The NYT has always been anti-Israel, and I toy with calling it “antisemitic” because it always downplays antisemitism. And it did it big time this week in an article called “A progressive and in a body made for the ‘manosphere.’ Read it by clicking below or find it archived here.
This handsome, manly, handsome, and much-followed podcaster on Twitch and YouTube (4.5 million total), Hasan Piker turns out to have some nasty views on Israel. But of course the NYT downplays those views greatly. Have a read; it’s short.
They add up, to me at least, to deem him an antisemite, as does NY Representative Ritchie Torres. Click to go to the thread.
The NYT article is mostly about how his wonderful physique, his diet, his workouts and his avid following, noting just this on his views about the war:
Mr. Piker is similarly unfiltered with his viewpoints. Some can be extreme.
A vocal critic of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, Mr. Piker has been labeled anti-American by people across the political spectrum for saying the country “deserved” the Sept. 11 attacks. His recent accusations that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza and his diatribes against the Zionist movement have led many supporters of Israel, including liberals like Representative Ritchie Torres of New York, to call Mr. Piker antisemitic.
“I find antisemitism to be completely unacceptable,” Mr. Piker said on a call in April. “I find the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism to be very dangerous,” he added.
It’s not a very explicit explanation (what foreign policy does he oppose?), and the conflation of antisemitism and antiZionism have turned them nearly into the same thing: hatred of Jews because most of them think that Israel is okay as a Jewish homeland.The Free Press, however, took a deeper dive (click if you subscribe0:
Here are a few quotes from the FP (bolding is mine):
Because Piker records for up to 10 hours a day, and has done so for five years, it is hard to paint a comprehensive picture of his views. But even a cursory look at his work reveals a person who dismisses violence against Israelis, celebrates Islamist terrorists, and advocates for treating pro-Israel Americans as neo-Nazis.
“It doesn’t matter if rapes happened on October 7th,” Piker said while livestreaming on May 22, 2024. “It doesn’t change the dynamic for me.” Apparently, not even the most brutal, inhumane crimes committed during Hamas’s October 7, 2023 invasion of Israel could justify the Israeli military response—which he repeatedly refers to as an “ethnic cleansing campaign.”
Just this week, he claimed on Twitch that “in a totally just world, regardless of your background, any kind of fucking Zionist tendency should be treated in the same way as being a fucking rabid neo-Nazi.” (The vast majority of Jews identify as Zionists.) He went on: “You shouldn’t even let someone be the fucking local dog catcher . . . if they have exhibited any sort of positive feelings about the state of Israel.”
At the same time, Piker implies that acts of violence committed by Islamists are justified. On November 29, 2023, he described the attacks of October 7 as “a retaliation for an ongoing apartheid.”
Piker doesn’t only justify terrorism. Sometimes, he glorifies it:
Piker himself is aware of his influence on young people. In November, he posted a news article about that rise in pro-Hamas sentiment among Jewish-American teenagers to his Discord server—with the comment: “i did this.”
There’s more, but I’ll give just one more bit of NYT censorship to show how they downplay Piker’s antisemitism. There was no reason for the NYT do do this save to avoid tarnishing Piker’s reputation:
But amid all the descriptions of Piker’s attractiveness—and all the photos that back it up—the Times let something small yet grimly revealing slip into its profile of the streamer. One of the images shows Piker’s monitor, during one of his livestreams. If you zoom in, you can see a comment from a Twitch user referring to an Israeli Defense Force soldier: “I’d phuck this idf btch to death and make his mother shove missles up her ass.”
The Times has since updated the photo with the comment cropped out of the picture.
Piker did not respond to a request for comment.
Apparently the NYT cannot trust readers to make their up their own minds, so they slant the news to make Piker look better than he is. So it goes. Right now with what’s going on in the world, and with the huge influence that Piker has, it’s just like the NYT to concentrate on his manliness, muscles and handsomeness instead of his dislike of Jews anti-Zionism.
I’m a bit late to the party, but this news is not widely known. I don’t remember seeing it in the MSM, but here are two article about it in Science (first) and then Nature (second). Click each to read.
