Who is the disgrace now?

I have been told that I’m merely a “social justice” dishonest whackjob and that There are only two sexes, therefore only two “genders”. For a biology professor to insist otherwise is a disgrace, so I have to say just how right that is. I’m a wackjob, totally out of tune with contemporary scientific thinking, unlike Richard Dawkins.

Oh, wait. The American Society of Naturalists just sent out a letter about the White House’s policy.

Dear members of the American Society of Naturalists:
Recent actions by the Executive branch of the United States Government threaten to freeze scientific funding, disable public and scientific resources, inhibit academic freedom and free speech, and dismantle the scientific infrastructure of the United States. These actions will harm science, the people who contribute to science, and humanity as a whole which benefits from science. The Executive Council of the American Society of Naturalists wishes to reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the core principles that have long guided our organization. Our mission as a society is to advance understanding of biological sciences, advocate for education and the environment, and foster an inclusive and equitable community. Political changes within the United States only serve to highlight the importance of our mission and strengthen our resolve to pursue our mission.
The pursuit of scientific knowledge requires adequate and reliable funding free from political pressures. We remain steadfast in our advocacy for both governmental and private scientific funding that allows researchers to follow evidence wherever it leads. Inquiry must not be curtailed, or data hidden, simply because the conclusion is unpopular with political leaders. Our organization will increase efforts to engage with policymakers to advocate for continued scientific funding, scientific free speech and inquiry, and rigorous application of scientific discoveries to guide policy. We will emphasize the crucial role of science in addressing society’s most pressing challenges, including the reality of global climate change, importance of conservation, or the complex nature of sex and gender. Our core disciplines of evolution and ecology are pertinent to many applied topics including public health, epidemiology, medicine, agriculture, and conservation, yielding benefits to human well-being and to nature. To suppress inquiry and ignore established knowledge is to forgo these benefits and cause active harm.
Equally important is our dedication to protecting and promoting free speech within scientific discourse. The scientific method thrives on open debate, challenging established ideas, and rigorous peer review. Efforts to police use of particular words instill fear, mistrust, and wall off important areas of research from discovery. As a society we have long supported open inquiry: funding student research grants, supporting scientific conferences, and holding debates on controversial topics. In the current state of politicized (and perhaps curtailed) federal funding, these initiatives are more important than ever, and the ASN Council will be looking into ways to expand such support to help our members (especially students) through the next few years.
Our society has always understood that recruiting, supporting and promoting our diverse membership is not just a goal, but a fundamental value. Fair treatment and equitable opportunity for our members, and for all people, are moral imperatives. Also, diverse perspectives, experiences, and approaches lead to more innovative solutions and more robust scientific outcomes. We will continue to actively support and expand opportunities for historically underrepresented groups in science. Everyone should be welcomed and able to contribute to scientific progress. These commitments—to reliable support for science, free scientific discourse, and inclusive opportunities to ensure that diverse people can participate in science —are not separate from our scientific mission but essential to its success. We want our members to know that the American Society of Naturalists will not shy away from our principles and will not self-censor. Our principles will continue to guide our actions and decisions. The Society will work to help our members through this difficult time (both within the United States and our international members affected by events in the US). We also encourage our members to advocate strongly for scientific funding, the use of sound science in guiding policy, and for diversity and equity within science. The ASN council will be discussing avenues to help our membership do so. Together, we will advance scientific knowledge while building a stronger, more inclusive scientific community that serves the interests of all humanity.

Ooops. Who is out of alignment with contemporary scientific thought, again?

In addition, here’s an older letter a 2018 letter to the HHS secretary from Hopi Hoekstra that is even stronger.

As scientists, we write to express our concerns about the attempt by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to claim that there is a biological basis to defining gender as a strictly binary trait (male/female) determined by genitalia at birth.

