Making History and Denying Science

How a Politically-Correct Appointment Hurts Everyone

Consider if you will the following scenario: an administration – state or federal, appointing a secretary of energy to advise the senior executive as to matters relating to energy, who does not believe in the first law of thermodynamics. In short, the law states in any chemical or physical process in a closed system, energy is neither created nor destroyed, it merely changes forms.

An energy secretary holding such a fundamentally errant position would no doubt provide ill counsel to the executive (governor, president), which could impact public energy policy. The delusional appointee might suggest something as absurd as “ethanol is a preferred fuel choice, because its output energy is greater than the energy it actually contains,” in other words, when ethanol is converted to work and heat, it violates the first law of thermodynamics by producing more energy. We might question the wisdom of an administration in the appointment of such a “science-denier.”

Similarly, we might rightly challenge the credentials or at least the mental health of a secretary of agriculture who denies something as fundamental as Mendelian genetics. Mendel and geneticists after him, demonstrated that parental breeding lines give rise to progeny that express traits constrained by “units of heredity,” i.e., genes, be they pea plants, crops or livestock. Ponder the absurdity if this appointee suggested we plant tomato seeds so that corn can grow. Wisely, the public would regard this advisor a science-denier.

The Biden administration made history this month with the appointment of transgender Dr. Rachel Levine (born Richard Levine), as assistant health secretary. LGBTQ+ activists applauded the appointment, stating that it sends a message that the new administration “speaks to change.” Deja Lynn Alvarez, the first transgender to run for city council in Philadelphia remarked, "It's way beyond time for us to stop worrying about someone's race, someone's ethnicity, someone's gender, someone's sexual orientation, and worry about their qualifications."

Alvarez’s statement on qualifications is largely meritorious. The public places a lot of trust in mayors, governors, and presidents surrounding themselves with people most qualified to do the job of providing council when making decisions concerning public policy. At the very minimum, we would hope qualified energy advisors recognize conservation laws; qualified civil engineers embrace Newtonian mechanics; and public health officials recognize fundamental principles concerning human anatomy and physiology.

Indeed, we truly have reason to worry about Levine’s qualifications. Remarkably, Rachel Levine in claiming to be a woman, denies many of the most fundamental tenets of biology. It is not enough to “favor chunky necklaces and Earl Grey tea” to don the credentials of womanhood, and such a low view is not only misogynous, but dangerous to women. With the fanfare and celebrity that Levine is enjoying as a “woman of science,” it is curious that classical feminists are not decrying this appointment.

Possibly, Levine’s past activism will credential him enough to advocate for changing the medical definition of what a woman is. Levine’s new progressive characterization could assert that some women can have penises, develop prostate cancer, carry a functional gene for testis-determining factor, easily grow beards, and even become sperm donors. Is this the “progress” the left has promised for women for decades? If the radicalized LGBTQ+ movement has its way – redefining what gender is – our children may learn in the classroom of tomorrow that men can menstruate, give birth, nurse babies, and develop ovarian cancer. What children will implicitly learn in these lessons is this: that there is no such thing as “objective” reality, science is not real, and they need to be skeptical of what their own eyes are telling them. Dangerous lesson.

In an objectively “normal” world, responsible citizenry would hold a civil engineer who is a Newtonian-mechanics-denier responsible if he or she built a bridge that collapsed, resulting in the deaths of many. Similarly, we would hastily demand the resignation of an energy secretary who publicly denies energy conservation laws, and worse yet: demanded that these laws be turned on their heads, or redefined, in the public discourse space. Will Americans be in a position to hold public health officials to account if the health of many is impacted in a negative way, because in an abuse of power they allowed their activism to occlude what are objective truths on biological gender? Or will the public's fear of being exiled to the gulags by Twitter and Facebook force them to maintain silence?