One of the mantras we hear from those on the left is that we should follow science. You may recall how many times Dr. Anthony Fauci proclaimed that during the Covid Pandemic – even as the scientists proffered differently – and often diametrically opposing – opinions.
We may also recall how the “science” associated with the use of masks was arbitrary and never consistent because the advice was based on politics – not science. We were told that we should wear masks indoors and outdoors – then only indoors. We were told that masks were only beneficial for the person with Covid in preventing spread – then that they protect the uninfected. We were told to mask up at the same time, we were told that the masks in common use were ineffective.
Those on the left like to counsel us to follow science even as they do not. For example …
Boys and girls
The terms male and female – man and woman – have very specific scientific biological and genetic meanings. It has to do with organs, DNA, and reproductive roles. That is science. It is not a matter of opinion.
One can dress like a person of the opposite sex – and even have plastic surgery performed on the organs – and take hormones to assume some physical attributes of the opposite sex. They can prefer to function in society as a person of the opposite sex. But that does not change the science.
The so-called transgender men participating in women’s sports are still biological men. Biology gives them an unfair advantage over biological women. We brush aside science for adherence to a misguided doctrine of political correctness.
Since I lean toward libertarian conservativism, I can respect those who wish to live in alternative lifestyles. Same sex relationships, crossdressing, and even transgender medical treatments are individual choices. I have supported gay civil rights – including gay marriage. But I stick with science. None of those chosen lifestyles alters the gender of the person. I also understand the difference between tolerance toward those living alternative lifestyles does not necessarily mean automatic approval of promoting or normalizing those lifestyles – especially among the youngest children.
It is based on that fundamental truth that I believe language should also follow science in most cases. I say most cases because I am willing to use “him” or “her” for folks who have the surgery and take the hormone treatments – even though the DNA is still the primary marker for gender.
Other than that one exception, I prefer to keep the pronouns tied to science. Society should not bend to those who simply demand to be addressed by pronouns defining the opposite sex. In science, there is no such thing as a non-binary person – claiming to be neither male nor female. Yet, we find more and more applications and forms providing for an arbitrary non-scientific designation. Students and teachers have been disciplined for not using the pronouns arbitrarily selected by others.
I tend to keep with the biological reality when addressing crossdressers and drag queens. They are fully biologically and genetically men or women – the males or the females of the species. The fact that they get satisfaction of some sort by dressing and taking on mannerisms of the opposite gender does not change the reality – the scientific facts.
Where there are traditional situations in which we separate the men from the women, people belong in the group with common DNA and genitalia. Penises belong in the “men’s room,” and vaginas in the “women’s room.” Same with the locker rooms or on those sports teams specifically designated for men or women.
The developing human being
Abortion advocates and activists kick science aside for a political view of human life. For obvious reasons, they declare the life in the womb to be inhuman. One of my regular critics expressed the pro-abortion view when he wrote: “Ending that which never lived is not killing anything. Flushing a zygote is not murder. It’s ending something that never was, might never be, might be, no one really knows.”
Of course, that is all intellectual nonsense – and contrary to science. The fertilized cell IS a “living thing.” In fact, it is the earliest stages of a developing human being. The developing human being IS NOT something that “never was.” It is something that IS. In some cases, that developing human being “might never be,” but in the vast majority of cases, it will become a real person.
From conception, that developing human being has all the human traits and characteristics that will become more obvious during the maturation process – hair and eye color, height, bone structure … oh yeah … and gender. That is the science of it.
Suggesting that the developing human being is not life – just a piece of flesh akin to a tumor or a wart – is contrary to the established facts of biology and genetics. The pro-abortion community rejects science in favor of a political definition of life and humanness. They then apply an arbitrary political (legislative) determination as to when that “non-life” becomes a person with rights and the protections of a civil society. And even then they cannot even agree on when that transition takes place during the gestation period – two months … six months … up to the moment of birth? That is because they ignore science. Since answers that question. Human life begins at conception.
Climate change
Climate change reveals a different issue of science versus politics. Most scientists agree that the earth is warming – even though the left accuses those on the right of denying that science. Where politics and science separate are in terms of the causes of global warming and what can be done about it.
For the left, man-made pollution is the primary cause of global warming. But … that is not what the science tells us. Human activity contributes only about three percent of all the greenhouse gases that flow into the atmosphere. The rest comes naturally from the land and the sea. (That fact surprises most folks.)
The second issue is what can we do about it? If you listen to the politicians, you might believe that we can solve the problem by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. What science tells us is that the total elimination of fossil fuels will have only a marginal impact on greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.
To make any impact – according to the scientists – we would have to return to living in pre-industrial conditions. We simply cannot cut back enough to make much of a difference – and that would be an unacceptable reduction in our lifestyle.
Also, according to climatologists, the earth is coming out of a normal warming cycle. It may be retarded by man-made emissions, but nature is not likely to be denied forever. Many reputable scientists believe that the Earth is on the cusp of a cooling cycle – and they have a lot of data to support their opinions.
A major reason for the man-made pollution is the earth’s population. To shelter, feed and clothe the eight billion people on earth means the creation of greenhouse gases. It is unavoidable.
Having said all that, I have no complaint about shifting to renewable so-called clean energy. But things like the Green New Deal are not based on science, but on politics – the game of picking winners and losers and spreading taxpayer money to political allies.
Life on other planets
The existence of life on other plants is yet to be discovered. But science tells us that the potential is extremely high based on what we know about the ingredients necessary to create life … the existence of those ingredients throughout the universe we can currently perceive … and the statistical probabilities. Yet, there is a persistent belief that interplanetary aliens have visited earth – and may still be among us.
There is nothing in the scientific record that supports those theories. In that case, both folklore and politics are trumping science. I personally believe in the probability of life of some form on other planets – even advanced intelligent life — but there is no science to prove that spacemen traveled to earth to build the pyramids or crashed at Roswell. (And why are there no tales of space women?)
Summary
Politics trumping science is not new. You only need to recall the ancient debates when science said the earth was round, and the political leaders said it was flat. Or when it was believed that the earth was the center of the universe even as the scientists of the times were proving otherwise.
Yes … there can be disagreements among scientists as they postulate futuristic theories. However, some stuff is pretty well accepted. The earth is round … it is not the center of the universe … men and women are men and women … that thing in the womb is a living, developing human being … the earth will do what it does according to the laws of geo and astrophysics, which are not responsive to legislation … and visitors from other planets are only in movies.
I prefer to stick with science. You will be correct more times than not.
So, there ‘tis.