Variation in biological sex and in gendered expression has been well documented in many species, including humans, through hundreds of scientific articles. Such variation is observed at both the genetic level and at the individual level (including hormone levels, secondary sexual characteristics, as well as genital morphology). Moreover, models predict that variation should exist within the categories that HHS proposes as “male” and “female”, indicating that sex should be more accurately viewed as a continuum. Indeed, experiments in other organisms have confirmed that variation in traits associated with sex is more extensive than for many other traits. Beyond the incorrect claim that science backs up a simple binary definition of sex or gender, the lived experience of people clearly demonstrates that the genitalia one is born with do not define one’s identity.

Diversity is a hallmark of biological species, including humans. Our scientific societies represent over 3000 scientists, many of whom are experts on the variability that is found in sexual expression throughout the plant and animal kingdoms. If you wish to speak to one of our experts or receive peer-reviewed papers that explain why there is a continuum of sexual expression, please contact us at [email protected].

Damn. I know I try to keep what I teach consonant with what the scientific literature says, for the benefit of my teaching. I can think of a few biologists who are so far behind the times that we shouldn’t be paying any attention to their ideas about biology.

You know, I could do this all day, producing position statements from major scientific societies that actively reject what Dawkins and Coyne say, but I fear that would get boring fast. But it’s OK, I’m amused by all the know-nothings calling me names.

That’s so Dawkins

Richard Dawkins has attempted to answer the question “what is a woman” by inventing a definition, while simultaneously decrying attempts to answer such a question with a definition. It’s a sad state when he is reduced to such blatant sophistry.

It’s a long, far too long, article, not at all crisp and succinct, which is what you can expect when a man is floundering to impose untenable nonsense as objective biological fact. I’ll give you the one key paragraph.

How can I be so sure that there are only two sexes. Isn’t it just a matter of opinion? Sir Ed Davey, leader of the British Liberal Democrat party, said that women “quite clearly” can have a penis. Words are our servants not our masters. One might say, “I define a woman as anybody who self-identifies as a woman, therefore a woman can have a penis.” That is logically unassailable in the same way as, “I define “flat” to mean what you call “round”, therefore the world is flat.” I think it’s clear that if we all descended to that level of sophistry, rational discourse would soon dig itself into the desert sand. I shall make the case that redefinition of woman as capable of having a penis, if not downright perverse, is close to that extreme.

I have to first mention that he’s wrong, that Davey is not imposing a definition in his argument; he’s making a reductio, that you can defeat a claim that a woman can’t have a penis by…finding a woman who has a penis. He has left open the criteria for womanhood, implying that it is a complex multidimensional problem that can’t be resolved with a single criterion.

To which Dawkins responds by inventing a single criterion that he calls the Universal Biological Definition! If you’re going to complain incorrectly that someone has fallaciously tried to resolve a problem by simply defining the problem away, don’t then indulge in your own attempt to resolve it with a definition! But here we go, Dawkins’ Universal Biological Definition:

I shall advocate instead what I shall call the Universal Biological Definition (UBD), based on gamete size. Biologists use the UBD as the only definition that applies all the way across the animal and plant kingdoms, and all the way through evolutionary history.

Problem: it is not a universal definition, and Richard Dawkins does not have the authority to tell all biologists what is true. If you ask the American Society for Reproductive Medicine or the NIH (at least, recently — they may not say this anymore as the Trump administration takes a wrecking ball to our research institutions) what the universal definition is, they’ll tell you:

The National Institutes of Health defines biological sex (“assigned sex”) as “a multidimensional biological construct based on anatomy, physiology, genetics, and hormones,” also referred to by some as “sex traits.” All animals, including humans, have a sex.

Ideologically driven policymakers have introduced or enacted legislation and policies defining legal sex based on biological characteristics at birth, such as genitalia, chromosomes, or reproductive anatomy.

For example, a 2023 Kansas law defines males and females based on reproductive anatomy at birth, stating that females are individuals whose reproductive systems are developed to produce ovaries, and males are those whose systems are developed to “fertilize the ova” of a female. A 2023 Tennessee statute defines sex as a person’s immutable biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics at birth.

