There was a time when rational people agreed that there were certain immutable laws of nature that were based on facts, common sense, and verified scientific data.
For example, for millennia, humans have known there is a biological difference between men and women. We knew that only women had the physiological ability to become pregnant and give birth. We knew the natural male body is absolutely incapable of becoming pregnant because a simple examination of the bodies of men revealed that there is no birth canal, no ovaries, no uterus.
Gasp! Who knew?
Recently, however, the scientific geniuses at Twitter disagreed. Francisco José Contreras, deputy to Spain’s Vox Party, was locked out of his Twitter account for 12 hours after saying men cannot get pregnant. Contreras had shared a bogus news article, which reported that a “pregnant man” had given birth. “That’s a lie,” Contreras wrote on Twitter about the article. “A man cannot get pregnant. A man has neither uterus nor ovaries.”
For stating a biological fact, Twitter blocked Contreras, claiming his tweet had broken its policies prohibiting “hate, threats, harassment, and/or fomenting violence against people” based on “race, origin, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religion, age, disability, or illness.”
Twitter is not alone in its insanity. Today, thousands of years of proven facts about the physiology of men and women are being cast aside in favor of farfetched fantasies and fabrications by politically motivated quacks and charlatans who insist men and women are physically the same and therefore men, who self-identify as women, should be allowed to compete against natural female athletes. Not even in Europe’s nascent Dark Ages did such an absurd notion gain credence.
In the Dark Ages, the enemy of science was religious dogma. Today, the new religion is a blend of leftist radicalism and neo-Marxism that forbids unfettered discussion of most of today’s major questions, such as:
- Should biological men and boys who “self-identify” as female be allowed to compete against women and girl athletes?
- What is the degree of manufactured climate change versus natural, cyclical climate change?
- When is life established in the womb?
- Is America a systemically racist nation?
- Is sex biologically determined or culturally constructed?
Why, in an era that is more than one thousand years removed from the outset of the so-called Dark Ages, are purportedly rational people in Congress and the media insisting that there really is NO biological difference between men and women; that gender dissimilarities are a social construct, not a biological fact?
Arguments like that are built on the “fallacy of incomplete evidence,” which refers to the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It’s a first cousin to the “fallacy of selective attention,” which is commonly called “confirmation bias.” In short, they are as illogical as the syllogism below:
Most commonly, however, these irrational numbskulls resort to the “fallacy of selective use of evidence,” which rejects material unfavorable to an argument. They select data or data sets so that a study or survey will give desired, predictable results which may be misleading or even completely contrary to reality.
Folks, these are the Luddites of our time.
Today, you are likely to be called a social heretic if you insist men and women are physically different. This is thinking straight out of the Dark Ages when scientists like Galileo and Copernicus were viewed as heretics.
I suspect that behind this mind-numbing 21st-century pseudoscience, there is an agenda.
Voila! The announced agenda of those promoting pseudoscience today—primarily far-left zealots, socialists, and assorted Marxists—is to achieve “social justice,” the redistribution of income and wealth, obliteration of the First and Second Amendments (if not the entire Constitution), and the end of what they insist is systemic racism in the United States.
However, the left’s agenda actually is more ominous than that laundry list of objectives.
In essence, what the left is selling amounts to a modern version of feudalism–a self-appointed elite whose status will be maintained by promoting a self-serving socialist one-party rule steeped in neo-Marxist dogma. These “anointed” autocrats will then tell the rest of us peasants how we must live our lives, not unlike the Divine Right of Kings.
It is already happening, and the socialist autocrats are convinced they can get away with cramming such flawed and dishonest concepts as Critical Race Theory, the fraudulent 1619 Project, and even the canard that teaching mathematics and mathematics itself, is somehow racist.
Mathematics racist? Merriam Webster defines mathematics this way:
The abstract science of numbers and their operations, interrelations, combinations, abstractions, space configurations, structure, measurement, transformations, and generalizations. Algebra, arithmetic, calculus, geometry, and trigonometry are branches of mathematics.
Will somebody please explain how something so abstract can be racist?
Here is how some on the left have made that connection. And please excuse this tortured logic.
Math professors at top colleges and universities, including Harvard, Brooklyn College, and even the University of Illinois, where I toiled as a professor and college dean for 13 years, have pontificated that mathematics is rooted in “white supremacist patriarchy” and “white social construct.”
Laurie Rubel, a professor at Brooklyn College, said “the idea of math being culturally neutral is a myth because 2+2=4 reeks of white supremacist patriarchy.”
From my earliest days in elementary school, I always thought 2+2=4, nothing more or nothing less. However, it begs the question, is math considered “non-racist” if the mathematical equation were 2-2=1 or 2+2=0?
Rochelle Gutierrez, an education professor at the University of Illinois, insists that math is definitely racist.
“On many levels, mathematics itself operates as “whiteness,” she argues. “Who gets credit for doing and developing mathematics, who is capable in mathematics, and who is seen as part of the mathematical community is generally viewed as “white.”
Gutierrez worries that algebra and geometry perpetuate privilege, fretting that “curricula emphasizing terms like ‘Pythagorean theorem’ and ‘pi’ perpetuate a perception that Greeks and other Europeans largely developed mathematics.”
So THAT’S it, is it? God forbid that white Europeans were somehow involved in the evolution of mathematics as a science. It HAD to be somebody else—preferably somebody with a different skin hue—that ACTUALLY developed mathematical theories and allowed mathematics to develop into a major course of study.
Well, guess what? A good deal of math was developed or improved, or passed on to us today by Greeks and Europeans. Is there something wrong with that? Are we not allowed by the PC Police to acknowledge that fact, the same way we tip our hats to brown and black Arabs each time we say the Arabic word “algebra,” even though algebra predated its modern Arab invention by several thousand years.
Folks, this is nothing more than leftist political correctness run amok.
There was a time when we accepted common sense about how the world worked according to logical, scientific, and, yes, mathematical principles. That assumption defined us as “enlightened” rather than Dark Age reductionists and ideological, myth-driven zealots.
No longer, it seems. Leftists, especially those who have hijacked our media, are most often regressive, anti-Enlightenment, and intolerant people, who start with a deductive premise and then make the evidence conform to it—or else.
Remember the “fallacy of selective use of evidence?”
Welcome to America’s Dark Ages—an Orwellian world where up is down, the sun circles the earth, hot is cold, war is peace, success is failure, mathematics is racist, boys are really girls and vice versa, and roosters crow before sunrise and, therefore, cause the sun to rise.
My question is this: will intelligent Americans allow themselves to be led like sheep to the paradoxical slaughterhouse for the half-baked?
Or will they finally say:
“Enough is enough, men are NOT women, and therefore men should not be allowed to compete against women in sporting events,”
“Critical Race Theory is B.S. and so is the 1619 Project; mathematics is NOT racist, and America is not a systemically racist nation.”
“Our 21st-century Luddites will not drag rational Americans into a new Dark Age where the government is the master of the people; where leftist/socialist politicians and their lackeys in the bureaucracy will determine who the winners and losers are, and where everyone must submit to the government or be canceled–a synonym today for being socially and politically annihilated.