The National Scienc Foundation (NSF) is an important organization for funding non-medical science, and, as Wikipedia notes:
With an annual budget of about $9.9 billion (fiscal year 2023), the NSF funds approximately 25% of all federally supported basic research conducted by the United States’ colleges and universities.[4][5] In some fields, such as mathematics, computer science, economics, and the social sciences, the NSF is the major source of federal backing.
In contrast, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has a budget nearly three times as large, but their object is medical research. For some reason, Dick Lewontin (my Ph.D. advisor) managed to get the NIH to fund evolutionary genetics, and so I was supported by the NIH my entire career, with money easier to get, and had only one NSF grant.
Others have not been so lucky, as it’s been harder to get an NSF grant as the years go by, and the application process has gotten more and more convoluted, what with DEI and “outreach” requirements. Thank Ceiling Cat I retired before that was required.
At any rate, Trump is cutting NIH grants right and left, terminating those which seem to have emphasis on DEI, but the administration has also cut jobs at its Alexandria, Virginia headquarters. All in all, given that the NSF is the main government supporter of basic non-medical science, including psychology anthropology and sociology, it’s been a pretty good organization with rigorous standards. Lately, however, it’s shown a penchant for wokeness, and that’s what brought the hammer down on the organization, The upshot, though, is that the administration appears to have used grant titles or key words to deep-six grants (see below), which isn’t exactly a fair way to do it.
On top of the director’s resignation and job cuts, this bodes poorly for research, much of which takes place in American universities.
Click to read the Science piece, which should be free. I’ll give a few excerpts (indented). And have a look at those cuts, which are DEEP
The director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced his resignation today, 16 months before his 6-year term ends, in a letter to staff obtained by Science.
“I believe that I have done all I can to advance the mission of the agency and feel that it is time to pass the baton to new leadership,” writes Sethuraman “Panch” Panchanathan, a computer scientist who was nominated to lead NSF by then-President Donald Trump in December 2019 and was confirmed by the Senate in August 2020. “I am deeply grateful to the presidents for the opportunity to serve our nation.”
Although Panchanathan didn’t give a reason for his sudden departure, orders from the White House to accept a 55% cut to the agency’s $9 billion budget next year and fire half its 1700-person staff may have been the final straws in a series of directives Panchanathan felt he could no longer obey.
“He was trying so hard to present the agency in a positive light,” says one knowledgeable source who asked to remain anonymous because of the sensitivity of their position. “But at the same time, Panch knew that he was alienating himself from the scientific community by being tone deaf to their growing concerns about the fate of the agency we all love.”
Now I’m not sure what that stuff about “alienation” means. Was he supposed to do something about the upcoming slash-and-burn approach of DOGE? As far as I can see, his resignation was the only honorable thing he could do, and it makes a loud statement.
On 14 April, staffers from billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) set up shop for the first time at NSF and triggered a series of events that appear to have culminated in Panchanathan’s resignation. Two days later, NSF announced it was halting any new awards for grants that had been recommended for funding by program officers and were in the final stages of approval by agency officials. And NSF said pending proposals that appeared to violate any of Trump’s executive orders—in particular those banning efforts to increase diversity in the scientific workforce, foster environmental justice, and study the spread of misinformation on social media sites—would be returned for “mitigation.”
On 18 April, NSF announced it was terminating what could be more than $1 billion in grants already awarded because they clashed with those directives and “were no longer priorities” for the agency.
You can see a database of the cancelled NSF grants here, and, at least from reading their titles, you’ll see what the Trumpets were aiming at.
As you can imagine, many of my colleagues are sweating blood, not sure that they’ll get their grants. And if you know if you’re in academia, grants are important in keeping your career going. Although the University of Chicago, almost uniquely, does NOT count grants funding as a criterion for promotion or tenure, unless you’re a theoretical physicist who needs just a pencil and paper, it would be hard to get any research don—and research IS a criterion for advancing academically—without outside money.
At any rate Panchanathan’s letter doesn’t mention the cuts or the administration, but reiterates the NSF’s accomplishments and then says this:
I believe that I have done all I can to advance the mission of the agency and feel that it is time for me to pass the baton to new leadership.
I don’t think it’ll be easy to find “new leadership.” That baton is red hot!
Here’s the announcement from Nature (click to read, excerpts are indented):
Staff members at the US National Science Foundation (NSF) were told on 30 April to “stop awarding all funding actions until further notice,” according to an email seen by Nature.