All the scientific societies I have been associated with say something similar. It is rather arrogant of Dawkins, who is not a reproductive biologist, a developmental biologist, an endocrinologist, or has any other relevant credentials to think that he can ignore a consensus and simply decree that his simplistic definition is absolutely and completely universal and true.

Dawkins’ expertise is as an ethologist, someone who studies animal behavior. I don’t understand how an ethologist can come to the conclusion that there is only one simple parameter that determines everything, but I guess that’s the power of motivated reasoning.

He tries to justify it ethologically, but this whole section falls flat.

If you define females as macrogamete producers and males as microgamete producers, you can immediately account for the following facts (see any recent textbook of Ethology, Sociobiology, Behavioural Ecology or Evolutionary Psychology):

  1. In mammals it’s the females that gestate the young and secrete milk.
  2. In those bird species where only one sex incubates the eggs, or only one sex feeds the young, it is nearly always the females.
  3. In those fish that bear live young, it is nearly always the females that bear them.
  4. In those animals where one sex advertises to the other with bright colours, it is nearly always the males.
  5. In those bird species where one sex sings elaborate or beautiful songs it is always the male who does so.
  6. In those animals where one sex fights over possession of the other, it is nearly always the males who fight.
  7. In those animals where one sex has more promiscuous tendencies than the other, it is nearly always the males.
  8. In those animals where one sex is fussier about avoiding miscegenation, it is usually the females.
  9. In those animals where one sex tries to force the other into copulation, it is nearly always the males who do the forcing.
  10. When one sex guards the other against copulation with others, it is nearly always the males that guard females.
  11. In those animals where one sex is gathered into a harem, it is nearly always the females.
  12. Polygyny is far more common than polyandry.
  13. When one sex tends to die younger than the other, it is usually the males.
  14. Where one sex is larger than the other it is usually the males.

Notice all the qualifiers? In this particular clade it works this way, “usually,” “nearly always,” “more common,” etc., etc., etc. Not so universal, then, is it, when even your best examples have to be padded with exceptions. Do polyandrous or monogamous species not exhibit anisogamy? If a female exhibits bright colours, is she no longer a true female (conversely, are drag queens the most female of us all)? If males of a species incubate eggs, are they all faggoty cucks, not deserving to be called male? It seems to me that anisogamy does not and cannot explain all of the complexity of sex. As his own examples show, sex is a diverse phenomenon that you can’t just sweep into one catch-all bin.

I would also note a fallacious sleight of hand: he starts by complaining about a definition of “woman” that allows for women having a penis, and then hinges his entire argument on gametes. Men and women are more than a pile of gametes! There’s a vast body of cultural baggage associated with the human categories of man and woman, and you don’t get to jettison them all as inconvenient to your claim…and similarly, you can’t pretend that all those ethological variations in the sexes of non-human species are unimportant. I know that Richard is exercising his well known penchant for extreme reductionism, but sometimes that just breaks and produces nonsensical visions that do not reflect biological reality at all.

An evolutionary biologist ought to embrace variation and diversity rather than discarding it. That only harms the individuals who are part of the normal range of variation, but don’t belong to the typical median — and this is particularly problematic when you’re dealing with a species that has exploded the range of cultural, phenotypic variation, as humans have done. We’re not penguins or hyenas or ticks, you know. Why ignore all the diversity within a species notorious for its behavioral flexibility?

Ignore that amateur prognosticator

I was watching this video — it’s very good, debunking all the nonsense anti-trans bigots regurgitate to justify their bias — when a face popped up at about 12 minutes that I recognized. Hey! That’s Jay Richards!

Jay Richards was predicting that in about 5 years there’s going to be a massive wave of kids who were duped into sex-change operations coming back to sue the public school system.

