It’s a rare admission that this is an effort to use scientific concepts to argue for a concept that is not scientific but ideological — that humans can flip genders like seahorses.

A further examination of the trans-science of so-called “gender inclusive biology” in Vermont schools reveals that it stretches mighty far without any persuasive sense. Examples abound of how foolish this theory is when it collides with logic.

One lesson for k-5 children proclaims, “Boy sea horses get pregnant and give birth to the babies from their pouch.” The lesson claims “this allows the boy to be pregnant and care for the growing babies.” The male seahorse is not pregnant by any scientific definition: the “science” here is grossly distorted to suit an ideological falsity.

An unintended admission is included in some of these arguments:

Inevitably, as always seems to happen when scientists attempt to discuss non-scientific concepts, we found ourselves drawing on examples from our work — in our case, wildlife biology.

This right here is a rare admission that this is an effort to use scientific concepts to argue for a concept that is not scientific but ideological — that humans can flip genders like seahorses. Perhaps children who perceive they are birds can fly, and the pseudo-scientists will point to birds as proof? Even if animals can morph their genders, this only affirms that gender is binary, and the flipping is between two visibly and biologically distinct poles, and it does not mean humans possess the same abilities, even with expensive experimental drugs and mutating surgeries. 

Indeed, the disclosures for hormone blockers fall into two (binary) categories: one for testosterone and a different one for estrogen. The therapies themselves are necessarily gender (hormone) binary: there is no physiological alternative. They couldn’t bend the law around the facts for the disclosures, and needed two separate disclosures because the two sets of risk factors are totally different — and totally dependent on biological gender.

Discussing birds who imitate opposing genders, the “scientist” pushing for an analogy with humans concedes:

While it’s difficult to draw analogies between the gender-disguising ruses of non-human animals and human gender identity, the comparison highlights just how much we rely on visual cues in making inferences about one another (and about the creatures we encounter). With animals as with humans, it’s often wise to look more closely.

It is indeed wise to look more closely at the lack of any real science whatsoever to support the drastic and harmful leap taken by Vermont’s educators, especially as many states and nations are moving in the opposite direction to protect children from what has already been implemented in Vermont. The science is simply not there, as exposed by those who seek to invoke it:

Although gender identity as a polygenic trait is only a hypothesis, this example could serve to show biology students how heritability studies can be used to gain a better understanding of a complex, socially relevant trait. Most textbooks cite skin color and height as examples of polygenic traits, and gender identity might be another to add to that list.

Wait — “only a hypothesis?” But Vermont has implemented transgenderism as scientific fact, in derogation of established parental rights and rules of scientific study — based on unscientific hypothetical conjecture and no science whatsoever. Another resource states plainly “Research into the biological basis of gender identity is in its infancy, but clues are beginning to emerge.” Imposition of the doctrines of this infancy are well matured in Vermont schools! The clues are everywhere.

Another “review” titled “Bringing Data to the Table” explains that it is trying to bend the data to oblige “feelings”:

The goal of this review is to provoke thoughtful consideration of the crucial role that human genetics can play in making society more open and equitable for gender minorities. … We provide historical and social context for our structured review of the genetics of gender identity. Finally, we discuss a possible path forward for socially responsible genomic research that is inclusive of gender minorities.

More speculation, to serve an a priori assumption — we must include gender minorities, so let’s warp science and fact to do so. This is not science but religiosity.

Another effort (“Intersex Across the Animal Kingdom”) to normalize what is abnormal argues that the presence of intersex hormones (a biological condition) somehow suggests all people have the option to simply abandon their DNA:

In humans, intersex conditions are mostly caused by genetics, like variations in chromosomes or in a single gene. Some kinds of intersex conditions are known as chromosomal DSDs, and in humans they’re linked to an unusual combination of X and Y sex chromosomes. (at :45) Some animals don’t actually have two separate sexes, and are hermaphroditic — like snails, slugs, and worms, which have both male and female reproductive organs. Other animals just have one set of reproductive organs, but they can change. (at 3:00)

The pained stretch required to squeeze these biological arguments into the trans-ideology playbook is truly cringeworthy. One site called “Evolution’s Rainbow: A queer species database of 200+ organisms,” includes protozoans and plants as examples to “prove” that humans can select their gender like a biological spin-dial:

NEED A RESEARCH TOPIC FOR QUEERNESS IN LIVING ORGANISMS? ….check out the embedded document below for 200+ species from the asexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, intersex, and hermaphrodite spectrum. Includes behavior, neurobiology, and chromosomal phenomena.

If gay sex among geckos makes homosexuality normal, then pedophilia must be similarly justified. The animal kingdom does not have a gender orientation (a behavior, not a physical trait) spectrum — by definition, biological classification identifies different phyla based on physical differences in body type, not sexual behaviors. This very exercise is a complete departure from accepted science.

The ultimate irony is that the hateful people shoving this novel gender theory down the throats of others’ children claim they are being scientific in the very act of defying science. One quip says it all: though it is titled “A biology teacher just destroyed every excuse for transphobia with cold hard facts,” the post by a supposed science teacher does the opposite. She recounts genetic (as in, physically discernable) aberrations in human chromosomes as proof that those with normal chromosomes are somehow similarly changeable:

And you can be male because you have two X chromosomes, but your heart and brain are male. And vice – effing – versa. Don’t use science to justify your bigotry. The world is way too weird for that s—.”

If that isn’t an unscientific ideological perversion, nothing is — are the heart and brain now to be gendered distinctly? Are the vagina and breasts male too? This person twists science out of any logical context to justify her bizarre conclusion, and then invokes her non-science as justification to stifle any scientific inquiry as bigotry. The same hijinks are displayed when addressing the “science” of hormone blockers: it is assumed they are beneficial, and anyone who points out that they are experimental and carry very evident health risks (as recounted in lengthy legal disclaimer forms that list the many potential harms) is attacked viciously and unscientifically as a bigot. How long can facts be kept silent by thuggish ideology? Even a child knows there are only two genders.

In truth, this disconnect between the scientific facts and the ideology unleashed on Vermont schoolchildren is unavoidable because trans-activists are not interested in scientific fact but in an unholy moralizing power domination. As one insightful writer has observed:

Gender Ideology is a fundamentalist religion — intolerant, demanding strict adherence to doctrine, hell-bent on gathering proselytes. I do not here use the term “religion” metaphorically or lightly. … There’s no physical evidence that any of us possesses an ethereal gender identity, of course. It may actually be disprovable; there is a good deal of evidence against it. No matter. The adherents take it on faith. The notion that each of us is born with a gender identity, utterly separable from our physiology, known only to us, imagines gender identity as the secular version of the ‘soul.’

In time, will anyone in Vermont’s education community acknowledge that the state’s position on trans-ideology is patently un-scientific, and therefore an abuse of science, children, parents and the law? The lawsuits are inevitable.

John Klar is an attorney and farmer residing in Brookfield. © Copyright True North Reports 2023. All rights reserved.