SUNY Suspends Student For Posting Views On Biological Gender

There could be a significant First Amendment case brewing in New York after the School of Education at the State University of New York-Geneseo suspended student Owen Stevens for posting his view that gender is limited to biologically males and females.  As a state institution, SUNY is subject to the limitations of the First Amendment and Stevens could challenge the action based on his statements on Instagram.

I have not been able to find the letter sent to Stevens by the school but it is quoted on a conservative website, The Daily Wire. According to that report, Owen posted on Instagram that there are only two genders. This may be that posting:

 

The school reportedly maintains that such statements made on social media are grounds for suspension and other disciplinary action.  While she did not refer to him by name, SUNY-Geneseo President Denise Battles sent out a message stating that “[y]esterday, I was made aware of a current student’s Instagram posts pertaining to transgender people.” Battles acknowledges that “There are clear legal limitations to what a public university can do in response to objectionable speech. As a result, there are few tools at our disposal to reduce the pain that such speech may cause.” However, the school then suspended Stevens.

A spokesperson is quoted by the Daily Wire declaring students must follow the “professional standards” of their chosen field by acting and behaving in ways that “may differ from their personal predilections.”

That does not sound like an accommodation of the First Amendment, which protects your right to express your “personal predilections.” Many object to his view of transgender persons, but it is a view that often expresses a myriad of religious, political, social, and biological beliefs.

The suspension letter reportedly states:

You continue to maintain, “I do not recognize the gender that they claim to be if they are not biologically that gender.” This public position is in conflict with the Dignity for All Students Act requiring teachers to maintain a classroom environment protecting the mental and emotional well-being of all students.

The question is whether holding such beliefs means that Smith is incapable of maintaining a classroom that is respectful and protective of all students, including transgender students. We have previously discussed professors who express animosity toward white students, males, or conservatives but few have been subject to suspension or termination unless they manifest such bias or prejudice in classrooms or on campus. (See stories here, here, here, here, and here) I have long opposed discipline for teachers for their expression of political or social views outside of schools. Indeed, as we have previously discussed, one professor called for more Trump supporters to be killed. Another called for strangling police. Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis, who writes for the site Lawyers, Guns, and Money, said he saw “nothing wrong” with the killing of a conservative protester — a view defended by other academics.  Yet, recently a professor was suspended for writing against reparations.  The result seems like a sharp divergent treatment based on the content of views on the left or the right of the political spectrum in the treatment of faculty members.

The spokesperson told the site that “SUNY Geneseo respects every student’s right to freedom of speech and expression,” but “[b]y choosing to enter into certain professional fields, students agree to abide by the professional standards of their chosen field. At times, these professional standards dictate that students act and behave in certain ways that may differ from their personal predilections.”

Yet, Smith is not saying that he would apply his views in classrooms or refuse to comply with “professional standards.” Instead, the school seems to be saying that one of those professional standards is conforming your views (or at least your public statements) to the accepted views of a “chosen field.” That would seem like the abridgment of free speech.

Again, we do not have to agree with Smith to support his right to speak freely. We often support the free speech rights of individuals who espouse views that we find offensive or even grotesque. You cannot say that you are in favor of free speech so long as you do not use it in a way that we do not like. It is hard to see any limiting principle in the position of SUNY-Geneseo. It would mean that the “chosen field” of any student could limit their ability to speak out on issues in their private lives. The alternative is to enforce “professional standards” by requiring adherence to those standards in the professional setting.

The school may be looking at a substantial free speech challenge in this case and we will continue to follow it. In the meantime, it would be useful to see the letter of suspension and any references to any other postings by the school to judge the strength of a possible case.

 

241 thoughts on “SUNY Suspends Student For Posting Views On Biological Gender”

  1. The student may be ignorant, but as long as he can pass course work and does not advocate violence or otherwise violate laws or the code of conduct required by students, he should not be removed and that decision will almost certainly be reversed if pursued.

    1. “The student may be ignorant”

      Clearly stating that if you are born with male genitalia you are male, and if born with female genitalia you are female, is not ignorant.

      It is a biological fact. So, stating that is not fact would be a classic example of ignorance.

      1. Walworth, biological facts do not always determine sexual or gender identity and so his argument is ignorant. These are not matters of choice by the best science of our day – when did you make the “decision” to like chicks – and so his use of the facts of biology is ignorant.

      2. The student sounds intelligent, intellectually honest ,and has common sense. He is the type of person that can do well in a leadership position

        1. S. Meyer: “The student sounds intelligent, intellectually honest ,and has common sense. He is the type of person that can do well in a leadership position.”

          *******

          Yes, but the same virtues likely guarantee a rough ride through the carnival funhouse the university has become.

        1. “Biology is not as simple as you would like to believe.”

          Another meaningless statement. Walworth could be a Nobel Prize winner in Biology and the above comment might be correct.

          What a waste of time.

    2. Joe, we may disagree on gender issues, but I truly appreciate your defense of free speech. I would slightly modify your statement to read, “violate… the code of conduct required by students AS LONG AS THAT CODE IS CONSISTENT WITH HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.” I think that’s what you meant, given the context of your statement.

    3. What exactly is the ignorance to which you refer? Is his statement false that persons are born with permanent chromosomes identified by science as either “XX” or “XY” type?

      1. “Is his statement false that persons are born with permanent chromosomes identified by science as either “XX” or “XY” type?”

        Yes, suggesting that those are the only two possibilities is false.

        Some people are instead born with permanent chromosomes of some other type, such as:
        45,X; 47,XXY; 47,XXX; 47,XYY; 48,XXYY; 48,XXXY; 48,XXXX; 49,XXXXY; 49,XXXXX; 46,XY/47,XXY; 45,X/47,XXX; 46,XX/46,XY

        1. Reply to Anonymous, 27 Feb 2021 at 2:15 PM:
          A brief survey of the descriptions of several of the chromosomal irregularities did not revealed a correspondence with psychological gender identity. Are you aware of any scientific studies that actually examined the chromosomes of persons claiming non-biological gender identity?

  2. Wonder what the school’s response would have been had he applied current ‘Progressive’ biology standards to a post endorsing the rights of White women who have ‘felt’ race a social construct, and pronounced themselves to be Black, Latino or Asian? Despite BLM & media denigration, don’t such women have a right to ‘their truth’s, and he a right to concur.

  3. The fascist, science denying Democrats/liberals are at it again. Book burning societies run by thought-controlling fascists are not societies anyone should want to live in. But for some absurd reason 50% of AMericans voted them into power. Now they are trying to destroy our country. Sad days ahead.

  4. “Smith is not saying that he would apply his views in classrooms or refuse to comply with “professional standards.””

