NZ Chief Scientific Advisor says there are more than two sexes

[GabrielleNelson]

Gobsmacked. twitter.com/ChiefSciAdvisor/status/1103395703999483904

Sex and gender are different but related things. Neither is binary. For an accessible introduction to why sex isn’t binary, Wikipedia is not a bad place to start.

We're all doomed, aren't we?

Oh dear god. How deeply embarrassing. I think resignation is the way forward here. Perhaps followed by transitioning to erase this unfortunate incident.

I'm starting to become more and more convinced that people are being trolled by 4channers and cyber-soldiers, and they are falling for it.

There's a lot of cyber-warfare surrounding race issues, with the aim of destabilising societies, and I suspect the same now goes for transgender issues. It wouldn't surprise me if some activists are Philbys.

I can't see on Wikipedia where it says sex isn't binary...

howlsmovingcastle84 wrote - "The first thing we tell our students when they start their degree is-do not use Wikipedia as a reference, ever!"

Wikipedia can still be a very useful source of sources.

The Wikipedia article about "Sex" cites multiple peer-reviewed sources that support the biological mainstream idea that there are only two biological sexes in humans, e.g. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, and Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology. The first sentence of the article even cites the Oxford English Dictionary's long-established biology-based binary definition of sex.

The only mention of sex spectrum that I found in Wikipedia's article about "Sex" is in its "Further reading" section that merely lists an article titled "Sex redefined: The idea of two sexes is simplistic. Biologists now think there is a wider spectrum than that". This spectrum article was was published in "Nature", which is a major scientific journal.

Rubbish is published in allegedly reputable sources much more often than is generally acknowledged by university staff, so students should treat all sources with care, even if university staff lull their students into a false sense of security by rubbishing Wikipedia while giving other sources the "all clear".

I'm starting to become more and more convinced that people are being trolled by 4channers and cyber-soldiers, and they are falling for it. There's a lot of cyber-warfare surrounding race issues, with the aim of destabilising societies

Completely agree.

Is the NZ science bod from a non-life science background, by any chance? I had a ridiculous conversation with a physics PhD re trans issues last year. I was

Biochemist with a PhD from Oxford.

(Am now as dubious of the Oxford science degrees as I am of Cameron's First in PPE.)

Wikipedia can still be a very useful source of sources.
If they go to the actual sources, read them and reference from them-that would be fine. But students who have paid any attention to their library/information resources sessions would know how to use and search the university's journal collection to find what they need without going to Wiki. If they quote directly from Wiki - as in not going to the original source and using it almost as a secondary citation-that would not be considered good academic practice.

I think the NZ chief advisor's biggest problem with using Wikipedia to support her claim might not be about the widespread perception of Wikipedia's unreliability; it might be more about her inability to understand Wikipedia's actual content, probably mistakenly assuming that Wikipedia's text such as "(Intersex people) do not fit the typical definitions for male or female bodies" must mean that there are more than two human sexes . Either way, her reputation is damaged.

She got her PhD in 1992, which is pre-web, but it's not much of an excuse.

She's an agronomist. It raises the question about any govt scientific adviser and what they do about questions outside their field?

(...ask?)

Thinking about how an agronomist operates outside their field makes me smile.

...Got me!

Could be worse. What happens when a marine biologist is out of their depth?

Anything that brings a smile to our faces in these surprising times is worth chuckling over.

Oh dear lord, well this is hilarious. The chief science advisor herself is here in this article. Along with the ridiculous woman from The Aunties who just has to centre transwomen on International Women’s Day ffs

i.stuff.co.nz/national/111101587/prominent-kiwi-wahine-explain-what-international-womens-day-means-to-them

Oh and Wahine means: adult human female. That auntie can piss off with her appropriating our words.

This scientifically illiterate wokeness is everywhere:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/06/testosterone-biological-sex-sports-bodies

Sadly, I have in the past had colleagues who were quite competent in their own area of science (physical sciences) who were biblical fundamentalists and believed God created the world in 6 days.

Being very intelligent and very good at a small limited area of science is no guarantee that you won't be completely barking mad in other areas of your life.

The fault here would appear to lie with whoever appointed someone with such narrow expertise and no interest in critical thinking to the post of government chief science officer.

Being very intelligent and very good at a small limited area of science is no guarantee that you won't be completely barking mad in other areas of your life

Exactly.

Wikipedia isn’t a bad source, it’s actually pretty good 80% of the time.
www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html

The trick is having the nous to cross-check for that 20%.

If you’re a student you should be using peer-reviewed, academic articles, as much as anything for the practice in finding and reading them.

I used to teach my students to use Wikipedia as you would an encyclopaedia; to get a good overview of a topic and pick up some of the relevant search terms which they could use moving onto more scholarly articles.

I’m not fussed that the Chief Science Advisor said check Wikipedia; that’s good advice for ordinary people.

But she should be embarrassed til the day she dies by her deliberate abandonment of actual scientific fact in the face of ideological culture wars.

I suppose you could interpret her tweet as more subtle; “look it up. See what bullshit “sex is a spectrum” really is.”

Well, what a post to wake up to on International Women's Day!
Still, thanks for the smiles Millytant.

so want to put this into the Bad Science (Ben Goldacre) forums but I would be whipped to within an inch of my life for being a bigot and a transphobic t*rf.

This is the science forum that helped debunk the MMR/autism scandal.

RE the fundraiser you linked to OP

Dresses, shoes, jewelry (sic) all costs quite a fair deal of cash.

You don't say!

This is the woman who wrote the tweet that this chief scientific officer was asked to respond to. This is what she focuses on, on IWD, as a woman who sees hundreds of DV survivors a year:

JACKIE CLARK – The Aunties charity founder

I'm very sceptical about IWD. I think if there is a purpose to it, it needs to be to raise the voices of women who aren't usually heard, like transgender women.
It can't just be for white, cisgender, straight, middle-class women, it must be for all women. It can't just be for show. I just don't know that IWD is terribly useful. What I see happening is that everything is so gendered.
Safe spaces need to be genuinely created for all women to achieve true equality.

Just like to point out, Jackie is a white ‘c*sgender ( her terminology ) middle class woman herself. She likes to think she’s some kind of spokesperson for other groups though.

So the PURPOSE OF WOMENS DAY is to listen to transwomen. Ffs.

I hate to break this to you but males who think they are women are not actually women, marginalised or not Aunt Lydia Jackie, hth!

Chief Scientific Advisor recommending Wikipedia? Are we sure it is the CSI speaking there?

I genuinely lolled at the idea of anyone recommending WIKI to prove a point.