In case you don’t know about Jay Richards, he was formerly one of the leaders of the Discovery Institute (he’s now at the Heritage Foundation) who was predicting over 25 years ago that Darwinism was going to be dead and replaced with Intelligent Design creationism in about 5 years.

Sorry, lady scientists, you don’t count

Vera Rubin was a famous astronomer who did research on dark matter, and has an observatory named after her. Sadly, though, she was obviously a DEI hire, what with her lady bits and all, and her observatory has been forced to edit their web page describing her contributions.

DELETED: “Science is still a male-dominated field, but Rubin Observatory is working to increase participation from women and other people who have historically been excluded from science. Rubin Observatory welcomes everyone who wants to contribute to science, and takes steps to lower or eliminate barriers that exclude those with less privilege.”

Did I say “forced”? Not so…someone in the administrative chain of command at the observatory chose to willingly comply with Donald Trump’s crusade against non-white non-men and decided to curry favor by deleting a woman’s role from their web page.

It makes me sick. Do not comply. Resist. Fight back with, at the very least, non-action on these discriminatory rules. Anything else makes you a chickenshit.

Anti-DEI is another word for racism and sexism

You’re sitting there trying to argue that reality isn’t what you see right there in front of your face: nah, that wasn’t a Hitler salute, nah, Trump is not a fascist, nah, opposing DEI isn’t racist, but then eventually something is going to pop up that shows you’re totally wrong and are living in denial. On that last item, there are many people arguing that getting rid of DEI will simply open the door for a meritocracy, it will get rid of all those idle wastrels who are coasting on their victimhood and are demanding special privileges.

And then…whoops. The mask slips.

The Air Force has removed training courses with videos of its storied Tuskegee Airmen and the Women Airforce Service Pilots, or WASPs — the female World War II pilots who were vital in ferrying warplanes for the military — to comply with the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

The videos were shown to Air Force troops as part of DEI courses they took during basic military training.

In a statement, the Air Force confirmed the courses with those videos had been removed and said it “will fully execute and implement all directives outlined in the Executive Orders issued by the President, ensuring that they are carried out with utmost professionalism, efficiency and in alignment with national security objectives.”

Look at these pilots from WWII.

Apparently, they weren’t brave or skilled or self-sacrificing, and their history can be discarded. You can tell because they’re black, obviously DEI hires.

Same with those women who were ferrying bombers across the Atlantic to serve in Europe.

The Air Force was wrong to resist their willingness to serve their country 80+ years ago, and they continue their shame today.

Good biologists understand the complexity of sex determination & differentiation

I’ve been saying all along that good biology doesn’t categorize sex into two inflexible bins, but what does that matter — I’m just one weirdo liberal biologist at a liberal arts college, so I can be ignored. When our awful president puts out an executive order decreeing that there can be only two sexes, it’s only reasonable to ask other, bigger named biologists whether that reflects a scientific consensus.

HuffPost reached out to seasoned biologists around the country to help make sense of Trump’s definitions of sex, gender and “reproductive cells.”

They don’t know what he’s talking about, either.

Yeah, it doesn’t. They should have just asked me, or just about anyone teaching biology at the college level. Or look, they talked to experts in reproductive biology!

“Lots of folks are wondering the same thing!” Dr. Francisco Diaz, director of the Center for Reproductive Health and Biology at Pennsylvania State University, said of the Trump White House’s understanding of how biology works.

Embryos are “neither male nor female” by Trump’s definition, Diaz said, since there are no germ cells present at conception. Germ cells are reproductive cells that later become eggs and sperm, and that are set aside early in embryonic development.

“How about men after vasectomies? No germ cells there, are they still male?” asked Diaz, who is also an associate professor of reproductive biology at the university. ”Are postmenopausal women still female?”

“Not a super tight definition!” he concluded. “The ‘at conception’ wording seems forced to define personhood as beginning at conception and not really to define sex.”

They asked anthropologists!

Dr. Richard Bribiescas, an anthropology professor at Yale University and the president of the Human Biology Association, said the order’s definitions of “sex” and “gender” ignore all kinds of variations that take place in human development.