    He’s in an education program and doing fieldwork. This may be about his interactions with students. Teachers are not free to say whatever they want publicly if their statements contradict professional standards. It’s not hard to find examples of teachers who are fired for racist, sexist, religiously bigoted, homophobic, transphobic, … posts.

    As for Smith’s claims, biology is more complex than many people understand. Transgenderism may be linked to dual sex chimerism, where female cells develop into the brain and male cells develop into the sex organs, or vice versa. Does he understand chimerism?

    1. Do you understand the concept?
      A link to help out. It is a rare condition that does not necessarily affect the person who may have absorbed some DNA from a fraternal twin or a fetus, e.g., a pregnant woman who has absorbed some DNA from a male fetus does not suddenly idenity as male and insist on hormone treatments and surgery to remake her body.
      It can be a temporary condition or endure for years, but there is no evidence in this link that it predisposes anybody to identifying as anything but the sex they were born with. It is certainly not the norm, and it is difficult to see how a male might absorb female DNA since males do not get pregnant (even if they identify as females, even given Arnie’s fictional pregnancy).
      Chimerism also exists in plants, usually is the result of human activity.
      The difficulty would be to demonstrate that chimerism is a sufficient cause for a desire to change one’s sex. Recent studies (no link for those, since I have one already) suggest that at the moment there is an increase in the number of young people who think they are in the wrong body, which appears to be the result of fashion, not biology.
      Again, the question is whether those who think as you do should be banned from the classroom if people who think as the fellow who was banned are offended by your opinions. Chimerism is merely a red herring; the real question is who gets banned and why.
      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/3-human-chimeras-that-already-exist/

      1. Yes, I do understand the concept, and contrary to your claim that “It is a rare condition,” fetal and maternal human microchimerism are common, blood chimerism is fairly common (on the order of 10% of twins and 20% of triplets), and we simply don’t know how common fusion and other kinds of chimerism are (e.g., sesquizygotic chimerism). It also depends on what you mean by “rare.” Suppose something occurs for 1 in 5,000 people. That’s fairly rare, but it also means that there are over 1.5 million people with that feature.

        Your author discussed 3 mechanisms for human chimerism: from fraternal twins that merge (fusion or tetragametic chimerism), from transplants (especially bone marrow transplants), and from pregnancy. She limits the discussion of microchimerism from pregnancy to the effect on the mother (fetal microchimerism), but this also affects fetuses (maternal microchimerism) — and since we were all fetuses, many of us have cells from our mother and/or from “siblings” (whether born or not) if our mother had previous pregnancies. She didn’t discuss blood chimerism that can arise in twins/triplets or other forms of chimerism.

        Your own link notes that 2/3s of the women in their study had male DNA in their brains. The study itself notes “pregnancy history on most subjects was unknown,” so it’s unclear whether the cells with male DNA came from fetal cells that crossed the placental barrier during pregnancy versus some being born with some male brain cells if their mothers had previously been pregnant with males.

        “a pregnant woman who has absorbed some DNA from a male fetus does not suddenly idenity as male and insist on hormone treatments and surgery to remake her body.”

        I didn’t say that she did. I’m pointing out that it’s biologically possible for the entirety of someone’s brain to be XX while their reproductive organs are XY, or vice versa. Of course, other variations also exist, such as hermaphrodites with mixed reproductive organ DNA.

        Because there is normally no reason to carry out a genetic analysis of cells from various parts of someone’s body, we simply don’t know how common macrochimerism is.

        Here’s one research article with more info about human chimerism –
        https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kamlesh-Madan/publication/342263506_Natural_human_chimeras_A_review/links/5f16f39b299bf1720d56b5ac/Natural-human-chimeras-A-review.pdf

        Here’s a discussion of another variant, sesquizygotic chimerism:

        1. Thank you for the interesting reviews of the literature and the speculation by the authors, who have chosen to stress certain aspects of the research they reviewed and ignore others.
          This emphasis on DNA reminds me of the old nature-nurture arguments, which have never been satisfactorily resolved because it has proven impossible to draw a clear line between the influence of our genes and that of our environments, as I am sure you are aware. This is similar. Even if one has this condition, whether it affects one’s behavior is simply not established. To prove your point, you would have to do a large randomized study in which you show that people with the condition have gender disphoria (a mental condition) and wish to change their sex in large numbers. These articles do not show that at all.
          As for ‘common,’ that is a meaningless term. What is “common”? For example, twins account for 32/1,000 births (roughly), and 1/12 (estimated) have the condition you are identifying as a factor in the decision to identify as a member of the opposite sex and then identify as the opposite sex, and that is what we are discussing, not whether one identifies as an exotic chromosonal anomaly because most trans go from male to female or female to male (which sort of makes this poor guy’s point).
          The condition would then exist in 1/12 of 32/1000 babies born as twins (3.2 percent), or 2.6/1000 or 0.26 percent, if my math is correct (it may not be), an incidence ten times rarer than being born with red hair (about 2 percent in some populations, even rarer in China). It also seems twin births are declining, while increasing numbers of people are trans, so there seems little correlation here. I may, of course, be wrong. (and yes, I am familiar with confirmation bias; it is more or less a norm in the social sciences)
          Tolerance for those who are different is a value I hold, but tolerance does not mean embracing or imitating speculation or tenuous theories, nor rejecting basic biology because someone is fascinated by research into a niche area of the subject.
          Henry IV tolerated the Huguenots, because he wanted the throne and an end to fifty years of war, but he did not allow them at Court.

          1. “Even if one has this condition, whether it affects one’s behavior is simply not established.”

            I didn’t say that it does. I’m saying that biology is much more complex than a lot of people make it out to be, and people who suggest that the only possibilities are “xy male” and “xx female” are either ignorant or dishonest.

            “increasing numbers of people are trans”

            Or increasing numbers of people are publicly identifying as trans and the underlying number of trans people is unchanged. Why do you assume the former rather than the latter?

            “As for ‘common,’ that is a meaningless term.”

            If that’s what you believe, then your claim that I was responding to, “It is a rare condition,” is also meaningless.

            “tolerance does not mean … rejecting basic biology”

            I’m not. I’m pointing out that basic biology is more complex than a lot of people make it out to be. Sex chromosome combinations are not limited to XX and XY, people may be intersex, the SRY gene might be absent, someone might have androgen insensitivity syndrome, etc., etc. It is ironic for Stevens to say things like “#factsmatter #sciencematters #biology … #factsdontcareaboutyourfeelings” while ignoring relevant biological facts. Scientists are also forthright about not knowing some things, so anyone who pretends that we already know everything that’s relevant is antiscientific.

            1. Anonymous, ” I’m pointing out that basic biology is more complex than a lot of people make it out to be. ”

              Since we can’t know everything is your solution that we think only in ‘indefinites’?

              Everything in life is more complex if one digs deeper, but your attitude here translated to life means we can never make rational decisions based on the known facts.

