I echo the praise for your sustained work, S and S. A small task for what’s next … Philip Ball is The New European science columnist. As are others at TNE, he’s a bit woke in his “scientific” views on sex and gender (though even that basic distinction isn’t named). But at least he/they have put his/their head above the parapet. And there…
I echo the praise for your sustained work, S and S. A small task for what’s next … Philip Ball is The New European science columnist. As are others at TNE, he’s a bit woke in his “scientific” views on sex and gender (though even that basic distinction isn’t named). But at least he/they have put his/their head above the parapet. And there’s a chance that some clear evidence- and politics-based reasoning from the best expert on this might be published if not taken on board. If no one is doing it yet, can you engage someone better than me to respond please?
Just to add: The Trump order is quoted as defining male or female as "belonging to the sex that produces the small [or big] reproductive cell". That's actually a rather neat way to set out the two categories. I don't know details about what the Trump executive order writes, but PB's "science" simplifies that in order to rubbish the categories on spurious grounds that come from popular culture not good science. His "science" erases the whole (scientific and social) core of animal evolution and the human species.
I'd love to see someone 1. skilfully countering PB's logic, 2. bring in the important social and political contexts that make this so important (and a key to why the Democrats lost), and 3. get something published in the rather woke but well-regarded New European weekly paper (which is otherwise pretty good, I think).
I echo the praise for your sustained work, S and S. A small task for what’s next … Philip Ball is The New European science columnist. As are others at TNE, he’s a bit woke in his “scientific” views on sex and gender (though even that basic distinction isn’t named). But at least he/they have put his/their head above the parapet. And there’s a chance that some clear evidence- and politics-based reasoning from the best expert on this might be published if not taken on board. If no one is doing it yet, can you engage someone better than me to respond please?
For subscribers here’s the link:
https://app.theneweuropean.co.uk/story/128845/content.html
I can supply the text if needed. Thanks
Yes thanks, that would be great to see. It sounds fascinating
Here’s the link to my image of the article. The only brief letter about the article was to say “the science is right”. 😠
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ue1blfp357jobw2/PhilipBallTNEArticle12Feb25.jpg?dl=0
Thank you!
Just to add: The Trump order is quoted as defining male or female as "belonging to the sex that produces the small [or big] reproductive cell". That's actually a rather neat way to set out the two categories. I don't know details about what the Trump executive order writes, but PB's "science" simplifies that in order to rubbish the categories on spurious grounds that come from popular culture not good science. His "science" erases the whole (scientific and social) core of animal evolution and the human species.
I'd love to see someone 1. skilfully countering PB's logic, 2. bring in the important social and political contexts that make this so important (and a key to why the Democrats lost), and 3. get something published in the rather woke but well-regarded New European weekly paper (which is otherwise pretty good, I think).