“Woman/man, boy/girl are gender identities that do not necessarily align with biological characteristics of sex,” he said in an email. “Genders are components of human variation that are influenced by culture, identity, and many other non-biological factors. To illustrate the difference between sex and gender, we can talk about male/female chimpanzees (our closest evolutionary relative) but it would be non-sensical to discuss chimpanzee women, men, boys or girls.”

Trump’s definitions of “female” and “male” are also flawed, said Bribiescas, because he is tying them to something called “anisogamy” in biology, or the observation that females of some species, including humans, tend to produce larger gametes (the reproductive cells that come from germ cells) compared to males.

Anisogamy is not a universal rule in biology, he said. But Trump’s executive order defines females as people belonging to the sex that produces “the large reproductive cell” and males belonging to the sex that produces “the small reproductive cell.”

The size of a person’s gametes is “just one characteristic among many (ie., genetic, hormonal, developmental, physical) that is used to describe sex,” Bribiescas said. “Clearly, this order is not fully informed by current biological science.”

They asked health experts!

Some health experts said the problems with Trump’s definitions of sex and gender go beyond his ill-informed understanding of embryonic cells. Put simply, neither sex nor gender is a simple binary.

This executive order “is highly problematic from a biological standpoint because it overly simplifies what we know to be an incredibly complicated developmental process,” said Dr. Josh Snodgrass, a professor of anthropology and global health at the University of Oregon. “It’s just not that simple from a genetic standpoint, and then becomes even more complicated with time under the influence of hormones, environmental exposures, and social experiences.”

They asked the president of the Human Biology Association!

Snodgrass, the past president of the Human Biology Association, noted that Trump’s order also doesn’t account for people who are intersex, which means they are born with genitals, chromosomes or reproductive organs that don’t fit into the typical male/female sex binary.

“This reads to me as coming from people who desperately want the world to be simple — for sex to be a simple binary and for us to return to some imagined time when this was more broadly accepted,” he said. “The problem is that it’s not only science that shows us that human biological variation is more complicated, but other cultures do and have also appreciated this for thousands of years.”

Snodgrass added that there is one more thing missing from the executive order that belongs in all conversations about sex and gender: empathy.

“The authors of this executive order seem like they are trying to twist science to fit their worldview, but that this worldview is painfully out of step with reality,” he said.

I tell you, it’s exhausting dealing with all these people who write to me to explain how biology works…and I’m cis. I don’t know how trans people deal with it, especially since stupidly flawed ideas about biology are being used to legally discriminate against them.

I’m going to have to blame the neo-liberal cabal of Dawkins-Pinker-Coyne for spreading the anti-trans propaganda and presenting their authority as superior to all of modern biology. Ignore them.

Our government has officially gone full TERF

Never go full TERF. Here’s another Trumpian declaration:

(a) “Sex” shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. Sex” is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of “gender identity
(b) *Women” or “woman” and *girls” or “girl” shall mean adult and juvenile human females, respectively
(c) “Men” or “man” and “boys” or “boy” shall mean adult and juvenile human males, respectively.
(d) ‘Female’ means a person belonging) at conception;to the sex that produces the large reproductive cell.
(e) “Male” means a person belonging, at conception; to the sex that produces the small reproductive cell.

I disagree, though. He’s not declaring all Americans female; he’s instead declaring that we’re all trans, because we changed from an undifferentiated state to whatever sex we’re assigned at birth. Unfortunately, his argument is built on a falsehood, because obviously sex is not immutable, it changes during fetal development, and we get another major shift at puberty (why do all the TERFs ignore puberty? It’s right there in our faces, everyone goes through it, and we definitely change at the cellular and gross morphological level). We can also trigger profound changes with hormones, and more subtly, brains can have properties of either, both, or no sex. You cannot reduce complex human identities to a single cell type produced by a single organ, although these regressive dimwits will try desperately.