              If we can never make rational decisions then even crazy decisions can prevail.

              I will try to use your prevailing logic above to provide a better understanding of your logic taking us back to the political left and political right. One could say that the political left deals in ‘indefinites’ because our lives are so complex. They dream about a unified theory in the future that is blurred and unable to be defined knowing anything is possible. They work towards that blurred vision.

              The right utilizes the facts known today along with their predictive value and deals rationally with that knowledge pushing their dreams aside. Many can go astray, but that doesn’t define the right.

    2. “Transgenderism may be linked to dual sex chimerism”

      Keywords: “may be”.

      “biology is more complex than many people understand”

      You should start with the definition of “may”, Mister Science.

      1. Genes may create a risk factor but the condition is more likely due to developmental mishaps of which there can be many. Read “Becoming Nicole” which tells of identical twin boys [thus the same DNA], one of whom seems clearly transgender.

        It isn’t clear what pathways in fetal and neonate development lead to normal sexual preference or normal gender identity [not the same thing] so it is unlikely that one can identify the possible detours that lead to departures from the normal.

        Essentially everything about development can go astray. Children are born without limbs, without brains, and with displaced organs. It should come as no surprise that refinements such as sexual preference or sexual identity can also be subject to mishaps. Obviously it is not their fault or their choice.

        But a physical male who identifies as female mentally will still have male physical strength and lung capacity and it is a delusion to think he can participate fairly in female sports. Whatever their gender identity, physical males will dominate and they will destroy women’s sports.

        Ask yourself this: If identity and surgical or chemical change erase genetic identity, why don’t we see female to male players dominating in male sports the way male to female players dominate in women’s sports?

        1. Identical twins don’t have identical DNA. All identical twins can be genetically distinguished from one another due to different mutations after splitting. In some, there’s significant variation in sex chromosomes, even to the point of being assessed as different sexes at birth (XY and X0).

          1. True enough, but differences in DNA from the norm seem to have less to do with sexual preference and identity than one would expect. I am not sure that the Nicole in “Becoming Nicole” displayed any differences from her brother in that. Moreover, it isn’t clear that people with Kleinfelter’s syndrome have significant variation from the norm in sexual preference or identity. I think it likely that environmental factors, mother’s stress, drugs, viruses, etc during fetal development play a bigger role.

            I do think that inheritance can also provide a risk factor, perhaps greater sensitivity to some environmental influences, for example.

            On the other hand, I doubt social milieu plays any significant role. Giving your son a doll or painting his fingernails won’t make him gay or transgendered. Read “As Nature Made Him” about David Reimer. In a medical accident his genitalia were mutilated shortly after birth and the reckless decision was made to continue genital alteration and raise him as a girl. He thought he was a girl but behaved like a boy, even trying urinate while standing. He was being destroyed emotionally and his mother finally told him the truth. He immediately adopted his original name, ‘David’ and assumed a male role, including getting a girlfriend. But the damage was too deep. He committed suicide.

            If nothing else comes from David’s tragedy we can see that “experts” and stupid judges and politicians messing in this have crimes to answer for and that gender identity and sexual preference are often hardwired in very deeply and are not easily subject to change or “cure”.

            1. On the other hand, I doubt social milieu plays any significant role.

              Again, discordance among identical twins is more common than concordant homosexuality.

          2. “Identical twins don’t have identical DNA.”

            Monozygotic twins have nearly identical DNA (identical twins). Fraternal twins don’t. There are rarities I am not mentioning but bring up because I don’t want to hear that I am wrong because of some rarity.

        2. Read “Becoming Nicole” which tells of identical twin boys [thus the same DNA], one of whom seems clearly transgender.

          One’s trying to distinguish himself from the other, in a peculiarly self-destructive way.

          Margo Howard (daughter of Ester Friedman Lederer, aka ‘Ann Landers’) let the cat out of the bag writing about her mother and aunt when she said her mother was ready to ‘ditch the twin act’ and then discovered her sister had gone into the same line of work she had. She didn’t speak to her for ten years. They reconciled, then had another falling out and weren’t speaking during AL’s last years.

          The identical twin set in my family are fairly congenial, but they’ve made a point of having different haircuts, different glasses, different educational trajectories, different lines of work, different taste in women. (Alas, marrying women who were alike in being unsuitable for the long haul. Or even the short haul).

          1. Art: “One’s trying to distinguish himself from the other, in a peculiarly self-destructive way.”

            ***

            I don’t think so. The one who identified as female was demonstrably better in sports than the male. She would try not to be good in sports if it were simply an emotional decision.

            Accidents happen in development. It is no harder to credit gender dysphoria as being a genuine condition than to credit being born without much of a brain, anencephaly. The primary difference is that one is easy to see and the other isn’t.

            However, imaging seems to have demonstrated that brain structures in male transsexuals more closely resemble the same physical structures in normal women than those structures in normal men. With the right tools the differences in gender dysphoria are almost as apparent as being born without a brain. I think something similar was seen in female to male transsexuals.

            Funny about your family twins. Both were identical in deciding not to be identical thus confirming their fundamental identity. if they were truly different one would work to be different while the other didn’t care one way or the other.

                1. Well, I am not exactly trying to sell anything to you. Apparently you didn’t read the article because if you had you would have found citations to scientific journals where the research was published. Any Google search will yield a number of links to yet more information.

                  I chose the New Scientist article because it was brief, easy to read, and had links for those who wanted to inquire further. As to the quality of New Scientist, I agree. Davidiski who is brilliant and who hosts Eurogenes blog told one of the commenters on his site [they are smart too usually] not to read New Scientist. “It rots your brain” he said. Still, some of the articles are close enough for a comment here. Except for CTHD and you, to a lesser degree, nobody cares to pick apart comments for perceived faults. The trolls mostly engage in insults. That’s all they have.

                  Years ago I stopped looking at New Scientist when I read a about a university researcher who reported that his study revealed that ingestion of lead caused ADHD in some [many?] children. I looked at his original paper and thought it was absurd. I am familiar with very high lead environments and know of no instance where ingestion in doses that this ‘researcher’ could not imagine led to ADHD. Where he did his study it was nearly impossible for children to get appreciable exposure to lead. Worse, he relied on parents’ reports for a determination of ADHD. You know the incentives parents have to get those diagnoses. I called the researcher and discussed his study with him. He was extremely nervous in my opinion. I suspect, but don’t know, that the EPA was courting researchers for studies of that nature so justify new regulations. In any event, New Scientist didn’t have anyone on staff with enough curiosity or ability to raise questions about the study before it was printed as gospel proof.

                  In any event, if you are curious about the scan results, it is easy enough to find other reports.

                  One thing one thing can say in the field of gender studies is that any statement made with certainty is probably wrong.