The policy prevents the NSF, one of the world’s biggest supporters of basic research, from awarding new research grants and from supplying allotted funds for existing grants, such as those that receive yearly increments of money. The email does not provide a reason for the freeze and says that it will last “until further notice”.
Earlier this week, NSF leadership also introduced a new policy directing staff members to screen grant proposals for “topics or activities that may not be in alignment with agency priorities”. Proposals judged not “in alignment” must be returned to the applicants by NSF employees. The policy has not been made public but was described in documents seen by Nature.
An NSF staff member says that although good science can still be funded, the policy has the potential to be “Orwellian overreach”. Another staff member says, “They are butchering the gold standard merit review process that was established at NSF over decades”. One program officer says they are resigning because of the policy. Nature spoke with five NSF staffers for this story, all on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the media.
An NSF spokesperson declined Nature’s request for comment.
. . .Uncertainty is also being felt by scientists outside the agency. Colin Carlson, an expert in disease emergence at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, leads an initiative to predict viruses that pose pandemic threats. The project, which involves roughly 50 researchers across multiple universities, is funded by a $US12.5 million NSF grant. The project’s latest round of funding was approved, but Carlson worries about subsequent rounds, and the fate of other researchers. Unless it is lifted, the freeze “is going to destroy people’s labs,” Carlson says.
. . . Cuts to NSF spending this year could be a prelude to a dramatically reduced budget next year. Science previously reported that US President Donald Trump will request a $4 billion budget for the agency in fiscal year 2026, a 55% reduction from what Congress appropriated for 2025. Similarly, the proposed 2026 budget for the National Institutes of Health calls for a 44% cut to the agency’s $47 billion budget in 2025, according to documents leaked to the media. During Trump’s first term, Republicans in Congress rejected many of the president’s requested cuts to science funding, but it is not clear that they will do so again.
These huge cuts are not going to be limited to the “social justice and DEI” category; they have to overlap into basic science. And, as the article notes, this damages not just the expansion of knowledge but the well-being of the country as a whole. Lots of NSF research, even if “pure” research, has led to significant improvements of people’s well being. I don’t think that’s the reason the organization should exist, as pure knowledge by itself enriches humanity, but there’s no denying the salubrious side effects.
. . . . severe reductions to science funding could damage the economy, according to new research. A report by economists at American University in Washington DC estimates that a 50% reduction in federal science funding would reduce the US gross domestic product by approximately 7.6%. “This country’s status as the global leader in science and innovation is seemingly hanging by a thread at this point,” one NSF staffer says.
I’m very glad I’m retired and don’t have to depend on the grant system, but I feel bad for my colleagues who are living in uncertainty.
Today we have another photo-and-text essay from Athayde Tonhasca Júnior, featuring another introduced insect from Japan. Athayde’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.
AND. . .special kudos for Athayde, for he noted this:
If I’m correct, this will be my 100th contribution to WEIT. As we all make a fuss about 100 (is it because it marks the boiling point of water?), I thought it would be worth mentioning it.
That’s a lot of education he’s given us over the years, so thank you, Athayde!
***********
Menacing tenants
In an apple orchard somewhere in the American state of Pennsylvania, an adult Japanese horn-faced bee (Osmia cornifrons) has just emerged from its nest and makes its way into the big wide world. The apple grower has high hopes for that bee; in fact, he bought many of them when they were still inside their cocoons. The Japanese horn-faced bee was introduced from Japan in the 1970s, and since then it has been widely used in the Eastern United States to improve the pollination of apples and other fruit trees such as peaches, pears and cherries.
A female Japanese horn-faced bee © Chelsey Ritner, Exotic Bee ID:
In their natural habitats, the Japanese horn-faced bee and similar species nest inside cavities such as hollowed reeds, tree holes and cracks in stones. Females use a range of materials, especially mud and pebbles, to build individual nest cells in which they lay an egg. When bees are done, they seal off the nest entrance with mud – so they are known as mason bees. Fruit growers offer bees nesting alternatives such as drilled blocks of wood or bunches of cardboard tubes tightly packed together.