Do I need to mention that you are not producing any reproductive cell, small or large, at conception?

Why are fewer men going to college?

Every year in my genetics class we play a little game. The first lab is dedicated to learning some basic rules of probability and running through some simple statistical tests, and one of the exercises is to look around the room and count male-presenting vs. female-presenting students, and test whether the distribution is close enough to 50:50. It never is. then we test against a 40:60 male:female ratio, which used to be the ratio for my university as a whole, and it’s always significantly different than that. This year I have closer to a 30:70 ratio.

Another anecdotal observation: all the men in the class spontaneously segregated themselves to one lab bench. I told them it looked like a high school dance with all the boys nervous and shy about asking someone to dance. The women also looked comfortable with the separation. I’ve long wondered what’s going on, why men are avoiding college, and today I found an article that ponders the same question.

In the 1950s, men outnumbered women 2:1 in college.

By the 1990s, the ratio was 1:1.

Today the ratio is 4:6 with fewer men than women attending college.

The question on everyone’s mind is why? Why aren’t men going to college anymore?

Yeah, why is that? Let’s hear some hypotheses.

Ruth Simmons, president of A&M University thinks “the problem is the way we treat our boys in k-12. They turn away from school because of the negative messages they get at school… Behavior that is rewarded for boys doesn’t fit well with good student behavior.

I call bullshit on that one. Do you think women don’t get negative, discouraging messages in k-12? The whole damn culture is rife with a bias that girls are supposed to be homemakers and squirt out babies.

Another college president, Donald Ruff believes it boils down to money. “Honestly I think it’s the sticker shock. To see $100,000 that’s daunting.

True, tuition is ridiculously high, but being a woman does not qualify you for a discount, so that’s a bad explanation.

Author Richard Reeves thinks, “The main reason is that girls are outperforming boys in school.

I can confirm that! I’ve looked at final grade distributions in my classes, and typically the top 10% in the class are all women. However, that doesn’t explain why we have this difference in performance. I don’t think women are intrinsically smarter than men (I confess to being biased by my experience), and I struggled to understand where this performance difference might come from. Once I thought it might be that the men are all distracted by sports, but no…our male students are often engaged with our sports teams, but I’m more often seeing that women are putting in long hours with the swim team, the volleyball team, the soccer team. When there’s an away game it produces bigger holes in the women student audience than the men’s group (partly, of course, because there are fewer men in the first place.)

There are other suggestions bounced around.

• Men can make more money without a college degree than women can, so women need college more.

• Higher rates of alcohol, drug use, gangs and prison for boys negate college as a viable option.

• Colleges are usually left-leaning, so right-leaning students increasingly don’t feel comfortable there. And more men than women lean right.

• Men join the military more than women.

• A man will sometimes have to provide for wife/kids before he can finish college.

OK, but those disparities were just as great, or greater, in the 1950s as they are now. They don’t explain the 𝚫♂ at all. But the author proposes an interesting, if rather circular, explanation.

What has changed is an increase in girls.

When you look at other areas where this exact same thing has happened, it is not such a head scratcher why fewer men are going to college.

We’re just not talking about it.

Here’s a phenomenon I have witnessed in almost 40 years of teaching: vocational choices have been shifting.

In 1969 almost all veterinary students were male at 89%.

By 1987, male enrollment was equal to female at 50%.1

By 2009, male enrollment in veterinary schools had plummeted to 22.4%

That’s also true for med school. Every year I’m writing recommendations for vet school, med school, and grad school, mostly for women. It’s not for the usual annoying excuse I hear from some people, that those professional schools and those occupations have gotten easier, with reduced standards, to accommodate “the girls”* because, if anything, admissions have become even more competitive over the years. Probably the toughest school to get into is vet school, and that’s where the disparity between male and female applicants is highest, in my experience.

So one simple explanation is…cooties. Girls’ germs.

