It Takes Two

Congratulations to biologists Colin Wright and Emma Hilton! Please stand up and take a bow (to avoid being hit by the incoming mortar fire).

Earlier this month, The Wall Street Journal (accidentally?) reported that “…Transgender ideology harms women, gays—and especially feminine boys and masculine girls.” Granted, it showed up in the opinion column; but the piece was authored by biologists…no…real biologists, with college degrees and fancy science jobs in the real world (kids, ask your parents—they can explain).

That’s right, folks, actual smart people with edu-macations are finally weighing in on the gender debate. And here I thought Alfred Kinsey, SEICUS, Hollywood, and Planned Parenthood were the only ones legally allowed to weigh in on our children’s sex education. Will wonders never cease…?

Wright and Hilton unabashedly explain that, “…scientifically, there are only two sexes, male and female, and there is no sex ‘spectrum.’ They also stress that ‘biologists and medical professionals’ must stop being politically correct and ‘stand up for the empirical reality of biological sex.’”

They don’t stop there. They submit that the “pathologizing of sex-atypical behavior is extremely worrying and regressive.” They then equate the politically-correct redefining of biological gender to the religious practice of gay “conversion therapy;” but instead of attempting to change one’s mind about their view of sex and gender via religion; transgenderism is an attempt to change one’s body to conform to one’s view of sex and gender via science.

They conclude their op-ed piece by stating, “The time for politeness on this issue has passed. Biologists and medical professionals need to stand up for the empirical reality of biological sex. When authoritative scientific institutions ignore or deny empirical fact in the name of social accommodation, it is an egregious betrayal to the scientific community they represent. It undermines public trust in science, and it is dangerously harmful to those most vulnerable.”

Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist at Penn State; and Emma Hilton is a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester. There is no indication from their research or online curriculum vitaes that either one is religious, republican, conservative, or a born-again Christian; nor has any evidence presented itself that either own a “Make America Great Again” bumper sticker, ball cap, or t-shirt.

In fact, Wright’s Twitter page supplies ample evidence that he is far from a Christian or conservative sympathizer. He himself explains in several of his Tweets that he was “big on” New Atheism in the late 2000s and early 2010s. On February 10 of this year, he tweeted out to the atheist community and signed the tweet, “Sincerely, A Concerned Atheist.” Replying to a tweet from IronHeaver, Wright tweets: “Yes, I definitely have to credit my involvement with the atheist community for equipping me with the tools that allowed me to see the religious-like nature of gender ideology. Honestly, when I argue with gender activists it feels like I’m debating Creationists all over again.”

In situations of utter head-scratching perplexity such as this, Occam’s Razor should be employed—the simplest answer is often correct. Could it be that these biologists simply believe that babies born with a penis are boys; and babies born with a vagina are girls?