Scientific magazine says women were invented by men in the 18th century to be oppressed

Biological women they are, according to some, a social construction invented not long ago. Forget Eve or evolution. The true origin of the fair sex is in the late 18th century, when bigoted scientists, white and male, created the idea of ​​binary sex to oppress women and racial minorities. At least that’s what the current lacradora “science” says. [“Biological women”, ou “mulheres biológicas”, é a expressão que vem sendo pelos conservadores anglófonos para designar as mulheres de maneira inequívoca, já que a fêmea da espécie é referida pelos progressistas anglófonos como “AFAB”, Assigned Female At Birth, “Considerada Fêmea Ao Nascer”. (N. t.)]

“Before the end of the 18th century, Western science recognized only one sex – the male – and considered the female body a lesser version of it,” tweeted science magazine a Scientific American. “The shift towards what historians call the ‘two-sex model’ served above all to reinforce racial and gender divisions by linking status social to the body.”

You read that right.

The progressive mob, who shout “trust science”, would have you believe that before the end of the 18th century Westerners saw all women, from Helen of Troy to Joan of Arc, as defective and malformed men. Female bodies were supposedly seen as deformed and inferior, a deviation from the male norm. Apparently, all historical writings that extol the physical appearance of women are satirical, according to these people. William Shakespeare wrote a lot of lines and lines praising the “divine perfection of a woman” and thus celebrating: “O Helen, goddess, nymph, perfect, divine! To what, my love, shall I compare your eyes?” But he must have praised ironically, to pity the inhabitants of bodies so “inferior” to the male version.

Conservative commentator Matt Walsh recently attracted controversy and attention by producing the documentary What Is a Woman? [O que é uma mulher?], which explores the current leftist concept of gender. But perhaps the most pressing question for leftists today is: “Do women exist?” A Scientific American has echoed a growing number of progressive voices expressing doubts about the scientific reality of the binary of the sexes.

The baffling article by Scientific American

promoted a documentary created by the Intersex Society of North America alleging that intersex individuals suffer from 30 diseases (conditions) that cause are neither clearly male nor clearly female. They would be 1.7% of the population, according to Sean Saifa WAll, identified as an “intersex activist and researcher.” [“Intersexo” é o novo nome, politicamente correto, dos hermafroditas. Em inglês, ninguém mais tem disease (doença, mal); todo mundo tem condition (condição). Esse apreço generalizado pelos eufemismos, entre os anglófonos, facilita muito o relativismo dos progressistas na área da saúde. (N. t.)]

Real scientists from the Montgomery Center for Research in Child and Adolescent Development contest the estimate of 1.7%, noting that 29 of 30 reported diseases do not involve sexual ambiguity. “Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex should be about 0.018%, almost 100 times smaller [sic] than the Faust-Sterling estimate of 1.7%” according to Montgomery Center scientists. Nearly nine out of ten individuals that the Scientific American says are intersex actually have only one disease (condition), delayed adrenal hyperplasia (LOCAH), with completely normal genitalia at birth, and matching their sex chromosomes. Labeling delayed adrenal hyperplasia as intersex is simply dishonest, according to Dr. Colin Wright, an evolutionary biologist.

A Scientific American still claims that intersex individuals are oppressed by society. The magazine supports this claim by citing a poll of 2022 by the Center for American Progress, a far-left think tank that was once led by Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign marketer John Podesta. Pretending that political mercenaries are scientists without bias is unscientific…nor American.

Unfortunately, no wonder who exaggerate the number of intersex individuals in an attempt to disprove “the two-sex myth” (to quote another tweet from Scientific American ) and claiming that the woman is a recent concept unfortunately. This new habit of saying that women do not exist, nor did they exist, is not exclusive to Scientific American. Recent attempts to replace words like “woman” and “mother” with dehumanizing alternatives (such as “bleeding bodies”, “bodies with vaginas” and “brother bodies”) have even drawn criticism from some leftists, who filled pages of the New York Times. The use of the word “woman” or the recognition of the scientific reality that humans are a sexually dysmorphic species has been increasingly seen as hateful by the extreme left.

“Sex is nowhere near as binary [sic] as you might think,” the magazine tweeted )Popular Science this month while comparing man to the clownfish and the avocado tree. “We support everyone across the gender spectrum. If you are transphobic, feel free to block. Gratitude!”

The Popular Science went on to note that the avocado tree changes sex every day, because “they have flowers male and female flowers on the same foot, or they have male feet and female feet,” according to a journalist with a communications degree and a bachelor’s degree in “philosophy of science.” Comparing humans to plants that are stereotyped to be served on toast to millennials is as offensive as it is misleading. [No mundo anglófono, existe o meme do jovem que come torrada com abacate. Tudo surgiu porque em 2017 um milionário australiano, Tim Gurner, no programa 60 Minutes, criticou os jovens que gastam dinheiro demais comprando abacate amassado em vez de juntar dinheiro para comprar uma casa. (N. t.)]

Up to the scientific journal

Nature has decided to subordinate its search for truth to fashionable views on gender. In a recent editorial, the journal announced new “ethical guidelines”, stressing that “academic freedom […] is not unlimited” and does not comprise findings that could prove offensive to those who believe in an infinite spectrum of identities in “gender variance” or other leftist gender theories. The editorial notes, “Researchers are encouraged to promote equality in their scholarly research,” and editors should withdraw articles that are “sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+.” In Quillette, Bo Winegard shows that the new guidelines from )Nature are of a disturbing vagueness and one wonders: “Is an article that says men are physically stronger than women ‘misogynistic’?”

Would an article concluding that women tend to form instant bonds with their children also conflict with current sensitivities? The New York Times recently published an op-ed article according to which women’s maternal instinct is something manufactured by ” modern Christian archetypes” that only emerged after the Industrial Revolution, because “capitalism focuses on work and politics, on individual competition, and on creating a ladder for men’s potential wages.”

Let’s review: the current dogma of sealing requires us to accept that sexist men invented women in the late 18th century to oppress them; that alleged gender-fluid avocado trees somehow refute human sexual dysmorphism; that the term “woman” is hateful; and that capitalists invented motherly love after the Industrial Revolution turbocharged the economy. In short, some strident members of the “Science Party” argue that women are fake news and that motherhood is a nefarious capitalist ruse. It is increasingly difficult to understand if the group that until recently was so used to hashtag #BelieveWomen [#AcrediteNasMulheres] even believes in the existence of women.

©2022 National Review. Published with permission. Original in English.


Back to top button