(LifeSiteNews) – For some time it has become increasingly clear that when progressives say “follow the science,” they have already done everything in their power to ensure the outcome. The scientific field of embryology, for example, is almost entirely ignored – but despite the iron-clad consensus on when human life begins, it is easy for media outlets to procure a scientist to insist that a baby’s heartbeat is actually “fetal pole cardiac activity.” As was the case in the Soviet Union and other ideological regimes, the pursuit of science is, more and more, controlled by ideologues.
This is a key reason I have my concerns with the optimistic argument that because the transgender movement’s agenda is so at odds with science, gender ideology has an expiration date. Eventually, the argument goes, there will be a head-on collision between trans activists and scientists, at which point the house of cards will crumble and we will resume some semblance of sanity. That, however, assumes, that scientists will not succumb – for whatever reason – to gender ideology. Consider, for example, noted science explainer Neil deGrasse Tyson’s slippery responses to Ben Shapiro on the issue – a master class of obfuscation.
Indeed, I suspect we’re more likely to see woke scientists spearhead an effort to change the language and change the facts to suit the ideological narrative just as they have, to a large extent, with abortion. Some members of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB) Language Project, founded by Canadian and American scientists, have already embarked on this project, advocating for a list of “harmful terminology” commonly used by scientists to be abandoned and replaced. Confronting usage of these “harmful” terms, they have stated, is a necessary response to the fact that “much of western science is rooted in colonialism, white supremacy, and patriarchy,” which “continue to permeate our scientific culture.”
Their call comes in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution, with scientists from the University of British Columbia (UBC) as well as universities in Michigan, New Jersey, and California laying out their efforts to “champion inclusive language” to facilitate the “redressing of ongoing marginalization of many groups.” They list “top 24 harmful terms” as well as potential replacements. And surprise, surprise – “male” and “female” are terms these luminaries believe we should dispense with, replacing them with “sperm-producing” and “egg-producing” or “XY/XX individual instead” to avoid enforcing “societally-imposed ideas of a sex binary.”
Terms like “father” and “mother” were also put on the chopping block for further a “non-universal” view of “the parenting and birthing process”; “parent,” “egg donor,” and “sperm donor” were proposed instead. “Feminized” and “masculinized” are condemned because they imply that feminine and masculine “are biological traits rather than social constructs.” “Man” and “woman” are labeled “highly anthropomorphic” and “biased towards men” and thus should be replaced by “human” (which doesn’t seem to avoid the fictitious problem, all things considered). “Gender” and “sex” should no longer be conflated.
As Dr. Frank Furedi, emeritus professor of sociology at the University of Kent, bluntly told The Telegraph: “I think that when you characterise terms like male/female, mother/father as harmful you are abandoning science for ideological advocacy. Regardless of intent, the project of re-engineering language will cause confusion to many and the last thing that scientists need is a lack of clarity about the meaning of the words they use.” And indeed – you couldn’t make this up – the Daily Mail noted that “The EEB Language Project was borne out of a Twitter conversation among a few people discussing potentially harmful language” and eagerly tackled by UBC researchers Dr. Kaitlyn Gaynor, Dr. Alex Moore, and Dr. Danielle Ignace.
“[W]e propose that inclusion can be fostered by a collective commitment to be more conscientious and intentional about the scientific terminology we use when teaching, mentoring, collaborating, and conducting research,” they stated. The document will be a “living” one where people can add their own suggestions of words and terms that should be axed, an invitation that many will enthusiastically embrace. Orwell noted in 1984 that by changing the language, you could limit the parameters of thought. As the transgender movement colonizes the scientific field, we’re seeing that happen in real time.