                  1. Well, I am not exactly trying to sell anything to you. Apparently you didn’t read the article because if you had you would have found citations to scientific journals where the research was published. Any Google search will yield a number of links to yet more information.

                    Yes, I would have. So what? You’re talking about a phenomenon that was non-existent when my mother finished high school and was the preserve of a few oddballs like Richard Raskind when I was in school. The notion this is some problem in human biology beggars belief. Ellen Page is an attention whore.

                    1. Floating continents were only a theory or were simply dismissed when I was in school. Now they are an established fact. I place little weight on phenomena that wasn’t known when your mother was young and, per you, must not now not be valid for that reason. Very peculiar logic there.

                    2. If your mother knew enough Roman history to know of Emperor Elagabalus she would have known the phenomenon was not as new as you imagine.

            1. I don’t think so. The one who identified as female was demonstrably better in sports than the male. She would try not to be good in sports if it were simply an emotional decision.

              Sorry, no sale. We’re looking at supply generating its own demand here, as well as social fads. (See the recent explosion in frequency of the phenomenon).

              It’s not difficult to locate people who do strange and self-destructive things because they get a charge out of it. See, for example, the legions of alcoholics in this country. In this case, it’s sexual fetishism (Donald McCloskey is a famous example, as was James Humphrey Morris).

              1. No sale? It is not likely I would try to convince you since I am not willing to convince myself of anything in this field yet.

                However, I have the advantage of you in that I have read “Becoming Nicole” and “As Nature Made Him” and much else. You are arguing from ignorance [lack of information], not stupidity and I do not mean to insult.

                You are right about there being many spurious cases and they are being criminally encouraged by politicians and professionals. Several mechanisms are likely at work.

                One is that girls are hardwired to need attention. Madam De Stael [a very clever person] said something like “a man desires a woman and a woman desires the desire of a man.” Thales of Miletus dealt with the problem. The city had a rash of young women committing suicide. Gorgeous and emotional funerals paraded with each tragedy. It was out of control so Thales, a very wise man, was asked to help. He said pass a law that any girl who commits suicide must have a funeral with her naked to view. The suicides stopped.

                In a school district in Massachusetts [I believe] there was a rash of teenage pregnancies. Each pregnant girl was showered with attention and sympathy and others seeking it got pregnant themselves. I think something like that is happening with the rash, mostly of girls, who are declaring they are transgender.

                Another factor is that the mothers get a lot of sympathy and attention and the same mechanism is at work with them, Munchausen by Proxy. In some of those cases the kids, often boys, are pressured into saying they want to be girls and I suspect those cases are straightforward child abuse.

                Much rarer are those cases where the child, for whatever reason, is genuinely in gender dysphoria, and there could multiply pathways leading to that condition.

                The difficulty is that superficially all of these cases look alike, those of attention-seeking people, those caught by mothers seeking attention, and those who have a problem that would exist even without social or parental pressure.

                They look alike, but they are different. Your comment suggests you haven’t quite apprehended that yet.

                I agree with those who say that biology is much more complicated than most suspect and the same could be said of human behavior.

                1. You are arguing from ignorance [lack of information], not stupidity and I do not mean to insult.

                  Young, libraries are great cemeteries of mediocre books. You need a better bibliography.

                  I’m actually arguing from common sense. Academics make a name for themselves arguing against that at great length. What is the function of intellectuals, but to tell us that things are not as ordinary people see them? And I suggest you consult Paul McHugh on the systemic problems from which psychiatry suffers; he was writing from the inside. From the outside, you can see that it’s been prone to waves of quackery (psychoanalysis, psychosurgery), as well as a tendency to pretend it’s normative assumptions are derived from some sort of empirical science. The difference in how non-invasive counseling and therapy sessions for homosexuals are treated by professional guilds and Democratic legislators and how this very gruesome phenomenon is treated should suffice to get you to stop giving them much credence. You’ve just seen the nation’s public health mavens making clowns of themselves. There’s a lesson in there.

                  1. So you actually have nothing.

                    Even CTHD doesn’t argue from ‘common sense’. She is often correct in detail and wrong on a larger picture or cites some ‘expert’ who clearly is in conflict with the evidence.

                    Common sense tells us that the world is flat and the Sun goes round the Earth. Embrace it as your last redoubt if you like.

      2. No, Walsworth, biology IS more complex than many people understand.

        Just look at Princess above, who doesn’t even know that not everyone has either XX or XY chromosomes.

  5. SUNY Geneseo has morphed into a social engineering center along with all the rest and continues to ignore prior warnings from FIRE re: documenting their desire to punish students while admitting the First Amendment ties their hands. There is no evidence that leftist extremism on social media by education majors is discouraged.

    1. I would encourage Mr. Stevens to collect an assortment of his classmates’ postings that might convey hostility to any particular social group (pro-lifers, Republicans) whose members might end up in their classes someday. This will not take long.

  6. “. . . reduce the pain that such speech may cause.”

    There is the emotionalism of our culture. Ignore facts. Jettison logical debate and reason. Your opinion makes someone feel bad, so it will not be allowed.

    “[T]hese professional standards dictate that students act and behave in certain ways that may differ from their personal predilections.”

    Translated into honest language, this means: Kowtow to the higher authorities, or they will ban you from your chosen profession.

    And they call the republicans “fascists.”

    1. It’s a fact that humans have emotions. It’s a fact that human emotions influence teaching and learning. So don’t pretend that somehow emotions are separate from decisions about teaching and learning.

      1. “So don’t pretend . . .”

        Don’t pretend that you understand the meaning of “emotionalism.”

        It is *not* the view that “humans have emotions.” It is the philosophic theory that *elevates* emotions over logic, evidence, reason. It is the blind worship of emotions. (Turley’s reference to an “age of rage” is an example of emotionalism.) It is the use of feelings to suspend all rational discourse. It is the destructive view that you do *not* need evidence or an argument for a conclusion. All you need is to consult your feelings, or the feelings of your group. It is the suicidal view that one does not need a rational explanation for actions. Instead, if it feels good, do it; if it doesn’t, don’t.

        It is the philosophy of emotionalism that is destroying civilized discourse in this country (and among some on this blog). And at root, it is crumbling the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and Western civilization.

        The only antidote is a philosophy of Reason.

        1. Actually, I’d never encountered the use of the word “emotionalism” to mean a philosophic theory or blind worship. I interpreted “emotionalism” in it’s normal way (e.g., Oxford English Dictionary: “Emotional character or behaviour; esp. the tendency to indulge in or yield to emotion”).

          Any skilled teacher understands both emotions and logical reasoning, as both play a role in teaching and learning.

          1. In philosophy, “emotionalism” is, e.g., —

            Hume: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.”

            And Pascal: “The heart has its reasons, which reason does not know.”

            And any philosopher who elevates something above or undercuts reason.

