I AM AFRAID OF NOVEMBER 2022
ESG: DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS

PHYSICS AND SEXUALITY: QUEER QUARKS OR QUEER SCIENTISTS?

Science cover'

Using hard science to explain or justify human behavior is often a fool’s game…

My life as a photon

Growing up, I asked a lot of questions. Many of them foretold my future in astronomy: Why is the Sun yellow? Why do the constellations look like that? Why does Jupiter have a spot? My parents answered what they could, and bought me books to answer the rest. But my most frequent question, starting when I was about 5 years old, was why am I a girl? And for that, my parents had no answer. In fact, in the 1990s, in the foothills of the Appalachians, no one did. It was my first encounter with a question that has no simple answer.

[OCS: The fact that Kaitlin’s parents could not answer the question does not mean that there is no answer or a simple answer. Without going into the simplicity of religion or the complexities of biological categorization, perhaps the parents could have pointed to the things that make her different from a boy, such as genitalia, the fact that she usually urinates while sitting down, and when older is capable of creating eggs and giving birth.] 

Over the following years, I learned about relativity, and how in the right circumstances time itself can slow. I learned about quantum mechanics, where anything can happen. Rules were no longer absolute. Things I had accepted as fact were really just approximations of unknowable truths.

[OCS: Using the definitions and concepts used in the hard sciences to inform the social constructs of the social sciences is, indeed, the Pretense of Knowledge described by the Nobel Prize-winning economist  Friedrich A. Hayek. Using the unknowability or mutability of science to justify aberrant human behavior is not acceptable as it lacks the rigor of proof. This does not imply that it is acceptable to discard historical traditions or long-standing norms to justify human actions – whether motivated by conscience, political ideology, or peer pressure.]

In college, I would also hear the word “transgender” for the first time. I would meet queer folks in loving relationships. It was drastically different from my first brush with queerness—an encounter with a slur on a sign wielded by members of the Westboro Baptist Church, who came to my hometown to demonstrate when I was 13. At the end of college, I would realize that I myself am bisexual—attracted to my own gender as well as others, just as gravity draws every single thing in the universe to every other thing. It felt natural, like I had found a lower energy state of existence. Yet I still wasn’t in my ground state.

[OCS: This is bafflegab! As for gravity, any astrophysicist knows that quantum field theory doesn’t work for gravity. As far as I can tell, the author appears to be rejecting “classical” sexuality in favor of “quantum sexuality,” where things are strange, and everything is defined by your feelings of the moment.]

Physics is always evolving, and gender is, too. When we understand that things are more complex than they appear, we learn. When scientists embrace the complexity of the universe, our science can only improve.

[OCS: As far as I can tell, gender is a classification based on two divisions designated as female and male, by which most organisms are classified based on their chromosomes, reproductive organs, and functions. Chromosomal anomalies, genetic mutations, do exist and are treated as medical anomalies. I will leave feelings and the psychology of behavior to the witch doctors who purport to know about such things.]

Kaitlin Rasmussen is a postdoc at the University of Washington, Seattle, and a member of the International Society of Nonbinary Scientists.

SCIENCE • 19 AUGUST 2022 • VOL 377 ISSUE 6608 p. 898 (DOI: 10.1126/science.caredit.ade4593)

Bottom line…

Human sexuality is a personal matter and should remain so. Those who attempt to use sexuality to implement Marxist class warfare are equally despicable as those who try to divide individuals by race.

I regard the author’s work not as a scientific exposition but as an example of the popularization of woke virtual signaling in the academic community. I do not care how the author feels about their sexual orientation or what they do in their private lives. However, I do care that Science Magazine published this drivel, albeit under the classification of “Working Life.”

Hint to the author. You are not a photon on any generally accepted scientific principle.

We are so screwed.

-- Steve

l

l


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

Comments