Conference Panel Discussion on Importance of Biological Sex Cancelled Because of Harm it Would Cause to LBGTQI

From Elizabeth Weiss, Anthropology Professor:

September 25, 2023, my fellow panelists and I received a letter from the American Anthropological Association (AAA) and the Canadian Anthropology Society (CASCA) informing us that our conference panel, “Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology”, which had been accepted, is being removed from the program due to the “harm” it will cause the “Trans and LGBTQI community”. We’ve responded to their accusation.

Here is the excuse for the cancellation for the organizers:

Dear panelists, We write to inform you that at the request of numerous members the respective executive boards of AAA and CASCA reviewed the panel submission “Let's Talk about Sex Baby: Why biological sex remains a necessary analytic category in anthropology” and reached a decision to remove the session from the AAA/CASCA 2023 conference program(me). This decision was based on extensive consultation and was reached in the spirit of respect for our values, the safety and dignity of our members, and the scientific integrity of the program(me).

The reason the session deserved further scrutiny was that the ideas were advanced in such a way as to cause harm to members represented by the Trans and LGBTQI of the anthropological community as well as the community at large. While there were those who disagree with this decision, we would hope they know their voice was heard and was very much a part of the conversation. It is our hope that we continue to work together so that we become stronger and more unified within each of our associations. Going forward, we will undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings and will include our leadership in that discussion

Here is an excerpt from the response from the cancelled panelists.

Your suggestion that our panel would somehow compromise “…the scientific integrity of the programme” seems to us particularly egregious, as the decision to anathematize our panel looks very much like an anti-science response to a politicized lobbying campaign. Had our panel been allowed to go forward, we can assure you that lively contestation would have been welcomed by the panelists and may even have occurred between us, as our own political commitments are diverse. Instead, your letter expresses the alarming hope that the AAA and CASCA will become “more unified within each of our associations” to avoid future debates. Most disturbingly, following other organizations, such as the Society for American Archaeology, the AAA and CASCA have promised that “Going forward, we will undertake a major review of the processes associated with vetting sessions at our annual meetings and will include our leadership in that discussion.” Anthropologists around the world will quite rightly find chilling this declaration of war on dissent and on scholarly controversy. It is a profound betrayal of the AAA’s principle of “advancing human understanding and applying this understanding to the world’s most pressing problems”.

Continue ReadingConference Panel Discussion on Importance of Biological Sex Cancelled Because of Harm it Would Cause to LBGTQI

Science Magazine Puts Partisan Hack Peter Hotez, MD on a Pedestal

I used to respect Science Magazine. For many years I subscribed to it. Regarding this current article, however, where are the RCT's? Where is the free flow of data regarding all-cause mortality between vaccinated and unvaccinated? Why is there an apparently coordinated effort by corporate media to censor the risks of myocarditis and other concerns, especially in children and young adults, who are almost at zero risk of hospitalization/death from COVID? (see here). Why tout Peter Hotez as an "expert" given that he has proven himself to be totally unreliable?

Continue ReadingScience Magazine Puts Partisan Hack Peter Hotez, MD on a Pedestal

The Mischaracterization of LGB Alliance as a Supposed Hate Group

Mia Ashton describes how it happened that lesbians are being attacked and disparaged. Here is an excerpt of her article at Public:

"[F]rom its conception, LGB Alliance was under attack. While Harris describes that first meeting as “joyous,” during which those who had been silenced and called bigots, transphobes, and neo-Nazis basked in the joy of meeting like-minded individuals, the announcement of their group’s formation just days later “unleashed the most extraordinary storm.”

“From that moment onwards, there was an absolute onslaught against us to try and squash us before we started,” recalls Harris. The reason for this was that, at that point, LGB Alliance was the only organization in the world that said it was okay to be gay or lesbian and not believe in gender identity.

In the deluge of abuse that followed, LGB Alliance was repeatedly called a hate group. Harris thinks it was LGB in the name that really made trans activists angry. “That implied that we hated the T. Well, we don’t agree. We think you can have a dogs’ charity who don’t hate cats.”

But according to Harris and Jackson, redefining homosexuality from same-sex attraction to same-gender attraction and insisting that heterosexual men can be lesbians is not the only harmful effect of trans activism on the LGB community.

Because another curious development was that Stonewall, and self-proclaimed LGBTQ+ activists, also started to advocate for the medicalization of adolescents who identify as transgender, many of whom are gay or lesbian. “This is what is happening in schools at the moment,” Jackson explained, “lesbian has become a dirty word. There was a time when being gay or lesbian was becoming more accepted, even among teenagers, but now it is not.” Now lesbians come out first as lesbians, then they call themselves non-binary, and then, “six months later, they’re trying to find testosterone, and they’re trying to have their breasts cut off.”

Continue ReadingThe Mischaracterization of LGB Alliance as a Supposed Hate Group