“There was really only one variable where I found an effect, and that was the proportion of women already enrolled in vet med schools… So a young male student says he’s going to visit a school and when he sees a classroom with a lot of women he changes his choice of graduate school. That’s what the findings indicate…. what’s really driving feminization of the field is ‘preemptive flight’—men not applying because of women’s increasing enrollment.” – Dr. Anne Lincoln

For every 1% increase in the proportion of women in the student body, 1.7 fewer men applied. One more woman applying was a greater deterrent than $1000 in extra tuition!

Morty Schapiro, economist and former president of Northwestern University has noticed this trend when studying college enrollment numbers across universities:

“There’s a cliff you fall off once you become 60/40 female/male. It then becomes exponentially more difficult to recruit men.”

Now we’ve reached that 60% point of no return for colleges.

Great. I’ll inform the administration that one way out of our enrollment and budget declines is to admit fewer women.

But seriously, there is something going on here: witness the spontaneous segregation of men and women in my genetics lab. I don’t understand why men are averse to working with women, but it’s a real phenomenon I’ve witnessed. There is no shortage of stupid explanations, at least!

Because the concept of school is feminine.
In Spanish, school is ‘escuela’, ending in -a, which is a feminine.
Think about what you do in school.
You sit down, you accept that you don’t know sh:t and you accept that your teacher is right and you have to shut up and listen.
Obedience is what school requires, which is a feminine trait.
What is masculine is standing up in the classroom and saying “Fvck this sh:t, I’m going to do it my way, you’re wrong, I’m right, I’m not gonna listen to you”, that is a very masculine thing to do, and that’s why men, who are on average, more masculine, essentially do that.

The concept of school is feminine…but never mind that women were often forbidden from attending college, until relatively recent decades.

In Spanish, ‘escuela’ has a feminine gender…damn, this is an argument from a man who has never studied languages, because the article attached to a word has no necessary association with sex.

Since when is good teaching and good learning a matter of rote memorization? My best students ask questions. I encourage them to ask me to clarify or explain why something I say is true. To assume that obedience is a feminine trait is straight up wrong and bigoted, and to think that the manly way to learn is to announce aggressively that you’re not going to listen, is antithetical to learning anything. That guy gets everything wrong.

It’s a useful example of the problem, though. It tells me that the problem is a deep cultural bias, where loud-mouthed, ignorant men are shouting out their sexist biases and indoctrinating other men into a dumb attitude that reinforces their bigotry even further. Somehow, men can acquire authority by being loud and aggressive, no matter how stupid their views are, and that just generates more loud, aggressive, stupid men, enshittifying whole generations of young people.

That’s my perspective from the world of education. I can’t think of any examples from the world of politics, for example, can you?


* One thing that bugged me about the article is that it uses men/women, boys/girls, male/female interchangeably. I’m working with college-aged students, and I can’t think of them as boys/girls — they’re adults, or nearly so — and as a biologist male/female has connotations of sex, which I avoid with students. They’re men and women in my classes, that’s it.

Surprise! We have a 28th amendment?

As Joe Biden was getting his coat and leaving the White House, he has announced that he has ratified the equal rights amendment! Just like that! He can do that? What took him so long?

But legal experts contend it isn’t that simple: Ratification deadlines lapsed and five states have rescinded their approval, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University’s law school, prompting questions about the president’s authority to ratify the amendment more than 50 years after it first passed.

Biden is leaning on the American Bar Association’s opinion, the senior official said, which “stresses that no time limit was included in the text of the Equal Rights Amendment” and “stresses that the Constitution’s framers wisely avoided the chaos that would have resulted if states were able to take back the ratifying votes at any time.”

This is an interesting bomb to throw back over his shoulder. Will Trump fight it? Is this another issue that will tear the Republican party apart? Will Zombie Phyllis Schlafly rise from her grave to haunt the halls of Congress?

I approve of the core principles of the amendment, but I also approve of any effort to sow chaos in the Trump administration.