Staff Reports
In a recent article titled “To Understand Sex, We Need to Ask the Right Questions,” Scientific American seems to have lost its way when it comes to the basic understanding of human sexuality. The once prestigious publication, whose pages have been graced by the likes of Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla, has now aligned itself with the nonsensical world of the LGBT community on this fundamental issue.
Trust the Science? America's Oldest, Most Prestigious Science Magazine Goes Full Woke on Basic Biology via @WestJournalism https://t.co/JR1bYlQAte
— Joyce Taylor (@JTaylorForMAGA) November 24, 2023
The article, written by Charles Roseman, attempts to tackle the question of how many sexes there are but instead devolves into a convoluted mess of word mush. It’s like asking Scientific American for the time and instead receiving a treatise on the various methods of timekeeping throughout history. Sundials, egg timers, spring-powered mechanisms – you name it, they discuss it. But still, no answer is given.
Roseman’s article meanders through concepts of reproduction in various species, including bacteria and archaea, and even delves into the realms of transgenderism and LGBT issues. But amidst all the tangents and distractions, one thing is clear: Scientific American is doing everything it can to blur the lines and avoid giving a straight answer.
Of course, Roseman does admit that there are disagreements about what constitutes sex, but instead of providing any clarity, he simply sidesteps the issue by claiming that Scientific American has no authority to make definitive declarations on the matter. According to Roseman, sex is too complex of a topic to be understood from a purely scientific standpoint, as it encompasses a range of ethical, moral, and social considerations.
In the end, Scientific American reaches the unsurprising conclusion that the answer to how many sexes there are is: “It depends.” But the publication shouldn’t get off the hook so easily. Those who dare to challenge this nonsense are met with a wave of backlash and accusations of being antitransgender. It seems that in the pursuit of political correctness, Scientific American has abandoned its commitment to scientific integrity.
It’s a shame to see such an esteemed publication descend into this level of intellectual confusion. When even the most basic of questions about human biology are met with evasions and obfuscation, it calls into question the credibility of Scientific American as a reliable source of scientific information. It’s clear that the mighty have indeed fallen.
