Prejudicial n outdated
Evidence that woke isn’t dead, peer review is problematic, and science needs to address deep problems in its culture: A grad student at Harvard conducted the first systematic, data-based study to document & explain the rise in gender dysphoria. His paper was rejected from a leading journal because, among other things, “Throughout the manuscript, the authors use language that is considered prejudicial and outdated (e.g., “natal sex” as opposed to “sex assigned at birth”). It is critical to follow best practice and guidelines surrounding gender inclusive language, particularly for research specifically on the topic of gender incongruence, expression, and identity.”
Lordy lordy lordy. What sane person considers “natal sex” outdated compared to “sex assigned at birth”? That’s not a matter of scientific language being updated, it’s a matter of politics, and idenniny politics at that. There’s nothing “updated” about pretending that sex is assigned as opposed to observed. Cult language is not an update.
There are a few replies that insist yes cult language is too so an update. Such as:
So let me get this straight. Someone’s “smoking gun” that science is collapsing under “woke tyranny” is… that a grad student’s paper got rejected because it ignored established terminology guidelines in the very field it was trying to publish in? That’s not censorship, that’s just bad scholarship.
Imagine a med student submitting a cardiology paper and insisting on using “dropsy” instead of “congestive heart failure.” A journal would laugh it out the door, not because of politics but because science has agreed-upon, precise language for a reason.
Uh huh, and “assigned male at birth” is some of that agreed-upon, precise language.
“Natal sex” isn’t neutral…. it carries baggage and misrepresents the consensus terminology. If you’re studying gender identity, you follow the standards of the field just like youd follow APA style in psychology or IUPAC naming in chemistry.
Peer review rejecting a sloppy manuscript isn’t proof science is broken….. it’s proof science is working. The whole point of peer review is to keep outdated, imprecise, or biased framing from muddying the literature. If you can’t meet the bar, you don’t get in. That’s not “woke,” that’s quality control.
It’s science science SCIENCE I tell you!
In science, accuracy is also important. “Natal sex” is more accurate than “sex assigned at birth”.
Re IUPAC names for chemicals:
One does not always have to use the IUPAC name for a chemical. There are reasons for that. Historical reasons for one. Example: “acetone” instead of “2-propanone”. Or the IUPAC name is long, or complicated, or difficult to pronounce. I’ve seen the IUPAC name for buckyball. Oy! One may include the IUPAC name in a publication, but use a shortened form of it or a nickname (buckyball) or a code/number (SL123) when discussing it in the publication. Companies may use IUPAC names in patents, but use another name or a code/number in other publications. Some may not even bother to figure out the IUPAC name for a chemical they’ve made until it’s requested. They may get a CAS number for it before they bother with the IUPAC name.
Excuse me? “Sex assigned at birth” is NOT NEUTRAL. It carries twelve metric tons of baggage, because it is entirely political and ideological. It misrepresents the reality of the subject under examination, and it is NOT “the consensus terminology.” It is a top-down imposed ideological orthodoxy, enforced with menaces and penalties, such as refusing to publish your research if you don’t knuckle under.
There was nothing “sloppy” about the scholarship in the paper, if its sole reason for rejection was the refusal to use sloppy, politically-motivated language. If the “whole point of peer review is to keep outdated, imprecise, or biased framing from muddying the literature, then “peer review” in this case is a massive fail. There is no more imprecise, biased framing — designed purposely to muddy all the literature on the subject — than “sex assigned at birth.” Pretending otherwise is dishonest. You want to criticize bad scholarship for using imprecise, biased framing to deliberately muddy the waters of literature on the topic of sex, then look in the frickin mirror, pal. Classic DARVO, accuse the innocent party of your own misconduct. It’s nothing but “woke” to censor scholarship for refusal to use the approved woke vocabulary. In point of fact, sex is NOT “assigned at birth.” But you already know that. You’re just lying .
And it is loaded and prejudicial. It is not neutral. It smuggles in unwarranted and unevidenced assumptions, hoping that its adoption will bypass examination and debate. And guess what? It does. The problem with “natal birth” is it uncovers those hidden assumptions, and the fact of their surreptitious importation.
Once again, it’s not the crime but the coverup that gets the perpetrators in trouble. Their tacit admission that the initial trick was against the rules, and needs protection and camouflage to keep the ground it took by subterfuge, makes the whole rigged game that much more obvious.
How can “natal sex” be outdated? It hasn’t been typical, that I know of, to use the phrase in the archaic, patriarchal, colonialist, imperialist past. This formulation sprang into being precisely because of the trans issue. Prior to the past decade or so, using ‘sex’ was all we needed, because everyone understood that was ‘natal sex’. Why? Because our sex is set at birth. There are lots of things about us that aren’t set at birth, but, with the exception of a small minority who are born with DSDs, our sex is determined before we are born. It’s in our chromosomes, in our hormones, in our secondary reproductive structures, in our gametes. It is NOT in whether we wear skirts or trousers, and no amount of twisting the language will change that.
Funny how Pinker uses ‘woke isn’t dead’ with it’s current right wing derogatory connotations. Why say it at all? I suppose writing non-peer reviewed facespace posts don’t require much linguistic precision. I suggest he read the wiki on woke, it’s a semantic eye opener. Also “Gender inclusive language” indeed, the (redundant and virtually meaningless) language forced on us by trans ideology, which carries own derogatory connotations.
I know what he’s getting at, but writing posts like that are just asking to be being roasted in the comments. I can relate.:)