            “esp. the tendency to indulge in or yield to emotion”

            That’s the same idea applied to psychology. And it raises an obvious question: When does the emotionalist “indulge” or “yield?” Whenever he feels like it.

      2. Emotions to not constitute science or right and wrong.

        When one uses emotions to reach a political decision they are frequently wrong.

        Some people have yet to learn what emotions are and how to use or control them.

  7. Gender is a human construct. It exists in languages which apply a rule to use feminine or masculine adjectives and articles for nouns. The usual example in English “she’s a fine ship.” It is totally arbitrary.
    Sex, on the other hand, applies to all sexual species. Females produce eggs and males produce sperm.
    Sex cannot be changed.
    In today’s world there are new genders that are unrelated to an individual’s sex. There some whose sex is male who wish to be treated as if they were female. Such were called a “female impersonator” in my youth.
    There is the matter of sexual attraction. There exist people of either sex attracted solely to those of the male sex. Others solely attracted to the female sex. Still others to both.
    People should not be discriminated against based on sexual preference.
    There exist people who insist they have a gender (language use) different from their sex and want the English language updated so that gender is a personal choice confuse the language.
    IMO: If a person appears to be a woman at first glance I will use feminine gender pronouns. If a person appears to be a man at first glance I will use masculine pronouns. If they reveal that they are, in fact, “in drag” I might ask which pronouns they prefer.
    The “trans” gender consists of live-action-role-play which may be taken so far as to surgically alter primary or secondary sexual characteristics.
    Children (those under 21 in my youth) should be allowed to LARP the other sex but never parent/guardian/state authorized surgery or drugs interfering with normal sexual development. Such lifetime decisions should be left to those over 21.

    1. Ok, good so far, but what do you do with an educator that “No, I will define your gender as I want to, and I don’t care about your identity at all.”?

      1. The educator, Molly, is no different from any other person. It is not a requirement as a teacher to accommodate LARPing. Gender is a language use. In German the word ‘children’ is neuter. In English those with male sex are referred to as “he.” A teacher is also allowed to point out that “he” is sometimes used, in English, to refer to a person of unknown gender. Consider “Each person has certain rights he is entitled to.” The “he” in this case refers to the generic person not just males. They might point out that language is about communication so there must be a common usage or communication suffers. (Note the use of “they” in my prior sentence referring to the generic teacher. “He” might have been more correct grammar; language changes.)
        Gender identity is role-play not to be allowed in the classroom. Such role-play has no place in the classroom. Classrooms are for work, not play.
        Adults who surgically change themselves to appear as the sex they are not may impersonate the other sex well enough so their pronouns are obvious.
        In a 5th grade class I mistakenly referred to Tony who had long hair as “she.” The next class he had had a haircut.

        1. I am sorry, I thought you were being supportive of the LGBT community. It is my fault for believing that understanding people can comment on this site.

          1. Your reply seems to think I am not supportive of the LBGT community. That happens not to be entirely the case. For adults, be what you are.
            For language use? If you look androgynous I may use an incorrect pronoun. I will accept that correction. If you appear to clearly be male or clearly female I will use the pronoun that matches your appearance. When a person who had been born the male sex but appeared to be a woman officiated at my granddaughter’s wedding I referred to her as “her.” When my adult daughter was dating I came to like her date; she was good for my daughter. Her prior beaux had not been good for her; he was not right for her.

            Kids are a totally different thing when it comes to trans. Especially when parent/guardian/state (including state educators) promote or prescribe puberty blockers or do primary or secondary sex reconstruction.
            Educators do need to be aware of children’s feelings. But (well, I am old) we were taught that “sticks and stones can hurt my bones but words can never harm me.”

    2. You cannot tell by looking at someone whether the person has genetic chimerism. You are mistaken to think that biological sex is as clearcut as you think.

      1. The comments people are being cancelled for or attack have to do with clear cut differences. Most of the right is sympathetic to those that have medical or emotional issues. On the other hand the left uses emotions to insult or cancel the rest of the population.

        1. “Most of the right is sympathetic to those that have medical or emotional issues. On the other hand the left uses emotions to insult or cancel the rest of the population.”

          This guy says this with a straight face??

          1. “This guy says this with a straight face??”

            Absolutely. Mostly is 51% or greater. Were you trying to be insulting or is that the best you can do?

            1. Since I am dealing with you, that means you live on the blog. The blog is a diversion mostly done while I am doing other things. The average amount of time spent on a post to you is less than two minutes if short, and an extra minute or two for longer messages unless something is of interest. I timed it the other day when I sent out something like a dozen short responses to you. I think it was less than 90 seconds a response based on my computer’s time clock.

              You probably have to work to survive. If you do you have no life because one can assume you spend ~40 hours plus for work, preparation and travel. I am totally free to waste time as I wish. You should be so fortunate. You aren’t. It takes you a lot of time to respond and find the citations you provide that are out of date, insignificant and don’t even show what you are trying to prove. Your big problem with me is that every time I respond you feel the need to match me. You lose. I have more free hours. I can fish here for your foibles at the same I am fishing while listening to a podcast all while involved with something else.

                1. Are you trying to be insulting again?

                  How easily you are provoked creating even more places to fish in your head. It seems I have you hooked.

              1. Once again, Allan, you’re talking to more than one anonymous commenter. I don’t know about the others, but I’m retired.

                You’re an arrogant pr*ck who feels compelled to presume and denigrate. You’re free to waste time, and you choose to be nasty with it.

                1. Take note anonymous how even when others maintains a degree of politeness you can’t help but insult whether it is you or the other you. I am so glad you are retired. At least I won’t be responsible for you losing your job.

                  1. Many, if not most, of your comments contain at least one insult, S. Meyer, unless you’re addressing mespo, Art Deco, or folks with whom you mostly agree.

                    “At least I won’t be responsible for you losing your job.”

                    You really are a loser.

                    1. Anonymous, there have been three insulting comments from your corner plus another elsewhere.

                      I am interested in discussion, not fighting. I tried not to insult you, but you persisted in your type of rough gamesmanship. Even when I soft pedaled my questions you responded negatively. We were doing OK for a moment but then it seems we gradually went off the rails. Let’s see if we can’t do better.

                    2. Let’s see what happened.

                      It is fine that you seek out the literature, but your resultant criticisms based on that literature are harsh and nasty without a rational reason. Why? Because you hadn’t yet integrated all the new facts so that you didn’t understand them better than the one you were criticizing. That lack of integration led to you say a lot of things that weren’t true and linking things together that should have been kept separate.

                      That led to your initially non technical statement regarding the frequency of chimerism. Art, narrowed it down to what would commonly be noted as chimerism on the clinical level. You defended your position based on multiple unintegrated articles so you didn’t recognize what Arty was saying. In one way or another both of you were right but your way didn’t lead anywhere. Art’s way leads somewhere even if he may have lacked information.

