Woke Scientific American Claims Men Invented Women in 18th Century to Oppress Them

B iological women are, some claim, a recently invented social construct. Forget Eve or evolution. The fairer sex’s true origin lies in the late 18th century, when bigoted white male scientists created the idea of binary sex in order to oppress women and racial minorities — at least according to the latest woke “science.”

“Before the late 18th century, Western science recognized only one sex — the male — and considered the female body an inferior version of it,” Scientific American tweeted. “The shift historians call the ‘two-sex model’ served mainly to reinforce gender and racial divisions by tying social status to the body.”

You read that right.

The progressive “trust the science” crowd would have you believe that before the late 1700s, Westerners seemingly viewed every woman from Helen of Troy to Joan of Arc as defective, malformed males. Women’s bodies were allegedly seen as deformed and inferior, a substandard deviation from the male norm. All historical writings exalting women’s physical appearances were apparently sarcastic, according to these people. William Shakespeare wrote plenty of phrases and lines praising the “divine perfection of a woman” and celebrating, “O Helena, goddess, nymph, perfect, divine! To what, my love, shall I compare thine eyne?” But he must have meant the praise ironically, to convey pity toward women for inhabiting bodies so “inferior” to the male version.

The conservative commentator Matt Walsh recently attracted controversy and attention by producing a documentary, called “What Is a Woman?,” exploring the political Left’s current conception of gender. But perhaps the more urgent question for today’s leftists is “Do women exist?” Scientific American has joined an increasing number of progressive voices in doubting the scientific reality of binary sex.

Scientific American’s disconcerting article was promoting a documentary, created by the Intersex Society of North America, claiming that intersex individuals suffer from 30 different conditions that make them not clearly male or female. They allegedly include up to 1.7 percent of the population, according to Sean Saifa WAll, whom it identifies as “an intersex activist and researcher.”

Actual scientists from the Montgomery Center for Research in Child and Adolescent Development dispute the 1.7 percent estimate, noting that 29 of the 30 conditions referenced involve no sexual ambiguity. “Applying this more precise definition, the true prevalence of intersex is seen to be about 0.018%, almost 100 times lower than Fausto-Sterling’s estimate of 1.7%.” according to the Montgomery Center scientists. Almost nine out of ten of the individuals whom Scientific American claims are intersex are actually subject to just one condition, late-onset adrenal hyperplasia (LOCAH), with completely normal genitalia at birth that align with their sex chromosomes. To label LOCAH an intersex condition is simply dishonest, according to Dr. Collin Wright, an evolutionary biologist.

Scientific American also claims that intersex individuals are oppressed by society. The magazine supports this claim by citing a 2020 survey conducted by the Center for American Progress, a far-left think tank, which was previously led by former White House chief of staff and 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Pretending that political hacks are unbiased scientists isn’t scientific . . . or American.

Exaggerating the number of intersex individuals in an attempt to disprove “the myth of the two sexes,” to quote another Scientific American tweet, and claim that women are a recent concept is, sadly, unsurprising. This new obsession with claiming that women do not and never have existed isn’t exclusive to Scientific American. Recent attempts to replace words like “woman” or “mother” with dehumanizing alternatives (like “bodies that bleed,” “bodies with vaginas,” and “birthing bodies”) have even drawn criticism from some on the left, making the pages of the New York Times. Use of the word “woman” or recognizing the scientific reality that humans are a sexually dimorphic species is increasingly seen by the far Left as hateful.

“Sex isn’t nearly as binary as you think it is,” the magazine Popular Science tweeted this month while comparing humans to clownfish and avacados. “We support everyone across the gender spectrum. If you’re transphobic, please feel free to block. Thanks!”

Popular Science followed this up by noting that avocados change their sex daily, because they “have some male flowers and some female flowers on the same plant, or have male versus female plant individuals,” according to a reporter with a degree in journalism and a bachelor of arts in the “philosophy of science.” Comparing human beings to a plant stereotypically served on toast to Millennials is as offensive as it is inaccurate.

Even the scientific journal Nature has decided to subordinate the scientific search for truth to fashionable views on gender. In a recent editorial, the journal announced new “ethics guidance,” noting that “academic freedom is . . . not unbounded” and does not encompass findings that may prove offensive to those who believe in an infinite spectrum of “gender-variant” identities and other leftist gender theories. The editorial notes, “Researchers are encouraged to promote equality in their academic research,” and editors should retract articles that are “sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+.” Writing in Quillette, Bo Winegard points out that Nature’s new guidelines are concerningly vague and wonders, “Is a paper that contends that men are physically stronger than women ‘misogynistic’?”

Would a paper finding that mothers tend to instantly bond with their children also run afoul of current sensibilities? The New York Times recently ran an opinion piece claiming that female maternal instinct is something manufactured by “modern Christian archetypes” that came into being only after the Industrial Revolution, owing to “capitalism focus[ing] work and politics on individual competition and creat[ing] a ladder for men’s earning potential.”

To review, current woke dogma demands that one accept that sexist men invented women in the late 18th century to oppress them, supposedly genderfluid avocado plants somehow disprove human sexual dimorphism, the term “women” itself is hateful, and capitalists invented maternal love after the Industrial Revolution to boost the economy. In short, some vocal members of the “Party of Science” contend that women are fake news and motherhood is a nefarious capitalist plot. It’s increasingly unclear whether the people that were so recently fond of the hashtag #BelieveWomen even believe women exist.