Woke Math, Revisited
We are still hearing some educators claim that math is racist.
Woke Temple has responded with this Tweet and graphic:
We are still hearing some educators claim that math is racist.
Woke Temple has responded with this Tweet and graphic:
This time it's a website called The Scientist.
The thesis of this article is the equivalent of saying that "because clownfish," a human animal can change its biological sex from male to female (or female to male) and to any of many unspecified "sexes" between. The article ends by saying "If you don't publicly proclaim that [the sun revolves around the earth] or [water boils at 150 degrees F] or [tectonic plates are made of cheese], you are a bigot.
I keep thinking back to the religious fundamentalists who developed numerous unhinged theological theories ("tennis without a net") because they were not willing to face the fact that we are human animals (and see here). The false idea that we are "blank slates" has dominated large swaths of academia for years, especially in departments of education and social work. I believe this false belief has now enabled modern gender ideology.
A much more fruitful approach to understanding human complexity would be to admit that one's body is what it is. In a biological male, for instance, every one of the trillions of cells contains an XY (in the female sex, an XX). Here is a straight-forward explanation for why there are two (and only two) sexes. An entirely separate issue from the biology is how a human animal expresses himself (or herself).
I have no problem with any human adult choosing how to express themself, choosing how to use their body, who to spend time with, how to use or change one's physical appearance or how to involve anyone else in these activities, assuming everyone consents. What I'm against is the increasingly popular notion, reinforced by formerly respectable "science" publications, that we can pretend that our underlying biology is other than what it is. Nature doesn't care about what we think. It is what it is. What anyone chooses to do with their primate body is totally up to them. But let's not conflate what kind of biological body one has with how one chooses to change its appearance or use it.
Following the unexpected cancellation of his "Reverse Q&A" at Brown University, philosophy professor Peter Boghossian (who recently resigned from his post at Portland State) created an ad hoc event on the streets of Portland. He was attempting to explore the reasoning behind agreement or disagreement with the claim: "There are only two genders." He was approached by a group of social work students who attempted to educate him about campus safety and the meaning of gender.
In a new article at Quillette, evolutionary biologist Colin Wright explains how we know there are only two sexes. There are two sexes because there are two (and only two) types of gametes and two types of organs that produce those two types of gametes. It's the same for humans as it is for chimpanzees, giraffes, octopi and honey bees. If you go to the humane society asking for a female dog, they will know exactly what you mean. They will not need "assign" the sex of the dog for you as the social justice crowd claims that obstetricians must now do for human babies. Wright reiterates this grade school biology because more than a few university biology professors are getting nervous about stating this obvious fact that there are only two sexes. Here's an excerpt from Wright's article, titled "The New Evolution Deniers":
Despite there being zero evidence in favor of Blank Slate psychology, and a mountain of evidence to the contrary, this belief has entrenched itself within the walls of many university humanities departments where it is often taught as fact. Now, armed with what they perceive to be an indisputable truth questioned only by sexist bigots, they respond with well-practiced outrage to alternative views. This has resulted in a chilling effect that causes scientists to self-censor, lest these activists accuse them of bigotry and petition their departments for their dismissal. I’ve been privately contacted by close, like-minded colleagues warning me that my public feuds with social justice activists on social media could be occupational suicide, and that I should disengage and delete my comments immediately. My experience is anything but unique, and the problem is intensifying. Having successfully cultivated power over administrations and silenced faculty by inflicting reputational terrorism on their critics and weaponizing their own fragility and outrage, social justice activists now justifiably think there is no belief or claim too dubious that administrations won’t cater to it. Recently, this fear has been realized as social justice activists attempt to jump the epistemological shark by claiming that the very notion of biological sex, too, is a social construct.
As a biologist, it is hard to understand how anyone could believe something so outlandish. It’s a belief on a par with the belief in a flat Earth. I first saw this claim being made this year by anthropology graduate students on Facebook. At first I thought they mistyped and were simply referring to gender. But as I began to pay closer attention, it was clear that they were indeed talking about biological sex. Over the next several months it became apparent that this view was not isolated to this small friend circle, as it began cropping up all over the Internet. In support of this view, recent editorials from Scientific American—an ostensibly trustworthy, scientific, and apolitical online magazine—are often referenced. The titles read, “Sex Redefined: The Idea of 2 Sexes Is Overly Simplistic,” and “Visualizing Sex as a Spectrum.” [More . . . ]
Kathleen Stock does a deep dive here. What is driving this behavior? Fascinating and disturbing on many levels. And yes, I also wondered whether any of these people have children. An excerpt:
This week a story broke in the UK about a forthcoming theatre production, to be aimed at five-year-olds and older. The somewhat surprising title of this venture was The Family Sex Show. The theatre company responsible had impeccable-looking credentials, with breathless reviews and several awards for earlier productions. This new project, originally commissioned under the auspices of a Leverhulme Arts Scholarship, had been funded to the tune of £82,784 via two separate project grants from Arts Council England, and was developed in a number of prestigious venues including Battersea Arts Centre, the National Theatre, the Southbank Centre, and Theatre Royal Bath. The show’s mission, as described on the associated website, was to provide:a fun and silly performance about the painfully AWKWARD subject of sex, exploring names and functions, boundaries, consent, pleasure, queerness, sex, gender and relationships.. . .
Back in reality, there’s only so long that progressives can carry on pretending that the only possible objections to things like The Family Sex Show must come from prudes who don’t like sex, or bigots who don’t like queer people. Supercharged by the internet, contemporary sexual culture is spiralling off a cliff and taking a lot of young people with it, and increasingly large numbers of ordinary parents and teachers are finding this objectionable for very good reason. Some of these even vote Labour - or would do, if they could get a clear sign from their party that it’s prepared to make a distinction in public between its own position and “what Owen Jones thinks is OK”. If it can’t do this, it faces problems at the ballot box. Meanwhile, since nobody votes Arts Council members in or out, for theatre-goers there are still many long evenings ahead, sitting on uncomfortable chairs and watching white people with interesting haircuts talk earnestly about squirting.