                    3. Let me clarify in simple terms that exclude the complexities.

                      Natural chimerism is very uncommon in part because it is not seen in normal clinical evaluations. How common it is is an indefinite. Let me summarize.

                      1) natural chimerism [a rarity but might be more common if looked for] The person is born with more than *one DNA line*. Each line presents itself in different tissues or organs.
                      2) artificial chimerism (ie transfusion, organ transplant)
                      3) twin chimerism
                      4) other (early fusion of cells)

                      There is also another situation, microchimerism, that should not be combined with the four items above. Your attempt to learn more was admirable but being relatively new to the subject you combined too much together causing significant errors that are understandable (you broke things down into XY and XX so that where both existed you created one category when more than one category existed.)

                      Microchimerism is interesting but does not create the “circus individuals” Arty described. Instead these are foreign DNA particles that the body might actually consider as foreign antigens. That has the potential of creating auto immune diseases.

                    4. Let me make a second correction.

                      A monozygotic twin creates identical twins with almost identical genetic make-up
                      A dizygotic twin is a fraternal twin arising from two zygotes and two sets of DNA.

                2. “arrogant pr*ck who feels compelled to presume and denigrate”

                  a perfect description of the guy

                  he’s an ‘arrogant’ loser

                  (we’re talking about S. Meyer)

    3. Old, +10

      I would add my opinion that while we should respect how others wish to be addressed, that should not require that we all adapt and retrain ourselves to accept gender ambiguity as the norm for social behavior. We are not mostly gender ambiguous – a very small portion of humans are – and the gender roles most of us accept and practice are also positive experiences and even aesthetics that go to our core and that of our culture.

  8. This was not an isolated incident, this student posted many videos expressing views that are incompatible with being an educator and refused to go to training that would help them understand their transgendered students better. Transgendered students are real, have real and significant issues, and need educators that understand those issues. This is no different then if a medical student posted anti-vax videos and then refusing to attend a lecture on vaccines. When you go into an occupation, you must abide by their professional standards. If a student refuses to abide by them and refused to go to education that would help, then why would the school keep them around? It is not a free speech issue, the student is demonstrating that they are unfit to be an educator.

    1. There is no such thing as trans gender. I will stand corrected if you can show me one case where a human changed sex at the DNA level.

      1. Gender and biological sex are two different concepts. One can, and many do, change their gender without changing their sex, hence the term “transgender” and not “transsex”.

        1. Gender and biological sex are two different concepts

          “Gender’ is a grammatical concept in Romance Languages (and other sorts). It’s irrelevant to social policy.

                    1. Anonymous, your reasoning is so confused that you draw conclusions before determining fact.

        1. XY is a mixture. XX is not. XXY and XYY are mixtures as well, but the latter is more XY than XX.

          I can’t figure out what you are trying to say.

          1. “I can’t figure out what you are trying to say.”

            A single person can have both XX and XY cells in their body.

            1. “A single person can have both XX and XY cells in their body.”

              Yes, but that is rare and they might have both sets of genitals. Unfortunately for your credibility, in argument you said, “plenty of people who already have a mixture of XX and XY cells.”. That is false.

              However, I think somewhere you criticized the student because he dealt with science and didn’t include the rare occurrences. You had to prove your case so there is a likelihood you knew very little if anything about this genetic abnormality and had to look it up. That is true with a lot of things you say and that is why sometimes your links prove the opposite of what you say or they are off topic. You utilize the possibility of rare information to be evasive and to obstruct normal discussion. You then post a link that may show that rarity or show nothing at all.

              The student, Stevens, was right and if he didn’t know about these genetic variants I don’t blame him. A lot of people don’t. In fact a good number of people on the blog were born before this variant was known. There were a couple of cases that hit the news media and alerted the public to the genetic abnormalities existence so it is possible you knew about this earlier. One involved paternity and that one makes one think twice when they get test results that don’t seem correct.

              1. “‘A single person can have both XX and XY cells in their body.’ Yes, but that is rare”

                No, it’s common. I already cited and linked to research showing that a majority of women in a sample had both XX and XY cells in their brains when they died. Have you bothered to read it?

                “you said, “plenty of people who already have a mixture of XX and XY cells.”. That is false.”

                No, what I said is true, and I already presented evidence for it. Apparently you haven’t bothered to read it.

                “I think somewhere you criticized the student because he dealt with science and didn’t include the rare occurrences.”

                No, I said “As for Smith’s claims, biology is more complex than many people understand. … Does he understand chimerism?” I absolutely did NOT criticize him “because he dealt with science,” only for making claims that don’t deal accurately with all of the relevant science.

                “there is a likelihood you knew very little if anything about this genetic abnormality and had to look it up”

                You make a pure guess about likelihood, and your assumption is false.

                “if he didn’t know about these genetic variants I don’t blame him. A lot of people don’t.”

                I’ve said that a lot of people don’t understand biology well enough. He and others need to educate themselves about the biological complexities if they’re going to make public arguments about it.

                “a good number of people on the blog were born before this variant was known.”

                I’m not sure which variant you’re referring to (perhaps you’re referring to whatever unspecified “rare” event you’ve focused on). Human chimerism has been known at least since the 1950s, and it’s irrelevant what was known when someone here was born, because no one’s knowledge is limited to what they knew when they were born.

                1. Lots of things one would not expect exist in the human body without clinical significance. If you have a transfusion non mature red cells contain DNA from a foreign host. In utero there can be mixing with the mothers blood to the fetus or the fetus to the mother. People have non autologous stem cell treatments and that DNA is implanted into the host. People have kidney, heart and liver transplants which provide foreign DNA as well. During sex DNA is transferred.

                  I thought the discussion involved cause, effect and significance having to do with a persons sex, XY and XX causing secondary sex characteristics making one a man and the other a woman.

                  You stray so far afield from the subject matter that the subject matter is lost. In part that is because you are unfamiliar with what you are talking about and engaging in superficial learning as you type. That is quite obvious.

                  I just kissed my wife. I now have some of her DNA on my lips and in my oral cavity. Congratulations that makes your statement correct in an unintended way, but useless.

                  I’m tired of dealing with off point useless information.

    2. This was not an isolated incident, this student posted many videos expressing views that are incompatible with being an educato

      Disagreeing with MollyG is not ‘incompatible with being an educator’. While we’re at it, MollyG does not know the difference between positive and normative discourse, nor between the natural sciences and the study of social relations and human behavior.

      1. While we’re at it, Art Deco regularly denigrates other commenters, pretends to read their minds, and pretends that they’re paid.

        1. MollyG trading in manifest fallacies is self-denigrating. Requires no assistance from me. When you utter something, you reveal some of what’s in your mind. Sorry you find that inconvenient. You mean Gainesville, who supposedly has a business to run, gets no compensation for his obsessive posting? Does that make it better or worse?