Two types of mason bee nests used in orchards: cardboard tubes (a) and wood blocks (b) © Kline et al., 2023:
The future seemed promising for that Japanese horn-faced bee in Pennsylvania. But opportunists were on standby, ready to pounce when an unsuspecting bee leaves its nest. In the blink of an eye, a gang of hypopi (singular hypopus) jumps on the bee, holding on for dear life as their ride flies away.
Hypopi, also known as hypopodes, are a special nymphal stage found in some mites. In this case, the hairy-footed pollen mite (Chaetodactylus krombeini). Hypopi have no head or mouthparts, but are armed with special structures for hanging on; either powerful claws or a sucker plate to glue themselves to their host. These adaptations greatly facilitate phoresis, which is when an organism attaches itself to another for the purpose of transportation. Phoresis is typically found in small and poorly mobile organisms such as nematodes and mites. But curiously, the hypopus stage is usually facultative for mites; it occurs only when conditions deteriorate (food scarcity, overcrowding, dry climate, etc.), so that skedaddling increases the likelihood of survival.
A hypopus, the stage adapted for phoresis © Reynolds et al., 2014:
The departing bee has no chance of avoiding the lurking hitchhikers who react instantaneously to the slightest touch to their dorsal setae (bristles) or to air movement caused by a passing body. And the feats of some of these mites defy credulity; the tiny Histiostoma laboratorium (formally known as H. genetica), a scourge of vinegar fly (Drosophila melanogaster) laboratory colonies, lurches into the air to grab fruit flies flying above them (Hall, 1959. J. Kansas Entomological Society 32: 45-46). Some species that have hummingbirds as hosts rush to the birds’ nostrils at a rate of 12 body-lengths per second, which is a speed proportional to a cheetah’s (Colwell, 1985)
Hypopi attached to their host © D.E. Walter, Invasive Mite Identification, Colorado State University and USDA/APHIS/PPQ Center for Plant Health Science and Technology:
After being mobbed by hypopi, the bee carries on with its life. If it’s a female, she will mate and start a nest of her own. When her brood cells are ready, her unwanted companions come out of their lethargic state, jump off and resume their development, maturing and reproducing quickly, all the while feeding on the pollen and nectar gathered by the bee. When their numbers reach certain levels, they may feed on the bee’s eggs and larvae (details are sketchy). In a few months the mites may reach thousands and overrun the brood cell, leaving space for nothing else.
Hairy-footed pollen mites inside a mason bee nest cell © Pavel Klimov, Wikimedia Commons.
Such massive numbers of kleptoparasites (organisms that steal food from another one) spell serious trouble for Japanese horn-faced bees; their eggs and larvae die or develop poorly for lack of food or direct attack from mites. Some adult bees may not even have a chance to start a new family; they are so burdened by mites that they cannot fly. They fall to the ground and become easy pickings for ants and other predators.
A mason bee loaded with pollen mites © GeeBee60, Wikimedia Commons:
Several mason bee species are susceptible to the hairy-footed pollen mite, but managed Japanese horn-faced bees have been hit particularly hard, with losses reaching up to 50% of the population. It’s not difficult to understand why. The same way crowded slums make people more vulnerable to all sorts of diseases, jam-packed nests increase the chances of mites passing from one bee to another. And the hairy-footed pollen mite does not even depend on phoresis: adults can walk from one nest to another nearby, getting inside through holes in the sealing mud made by parasitic wasps. To make the situation worse, this mite can turn into a dormant stage that survives several years inside an empty nest, rousing back to activity as soon as new tenants arrive.
The effects of the hairy-footed pollen mite on the Japanese horn-faced bee are a reminder of the unintended consequences of well-intentioned actions. Bee houses or bee ‘hotels’ have been promoted as enhancers of wild bee populations, but there’s no indication of such effects. They do however increase the risk of pathogens and parasites: not only mites, but a range of fungi, parasitic flies and wasps bedevil mason bees (Groulx & Forrest, 2017).
A bee hotel: not such a great idea © Colin Smith, Wikimedia Commons:
American fruit growers do their best to keep mites under control by replacing the nesting tubes yearly, sterilising wood blocks, or removing and storing bee cocoons during the winter. If you have a bee house but don’t have the resources, time or inclination to do the same, you should follow Colin Purrington‘s advice: buy a garden gnome instead.
