Mcenany: 'Science' Goes Out The Window When It's Not Woke Enough For The Left

Introduction: Following the Science?

In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on "following the science" in various aspects of society. From climate change to public health, the idea of relying on scientific research and evidence has gained significant traction. However, when it comes to the topic of gender and surgeries for children, the left seems to be selective in their application of scientific knowledge. This became evident in a heated discussion between a GOP presidential hopeful and NBC's Chuck Todd, where the candidate questioned the science behind gender as a spectrum. The left's response to this debate raises important questions about the intersection of science, ideology, and societal norms.

The Binary Nature of Gender: A Scientific Perspective

During the discussion, the GOP candidate argued that below the age of 18, it is legitimate to question the use of puberty blockers for genital castration. He pointed out the biological fact that women have two X chromosomes, while men have an X and a Y chromosome. This basic understanding of genetics has been taught in science classrooms for years. Yet, Todd countered with the claim that there is scientific research supporting gender as a spectrum.

The candidate respectfully disagreed and highlighted the suffering experienced by individuals with gender dysphoria. He questioned why society is actively creating more instances of this condition. This raises an important point - while gender dysphoria is a real and valid experience for a minority of individuals, should we be encouraging a broader societal acceptance of gender as a spectrum?

The Left's Selective Application of Science

What is truly fascinating about this conversation is the clear thoughtfulness and preparation of the GOP candidate. He presents articulate points that deserve respect, regardless of one's stance on the issue. Yet, Chuck Todd and the left seem intent on dismissing his perspective. It is as if they want to throw a spear at a singular point of disagreement, rather than engage in a meaningful dialogue.

This selective approach to science is not new. The left has often championed science and silenced dissenting voices by claiming to have the ultimate authority on what is scientifically valid. However, when it comes to gender, they suddenly find themselves at odds with certain scientific facts. This inconsistency raises questions about the left's agenda and the potential dangers of blindly accepting their narrative.

A Wedge Issue: Common Sense vs. Accommodation

The issue of transgender participation in women's sports serves as a prime example of a wedge issue. According to a Fox News poll, 81% of respondents considered it either a major or minor problem, while 74% expressed concerns about overly accommodating transgender policies in schools. These numbers reflect a common-sense perspective that many people hold.

However, the left should tread carefully on this issue. By drawing a line that demands unwavering support for transgender individuals in all aspects, they risk alienating a significant portion of the population. This all-or-nothing approach stifles meaningful conversations and prevents us from finding balanced solutions.

The Fight for Truth: Gender as a Spectrum?

Ultimately, this debate goes beyond fairness in sports; it is about the fight for truth in our society. The truth, as the GOP candidate asserts, is that there are only two genders - male and female. This is not an opinion but a basic biological fact. If we allow demonstrable lies and deny basic biology, we surrender our ability to discern truth.

The left's attempt to silence dissent and instill fear in those who question their narrative is a dangerous path. When we fear speaking out, we relinquish our ability to engage in open dialogue and challenge ideas. This is not the foundation of a healthy society.

Conclusion: The Need for Open Dialogue

In the midst of arguments about the number of genders, it is crucial to remember the bigger issues at hand. While we debate the intricacies of gender identity, there are significant global challenges that require our attention. As Enes, one of the participants in the discussion, pointed out, it is astonishing that we are focusing on the number of genders while China is rapidly expanding its influence.

Engaging in open dialogue, rooted in both scientific understanding and empathy, is the only way forward. We must resist the pressure to remain silent and fear speaking the truth. By doing so, we can navigate the complexities of gender with respect for both individual experiences and scientific facts. Only then can we find a balance that promotes inclusivity without sacrificing truth.