Mick Hartley

Jerry Coyne is vexed that yet another US science journal, Natural History, has jumped on the sex-isn't-binary bandwagon – first by publishing a contentious article by Agustin Fuentes, but then, more worryingly, by arguing that they were right to do so, and Fuentes is correct:

Note as well that the editors have been taken in by the claim that the variability of “sexual behavior” and of “sexual activity” within and among species show that there is variability in the number of sexes beyond two.  This is a false argument, as anybody who knows biology and isn’t warped by ideology should know.

What bothers me most about this editorial is the editors’ sanctimonious claim that they are acting “in the public interest” by recognizing the “science” in this debate, but the bogus-ness of that science is all on Fuentes’s side. Shame on you, editors of Natural History. Have you actually followed this debate? How can it be that the Supreme Court of the UK has apprehended and resolved this debate better than do editors of a science magazine.

A good comment:

What’s going on here is people presenting positions that they know will be approved by those whose opinions they value. It’s the same as intelligent Christians who use their ingenuity in defending silly doctrines, in order to be in good standing with their community.

For a short while – a couple of centuries, maybe – there was a dominant ideology among intellectuals that you should follow logic and evidence wherever they led, and if you were howled down for your heterodox views, then fine. That ideology is ebbing away, to my great regret. Young people are far less likely to hold it. Perhaps it’s the result of social media? Anyway, I know from personal experience that whenever I go to a philosophy conference, the younger people there will advance what they deem to be the most progressive positions, and if they consider objections, it will be in a cursory manner, with the aim of dismissing them.

It’s more important for Fuentes, and the editors of Natural History, to be in the right camp – the camp that disagrees with traditionalists and Trump – than to follow the evidence. The thirst for affirmation overwhelms the desire for truth, I’m afraid.

It's the same as the proud "right side of history" boast. Never mind the argument and the science, it's all about being seen as progressive and virtuous.

Also, what she said.