Biology/Anatomy Teaching and Textbooks?

[YetAnotherSpartacus]

I'm just curious to know whether the worlds of science and health sciences are still teaching the 'old' biology (the one that makes sense to me) or the 'new' genderist one? In other words, what are future biologists, doctors, nurses and so on being taught? How much of the new genderist ideology is reflected in the actual worlds of health science and life sciences research?

Textbooks all still scientific so far for A level and GCSE biology.

That's encouraging! Thanks.

This happened in 2019 but was picked up on and criticised:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scientists-fail-edexcel-exam-board-for-confusing-sex-and-gender-in-its-gcse-exam-28hxv9c9d

I wonder what it's like in the really insane places like Canada.

I remember last year seeing a hilarious (but not really) photo from the wall of a Planned Parenthood in the US - two cross-sectional diagrams of the male & female reproductive systems that had probably been up for ages, but both now had little bits of paper stuck over offensive words so they were both titled "[blank] Reproductive System".

It seems that in some places you're allowed to admit there are two sexes, you're just not allowed to name them.

That's daft enough in a human-only context, but it would start getting really silly if applied more generally to biology. Either you treat humans differently and pretend "male" and "female" doesn't apply to them (basically anti-Darwinism), or you have to play the same game throughout every species.

Textbooks for the most part are correct. It’s a good idea to have the “sex and gender aren’t the same thing” talk when covering things like genetics and whatnot. Certainly bio-sex is still defined the way it always was.

I have heard some nonsense “guidance” suggested by TRA biologists on Twitter, like calling the male parent in eg a genetics cross the “small gamete producing parent” instead of “male” but I cannot really see that catching on.

Students are confused enough by the content it is not necessary to force them to memorize TRA dogma. Better to explain that male, in the setting of Biology means the type of individual in an anisogamous species with the potential to produce the small motile gametes.

So none of the 'spectrum' ideas and so on have 'made it' to the curriculum?

Not in Science. PSHE might be another matter.
Biologists are used to fending off unscientific dogma trying to get into the curriculum after spending years batting away creationists.

Biologists are used to fending off unscientific dogma trying to get into the curriculum after spending years batting away creationists.

But how much did creationists manage to worm their way into school governance, outside maybe some weird places like Texas? Was that ever a thing in the UK at all? This feels different in terms of inroads made. Pressure's got to be higher, even if they're someone immunised by experience.

And I fear that experience of resistance may have been partially lost by generational replacement...

It was indeed a thing in some academy chains. There were / are also organisations that send free teaching resources into schools.

I would have hoped biologists can see through this, but it's been disheartening to see that my professional part of Twitter which is full of fish biologists is notably captured by the be-kind and share your pronoun message.. lots of US based biologist I used to admire. It's a shame.. some of them had great fishy jokes