for gender identity.
In practice, therefore, someone who is trans (or gender non-binary or gender queer) does not have a gender identity that traditionally aligns with their external genitalia (as it is apparent shortly after birth). This is no different than people who have a sexual orientation that does not traditionally align with their external genitalia. This is not at all surprising once we understand the complex messiness of sexual development. In my opinion, a reasonably thorough and objective review of the current scientific understanding of biological sex results in the unavoidable conclusion that human sex is bimodal but not strictly binary.
Denying difference out of existence
Some people, however, may accept the specific arguments but reject the conclusion with what I consider to be dubious logic. One approach is to say – what is the practical difference between bimodal and binary? Why should sexuality in any way be defined by the 2% (to use a representative round figure) rather than the 98%? But this misses the actual issue, which is how we think about the 2% – are they part of biological diversity or can we define them out of existence?
The point of promoting the fiction of strictly binary sex is that it eliminates the middle ground. There are two sexes and nothing in between. Anyone who does, in some way, fall in between is clearly an “aberration”. Further (and this is often the point) they claim that any conflict between genitals and sexuality must be a mental disorder. Given all the biological evidence, however, it seems unavoidable to conclude that human sexuality is bimodal, with lots of variation in the middle. From this perspective trans individuals are just one more manifestation of the full and demonstrably biological diversity that is human sexuality.
The other related approach is to pathologize the trans identity. Just as with homosexuality in decades past, this view holds that a trans identity must be pathological, because there are only two “correct” gender identities, the ones that traditionally align with one’s external genitalia. This position ultimately rests on either circular reasoning or a flawed appeal to nature (again, “because gametes”).
With homosexuality, the question of “nature” is easier to answer. Homosexuality exists pretty much in every animal species we examine and to similar levels. Some (like bonobos) have extremely high rates of homosexual and/or bisexual behavior. So it’s hard to argue that homosexuality is “unnatural”. There is no equivalent to gender among non-human animals, however. Because gender expression is so cultural, it is hard to scientifically examine what an animal’s gender identity might be. Attempts to infer from sexual behavior would be confounded with sexual orientation. (There is some interest in researching this question among primates, however.)
It is also possible to argue that sexual orientation, which is pretty clearly biological, may be phenomenologically different in nature from gender identity – that while sexual orientation is biological, gender identity is not. This is not impossible, and we do need further research to have a confident answer. But given what we do know the simplest answer is that gender identity is a brain function as much as sexual orientation is. Gender identity awareness is usually established by age 2-3, which itself is strong evidence it is biological. Further, the position that “gender identity is all psychocultural” should not be treated as the default answer, and it is not reasonable to place the burden of proof entirely on the biological side of the question.
We could also approach this question scientifically by looking at the brains of cis vs trans individuals to see if there is a difference. This research is preliminary, with mixed findings, but is trending in the direction of showing some differences between cis and trans brains. Overall studies do find differences in some measured features, with trans brains looking more like the identified gender than the apparent biological sex (even prior to any medical interventions). A 2015 review found:
A difference in brain phenotype of people with GI compared to natal sex controls in various brain measures suggests a sex-atypical development of the brain. However, it remains unclear whether these changes originate from prenatal organization alone. Knowledge of the development of the brain during adolescence (Giedd et al., 2012), and the importance of puberty in the clinical presentation of GI (Steensma et al., 2013), suggest that this period is pivotal in understanding the development of GI. Recent work that found subtle deviations in GM volume (Hoekzema et al., 2015), and brain activation during executive functioning from their natal sex (Staphorsius et al., 2015), as well as a response to a pheromone-like substance that was similar to their experienced gender in transgender adolescents (Burke et al., 2014), underscores the need to determine the timing and nature of sex-atypical organization.
These results on brain structure are thus partially in line with a sex-atypical differentiation of the brain during early development in individuals with GD (gender dysphoria), but might also suggest that other mechanisms are involved. Indeed, using resting state MRI, we observed GD-specific functional connectivity in the visual network in adolescent girls with GD. The latter is in support of a more recent hypothesis on alterations in brain networks important for own body perception and self-referential processing in individuals with GD.
Overall it’s too early to form a confident conclusion, but the data is trending in the exact same direction as similar research into sexual orientation – the brains of trans individuals appear to be different than their cis counterparts.
All things considered, I think an objective look at the science of biological sex indicates that humans are sexually dimorphic and bimodal, but that biological sex is much more complicated than it may at first appear and is not strictly binary. While we still need to do a lot more research to fully understand the trans / gender non-binary phenomenon, it seems that variations in gender identity are just one more manifestation of biological sexual variability. There is also no one system to categorize all of biological sex (do we use chromosomes, genes, hormone levels, genitalia, gametes?), and certainly humanity cannot be placed entirely into two categories. The binary system breaks down in the middle.
Author
- Steven NovellaFounder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the host and producer of the popular weekly science podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, and the author of the NeuroLogicaBlog, a daily blog that covers news and issues in neuroscience, but also general science, scientific skepticism, philosophy of science, critical thinking, and the intersection of science with the media and society. Dr. Novella also has produced two courses with The Great Courses, and published a book on critical thinking – also called The Skeptics Guide to the Universe.View all posts
How cruise ships got so big
Cruise ships are freaking big. They’re the biggest passenger vessels humans have ever built. In size and appearance, they look nothing like almost any other boat. So how did they get that way?
The predecessor of today’s cruise ships was the ocean liner: big, beautiful ships that sailed across the Atlantic. But ocean liners had a totally different purpose from cruise ships: They were for transportation. Everything about them was designed to facilitate an ocean voyage from one continent to another.
But air travel changed that. Planes eliminated the main reason to take a ship somewhere, and ocean liner business plummeted. So the industry pivoted and began selling a ship as the destination itself. The cruise ship was born. But the ocean liners, built for a voyage, weren’t ideal for the purposes of a cruise, and over the next few decades, the cruise ship began its evolution. And it has culminated in the behemoths we see today.
Scottie's Playtime 