Biggit chromosomes
No, this is not a Joe Collidge gag. A biology professor at San Jose State–her defense of her inane statements is “I am an expert” (and you ain’t!)–has declared that “chromosomes don’t determine sex” and “high school biology” was wrong for teaching that they do (https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10309).
She erupted in response to a tweet made by a Texas state legislator, who posted pictures of the XX (female) and XY (male) chromosomes “to remind people how many sexes there are.”
He did this, charged the academic gasbag, “for a bigoted purpose.”
She declines to answer her critics because she’s a Big Scientist and they’re not. Anyhow, “‘Gender’ is described as the psychological and/or the emotional identity,” yadda-yadda.
Hey! Is “science” even science anymore? It behaves more like it’s just window-dressing for assorted leftid ideologies.
The prof adds that “intersex and ambiguously sexed individuals” constitute 1% of the population. One out of every hundred people you know. Really? What if you don’t spend all your time on a collidge campus, where such persons are likely to congregate? Is she talking about the real world, or her world?
America has too many colleges, too many professors, and way too many college students “learning” pure crapola from overpaid idiots. De-fund the universities now. Before it’s too late.
Words fail me. We are going back to a time of myths and fables.
One day future generations will look back and laugh all the crazy things we believed, just like we look back and laugh that people once they believed the earth was flat and unicorns were real.
“Anyhow, “‘Gender’ is described as the psychological and/or the emotional identity,” yadda-yadda.”
What they have done is to change the definition of gender. Look at any old dictionary, Gender means to beget and is synonymous with sex. There is no mention of psychology or emotions. Of course, modern definitions have changed this. Sexual orientation is another modern contrived word to validate their argument. Control the language, control the narrative.
As I recall from my experiences with my faculty colleagues at a major “research” university, there’s actually (or was at the time) a bit of a quarrel between those who believe gender to be an identity and those who follow Judith Butler in describing gender as “performance,” i.e., a choice of behavior based on the fact that there’s no such thing as objective reality, so even an “identity” isn’t a reality but only a kind of acting costume. But of course, that quarrel is like a quarrel over whether unicorns’ horns are ecru or blush rose.
All these people need to get real jobs where they don’t get paid for make-believe work. Then let’s see whether they can “self-identify” or “perform” paychecks for themselves.
All this postmodern relativism is causing us to regress backward. It is a recipe for insanity.
I think that academia truly suffers greatly from living almost entirely in the world of theory as opposed to practical experience. Teachers should be old hands that have been in the field and born the burdens. In the computer field, grads come into the workplace knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. I’ve seen some of the most bone-headed mistakes imaginable made by people with bright, shiny diplomas whom are blithely unaware of the real-world implications of their actions.
One fellow that worked for me was so panicked about “denial of service attacks” that he unplugged us from the Internet the first time my back was turned. Our website and our email server were available to no one. It never occurred to him that he had ultimate “denial of service” turning a vague possibility into an absolute reality. I discovered the problem after I had left for the day and had to drive back in to correct it. The way he had unplugged everything made it obvious that he didn’t understand how any of it worked, even though he was well into his M.S. degree. Eventually, as he gained experience, he began to learn a few things, but it was a pathetic rookie’s mistake made by a guy with a lot of formal education.
One of my uncles, an engineer, tried teaching engineering for a while, but he gave it up because it was too discouraging. He kept telling his students, “In the real world, 95% isn’t an ‘A’; it’s a collapsed bridge.” (I actually quoted his advice when I taught an occasional technical writing course.)
Myself, I did some database design and writing for computer magazines for about 10-12 years as a sideline during my college teaching career in Renaissance English. I found programming very refreshing after dealing with the deconstructionists all around me. My own mantra was, “A programming statement is reality; either it works or it doesn’t. If you try to deconstruct it, your system crashes and your work goes bye-bye.” (Yes, I know that’s a long mantra. English professors don’t do “ommmm.”) 🙂
What is the point of deconstructing Renaissance literature? I mean, really–people get paid for doing that???
The problem is that everybody goes to collidge, and everybody is not cut out to be a scholar, so they have to water it down. After all, there’s all that tuition money at stake–they don’t want people getting fed up and bailing out before they get a degree. So they make the hard stuff easy and pile on all kinds of crap courses so some dummy can get a degree in Nothing Studies. And meanwhile they hire more professors and administrators…
A friend of mine once found himself on the hiring committee of his state university: he had tenure, and it was his turn. He said the committee went far out of its way to hire the most addled, confused, dysfunctional, and depraved individuals it could find.
I see no reason to disbelieve him.
How long would any of them survive in a real work environment?
Everyone of our trillion plus cells of our body cries out either male of female. Taking a bunch of estrogen doesn’t change that. It is truly sad when debasement reigns in our citadels of higher learning.
Science isn’t science anymore. It’s just a branch of politics.