          1. “When you utter something, you reveal some of what’s in your mind. Sorry you find that inconvenient. “

            I have told anonymous that before. Maybe he will believe you.

  9. There is the moral argument on free speech, and the legal argument specific to individual cases. My point is only on the legal debate. This is complicated only by the student seeking to pursue an Education degree and SUNY Geneseo Teachers having a specific professional standard on this point. Otherwise, SUNY Geneseo university’s acts would be clearly illegal. I would suggest in his assessment Professor Turley distinguishes between the university taking such acts against all students, versus this specific case of an education major. Do professional standards apply to a student for a specific area of work or major? This is the legal question here, while many of may want to argue the moral aspects of free speech and/or moral issues of speech attacking others. While that may be an argument, I don’t believe it is the issue specific to this case. For example, I believe if it were a medical school and it were a med student, few would question applying professional standards towards a med student’s conduct in the medical school. I don’t readily know the case law on that, but someone does, and I believe that would be a significant factor in the legal argument. Ditto with law school and students and legal professional standards. Again, don’t know the case law there, but that would also be key factor. Is going to school for an Education degree make this a “professional school”? It is a profession, so it is a reasonable expectation. It is not university studies, for example, towards philosophy. I respect Professor Turley’s opinion, but I believe it needs to consider case law associated with apply professional standards in an institution to train specific professionals for a clearly identifiable professional career.

    The question I believe (in terms of free speech) that Professor Turley actually has is with “Dignity for All Students Act.” Is it enforceable to all SUNY areas involving education? In terms of enforceability, the New York State (NYS) Dignity for All Students (Dignity Act), Chapter 482 of the Laws of 2010, was signed into law on September 13, 2010, effective July 1, 2012. So I don’t see a legal issue of enforceability in NYS. So the U.S. Constitutional question would be “does the NYS law on Dignity Act violate the First Amendment”? If that is the question, it is beyond this case and this student, but applies to law entirely. Has there been any Constitutional challenges to this law in the past nine years? I don’t see that point discussed. Furthermore, there does not seem to be much legal assessment of the NYS Diginity Act at all here. My surface level review turned up information that the Act was intended to protect “public elementary and secondary school students.” Does a trainee in education have to manage free speech in a way to protect public elementary and secondary school students, when they are not employed at a public elementary and secondary school? This is what sets aside the NYS Dignity Act from all other “professional standards.” For example, a medical or legal school’s professional standards would be for all people, adults and children. And employing professional standards for consistency in an area being trained for would not be inconsistent with such professional training. But here we see a law specific to only a subset of individuals in a certain environment. Here is where the legal argument on free speech in this case begins, not just in broad generalities.

      1. The topic is the law and U.S. Constitutional free speech, not an assessment of how brief and surface level one can assess a complex subject. Twitter exists for 280 character responses.

        1. “But John Say is the worst.”

          Actually John Say ranks pretty well in fact:verbiage. Instead of making that type of comment about another you might want to be a bit more introspective.

    1. Reminder – the NYS Dignitty Act is using Title IX, Civil Rights Act, etc. as its federal Constitutional basis. So a direct Constitutional law challenge on the Dignity Act itself would be a very significant and unlikely legal standards. What I note, however, and Professor Turley leaves out of his assessment, is that the NYS Dignity Act has a very narrow application for protection to very specific subset of individuals, not “all” individuals. Politics aside, I am surprised that this is not a key aspect of the legal debate here on enforceability of professional standards towards a professional trainee.

      For example, if we were to use the Medical standards and Medical School environment as a framing consideration on issue of professional trainee, this would be more clear. In this case, medical professional standards to all (e.g., “do no harm”) verus medical professional standards for a finite subsection of the population (e.g., professional guidelines to deal with elderly, to deal with pregnant women, etc.) makes a more precise debate on how it applies to Constitutional rights. If there is a medical professional standard regarding late term abortion, would a med school trainee making comments regarding abortion violate entire medical training and require medical school action and punishment? There are probably literally thousands of such actual cases. So there is a challenge Constitutionally in employing professional standards on free speech to professional trainees, when the standards are for a narrow environment and select group of individuals, as opposed to professional standards for “all” people. Here is where the legal debate needs to start.

  10. “Again, we do not have to agree with Smith to support his right to speak freely. We often support the free speech rights of individuals who espouse views that we find offensive or even grotesque.”
    The phrasing here seems a bit odd.
    Precisely what is offensive or grotesque about basic biology?
    Is Smith saying something scientifically, statistically, or factually controversial?
    Do people who believe in biology have the right to free speech and to be offended by people who dismiss biology and believe in fantasies?
    Should I support the right of trans advocates to go on line and recruit kids to mutilate their bodies, or do I have the right to be offended if I have a child or grandchild who is subjected to this sort of pressure?
    If a trans advocate or an LGBT activist expresses their opinion in a classroom, do people who disagree have a right to be offended and have them cancelled, or does this only go one way? If only one way, how is it different from coerced speech and censorship?
    Do sane people have the right to be offended, or only the crazy among us?
    (This is not a dog whistle. These are questions that need to be asked, and answered rationally.)

  11. These people are loons, but they are dangerous loons.

    They can damage your life, your livelihood, and your future.

    Giving Lefties power is like giving a monkey matches and dynamite – irresponsible and destructive.

    1. Well, about half the public is willing to let these odious characters work their will. People who are agents of the other have never seem to accomplish much of anything – e.g. seeing to it that creatures like Denise Battles are off the public payroll. Our public life is a venue for the vicious, the feckless, and the ineffectual. Oh Happy Day.

  12. “SUNY Geneseo respects every student’s right to freedom of speech and expression,” but “[b]y choosing to enter into certain professional fields, students agree to abide by the professional standards of their chosen field. At times, these professional standards dictate that students act and behave in certain ways that may differ from their personal predilections.”

    IOW, it’s the contention of officials at Geneseo that in order to work as a schoolteacher you must subscribe to their brand of lunacy. It’s a remarkably self-indicting remark and an indicator that they never talk to anyone outside their social circle.

  13. IOW, he was suspended for acknowledging a biological reality that the school administration finds inconvenient. That the jack-wagons who run Geneseo are public officials and blatantly violating his 1st Amendment rights is another indication that faculty and administrators in higher ed fancy laws are for little people. Even if they weren’t violating the law, it would be a gross betrayal of their vocation. These are your ‘colleagues’ professor. They shouldn’t be allowed discretion over a Chia pet, and as a society we have entrusted them with the task of sorting the labor market.

