The choice is binary: You can either have a school science curriculum actually driven by science.
Or you can have one driven by other factors, such as political ones, the dominant of which today are generally categorized as “wokeness.”
Unscientific “science” is rife now, too. The latest example comes out of the Grand Canyon State, where a parent recently elected to a school board leaked a proposed curriculum that would teach kids the fiction that sex isn’t “binary” but is, well, confusing and a matter of personal preference.
True Patriot Network (TPN) reports on the story, writing that “Heather Rooks, a newly elected, pro-parents rights school board member in Peoria, Arizona revealed to parents, the press, and the world at large that a radical left-inspired science curriculum is being considered by the Peoria Unified School District. A curriculum that foists the blatant claim that … sex is not binary.”
With “less than a month on the job as a member of the school board, Rooks leaked the contents of a proposed textbook that the district was considering for use in its high school[s],” the outlet continues. “Rooks told reporters that she found the science curriculum alarming because it refuted the reality of binary … sex.”
“I mean, these are kids we’re talking about,” Rooks told Fox News Digital about the intellectual rooking. “It’s not adults making adult decisions. These are children. So their minds are… not developed completely yet.”
True, but the implication here is wrong. Just as there’s no “proper age” to start sinning, one never becomes mature enough to harmlessly indulge a lie. That’s what so-called “gender” theory is, too. In fact, it’s children who play pretend; adults are there to help moor them to reality.
“Male and Female He Made Them” — Confused They Became
Elaborating on the contents of the proposed curriculum, Fox News reports:
According to a post by Nicole Solas of the Independent Women’s Forum, the textbook said, “The biochemical, physiological, and anatomical features associated with ‘males’ and ‘females’ are turning out to be more complex than previously realized, with many genes involved in their development. We now know [no, they don’t] that sex is not a binary state, with just two defined outcomes.”
“Because of the complexity of the genes and proteins involved in sex determination, many variations exist. Some individuals are born with intermediate sexual characteristics, or even with anatomical features that do not match an individual’s sense of their own gender (‘transgender individuals’). Sex determination is an active area of research that should yield a more sophisticated understanding in years to come.”
This is the standard (and now somewhat stale) politically correct line today, and its repletion with 70-dollar words and scholarly tone can convince many. But it’s sophistry. The issue?
These activists are confusing (purposely, in many cases) abnormalities with normal “complexity.”
For instance, sexual devolutionaries will claim there are more than just the two “XX” (female) and “XY” (male) genotypes, with others supposedly being the “intersex” varieties XXX, X0, XXY, and XYY. Yet here’s what the activists don’t say:
These are all abnormalities afflicting one sex or the other, as mainstream medical website WebMD explains here, here, here, and here.
In point of fact, there are hundreds or even thousands of abnormalities that can afflict humans, only a minority of which relate to sexual development. Moreover, consider that genetic disorders alone can induce as many as 7,000 rare diseases. Yet they are true anomalies, as this “group of conditions affects fewer than 200,000 people in the U.S.,” informs the Cleveland Clinic — out of a population of 335 million.
Should all these abnormalities be written off as normal “complexity”? Should Down syndrome be conflated with a “lifestyle choice”? If someone exhibits hirsutism — as famed sideshow performer Jo-Jo the Dog-Faced Boy did — do we say he isn’t completely human? Would we use his existence to justify the claims of someone else, who may experience “species dysphoria,” that he’s an animal stuck in a human body?
If not, why write off sexual-development-related abnormalities as “normal complexity”? Why conflate (for example) Triple X syndrome with a “lifestyle choice”? Why say that because a woman is somewhat hermaphroditic that she — instead of being saddled with an abnormality — isn’t completely female? And why would we use her existence to justify the claims of someone else, who may experience “gender dysphoria,” that he’s woman stuck in a man’s body?
For the record, since the question “What is a woman?” is now so often asked and seldom properly answered, know that a woman is: an adult member of the species homo sapiens who in principle has an XX chromosome configuration and is genotypically and phenotypically female.
That’s a mouthful because it’s precise. It even accounts for abnormalities — with the two words “in principle.” For as good philosophy teaches, there’s a difference between something being true in principle and it being true in the particular.
For example, an apple in principle is something that doesn’t contain a worm; this definition isn’t negated by the fact that the occasional apple has a worm, because the worm isn’t integral to the apple. Likewise, there obviously are deviations among women from the genotypic and phenotypic female norm; it’s also obvious that they have no bearing on what a woman is in principle.
The short version of this is: Leave the kids alone. Their childlike (not childish) conception of boys and girls is far more accurate than what’s disgorged from twisted adult minds.