  14. The basics of biology exist regardless of how man people they “cancel”
    They are anti-life
    everything the hold dear is antithetical to human reproduction
    from their highest value, abortion, to castration and obesity
    Party of Death

    1. The overarching end goal is depopulation.

      https://www.gq.com/story/sperm-count-zero

      “It showed that the human race is apparently on a trend line toward becoming unable to reproduce itself. Sperm counts went from 99 million sperm per milliliter of semen in 1973 to 47 million per milliliter in 2011, and the decline has been accelerating. Would 40 more years—or fewer—bring us all the way to zero?”

  15. The USA in 2021: if you are not crazy, you must act crazy, or you will be cancelled. This doesn’t sound like a society in decline at all. Americans are so self-absorbed that they don’t get that while they’re pushing the narrative farther and farther into Crazytown, the Chinese and Russians and everybody else are focused on catching up to us. We are the fat lazy hare sitting around playing video games and screaming at each other on Twitter while the turtle gains momentum. And for the record, I don’t care if people want to change their gender. I believe that a lot of these people are being preyed upon by unscrupulous doctors who see transgenderism as a tremendous source of wealth. You take people who are unhappy and confused and you tell them their problem is that they’re the wrong gender. And people believe that. What if we took gender out of the equation? What if people were just left with their sense of isolation and dissatisfaction? What if they were to realize that the USA in 2021 is an obscene doppelgaenger of what it used to be and what it is supposed to be? Then maybe people wouldn’t be satisfied with just being cogs in the money machine that this country has become. So we change the narrative and a lot of people get rich and it’s the transgender people themselves who pay a very steep price. What the heck happened to my beautiful country?

    1. You can’t change your gender. You can be surgically mutilated and poisoned with hormones. That the ‘professional ethics’ applicable to physicians and surgeons permit this is an indication that professional ethics aren’t the real kind. Note, at the same time, talk therapies for dissatisfied homosexuals are illegal in many states. The people who run this country are escalatingly stupid and awful.

        1. Yes, you can speak French ungrammatically. No point to that, but go ahead. No, you cannot make a man into a woman. You can merely mutilate him. But thanks for the talking point. Always an education.

      1. Arty, according to you, if someone has XX cells in their brain and XY cells in their reproductive organs, is that person male? Or is that person instead female?

          1. Your claim that “No one has a mix of XX cells and XY cells in their body” is false. I even gave you a link earlier to research showing that a sample of analysis from the brains of women who’d died showed that over half had XY cells in their brains.

            The citation for the PubMed link I gave earlier is: Chan, William FN, Cécile Gurnot, Thomas J. Montine, Joshua A. Sonnen, Katherine A. Guthrie, and J. Lee Nelson. “Male microchimerism in the human female brain.” PLoS One 7, no. 9 (2012): e45592.

            That’s different than what I was referring to when I asked you “according to you, if someone has XX cells in their brain and XY cells in their reproductive organs, is that person male? Or is that person instead female?” — questions you still haven’t answered — but if you’re so ignorant that you introduce wildly false claims like “No one has a mix of XX cells and XY cells in their body,” expect to be called out on it.

              1. If you think the medical literature is only comprised of “odd and pathological phenomena,” then you’re ignorant.

                You’re so uncomfortable having a serious fact-based discussion that you can’t even bring yourself to admit that it’s common for people to have microchimerism with a mixture of XX and XY cells in one body.

                1. “it’s common for people to have microchimerism with a mixture of XX and XY cells in one body.

                  How many per thousand? Start with a decimal point.

                  To Art: “but if you’re so ignorant that you introduce wildly false claims like “No one has a mix of XX cells and XY cells in their body,” expect to be called out on it.”

                  That is how you construct your argument. You leave out the context which in this case was the rest of the sentence. Art said: “bar a few circus freaks.” That proves that Art knew exactly what he was talking about and what you said could be called a “lie” because of omission of an important part of Art’s response.

                  1. For the third time, a MAJORITY of the women whose brains were analyzed after death had XY cells along with XX cells. That majority would not be appropriately characterized as “circus freaks.”

                    1. Who cares. Did that have any clinical affect?. I am sure 100% of men having blood transfusions with female donors have XX cells along with the XY. I am sure many mothers that gave birth to male children ended up with some XY chromosomes in their body and brain. I am looking for clinical impact having to do with student Stevens being criticized for believing in biology and that XY is male and XX is female.

                      By the time you are through with your ‘rope a dope’, you are totally confused.

                  2. Art said “No one has a mix of XX cells and XY cells in their body, bar a few circus freaks.”

                    That’s false, as you now state. He still hasn’t admitted that it’s false.

                    If you don’t care, why did you respond?

                    Lots of people have a mix of XX cells and XY cells in their bodies, and I already provided some evidence of how common it is. It is common with women who’ve been pregnant, it is common with people who’ve had transplants (especially bone marrow transplants), and it can occur in other situations, such as monochorionic male/female fraternal twins.

                    These people are not “circus freaks.”

                    “I am looking for clinical impact having to do with student Stevens being criticized for believing in biology and that XY is male and XX is female.”

                    He isn’t being “criticized for believing in biology.” He is being criticized for having an overly simplistic and inaccurate beliefs about biology that do psychological harm to people whose gender identity falls outside what is typical. Biology is more complex than he accepts. He should believe the full complexity of biology, not the inaccurate oversimplification he prefers.

                    1. “That’s false, as you now state. He still hasn’t admitted that it’s false.”

                      Everything involves context. I didn’t think the context involved the transfer of my DNA to my wife with a simple kiss. Apparently you do. We have to relate the XX and XY so it has some clinical significance that relates to the discussion at hand. Did you know that you probably at times have steer DNA in your body? (especially after that NY Strip steak) Wow. Do you think that has a lot to do with what Stevens said? Not at all. Did you know that cars can’t travel on more than 71% of the earth? That is because that is the % of the earth covered by water so if we were talking about automobile usage most people would exclude the portions of the earth covered by water that from the discussion. You mix up a lot of things and mix yourself up in the process.

                      Not all that have clinically significant chimerism are circus freaks but I think Art was putting things in perspective so we don’t think that steer DNA has to do with our sexual preferences. In biologically there are 2 sexes and then we have the outliers on the bell curve which is expected. Some are more common than others and some have no known significance. You have a tendency to delve into the insignificant and out of context discussions.

                      Stevens probably knows a lot more about biology than you. However, when talking about reality he deals with reality.

                      I can’t help it if a short person isn’t picked for my basketball team. Neither can Stevens when he is talking about the sexes.

  16. Yet again academia silences common sense and morality . Imagine if the student explained the utter silliness of critical race vomit. They would have burned him at the stake !. This full retard wokeism needs to be put down like a rabid dog. Man or Woman…. which are you ?. unless of course you identify as a politicized meat popsicle than you can call yourself whatever fits your flavor of the woke day. Absurd , but yet here we are thanks to the putrid left.

Leave a Reply