As a scientific concept – does race exist? Is it a useful construct, or is it more misleading than useful? I wrote about this question in 2016, and my thinking has evolved a bit since then. My bottom line conclusion has not changed – the answer is, it depends. There is no fully objective answer because this is ultimately a matter of categorization which involves arbitrary choices, such as how to weight different features, how much difference is meaningful, and where to draw lines. People can also agree on all the relevant facts, but disagree simply on emphasis. (If all of this is sounding familiar it’s because the same issues exist surrounding biological sex.)
Here are some relevant facts. Humans – Homo sapiens – are a single species. While we are an outbred species with a lot of genetic diversity, we have passed through several fairly recent genetic bottlenecks (most recently around 900k years ago) and the genetic disparity (amount of difference) among humans is relatively small (about 0.1%). It is also true that genetic variation is not evenly distributed among human populations but tend to cluster geographically. However, genetic variation within these clusters is greater than genetic variation between these clusters. Further, obvious morphological differences between identifiable groups tend to be superficial and not a good reflection of underlying genetic diversity. But at the same time, genetic background can be meaningful – predicting the risk of developing certain diseases or responding to certain medications, for example. Genetic variation is also not evenly distributed. Most genetic variations within humans is among Africans, because all non-Africans are derived from a recent genetic bottleneck population about 50-70k years ago.
How should we summarize all of these non-controversial and generally agreed upon facts? You can emphasize the clustering and say that something akin to race exists and is meaningful, or you can emphasize the genetic similarity of all humans and lack of discrete groups to say that race is not a meaningful or helpful concept. So, as a purely scientific question we have to recognize that there is no completely objective answer here. There are just different perspectives. However, that does not mean that every perspective is equally strong or that our choice of emphasis cannot be determined by other factors, such as their utility in specific contexts.
But there is another dimension here – the term “race” has a specific history of use. It is a very loaded term, unlike, say, referring to “genetic clusterings” or terms we often use with reference to other species, like subpopulations or breeds. The term race has a cultural history, generally referring to continent of origin. There is also a scientific history going back to Linnaeus, who thought there were four human races which he characterized by color – white, black, yellow, and red. Linnaeus’s “races” persisted in scientific thinking for two centuries, and still dominates our culture. When people say something like – “race does not exist” or “race is a social construct”, this is what they are referring to. It does not mean there are no genetic clusterings, just that the traditional races are not genetically meaningful. As one geneticist put it in a recent BBC article:
“By the time we began to look at how genes are shared in families and populations, we saw that similarities do indeed cluster in groups, but these groupings do not align with the longstanding attempts to classify the races. The true metric of human difference is at a genetic level. In the 20th Century, when we began to unravel our genomes, and observe how people are similar and different in our DNA, we saw that the terms in use for several centuries bore little meaningful relation to the underlying genetics.”
In medicine there is a very practical aspect to this discussion, because we use genetic history to help us estimate statistical risks in various medical contexts. Over my career we have moved away (admittedly, not entirely, cultural inertia can be strong) from characterizing patients or research subjects by race. This is not because it is politically incorrect, but because it is scientifically misleading. Instead we use a less specific term like “ancestry”. This is really just an extension of family history, which has long been a separate part of a patient’s history. We want to know the medical history of their immediate relatives because that can help us predict their disease risk. Ancestry is basically a “family” history but going back further, to successive ancestral clusterings (without favoring any particular level). Do you have ancestors who came from Africa? Do you have ancestors who were part of a founder population with a specific genetic illness?
Labeling someone as “black” or “caucasian” or “asian” is not genetically meaningful. There is nothing special about that level of clustering and these are not real or meaningful genetic groups. If you look, for example, at a genetic map, rather than skin color, you would never intuitively cluster humans into the traditional races.
But again, cultural inertia can be strong. From a science education and public understanding point of view perhaps we need to simply stop using the term race and instead refer to ancestry, or genetic populations or clustering. We should use language that properly reflects the scientific reality rather than the social history.
There is one more point of complexity, however. Sometimes we are having a social conversation. If race is a social construct, it has meaning in a social context (even if it is not scientifically meaningful). Identified race is a real social factor that influences people’s lives. So now we need to find a way to talk about genetic ancestry and social race as two distinct things, even though they were highly conflated in the past (and still in many people’s minds today). That’s a tricky one. Still probably best to dispense with the highly loaded term “race” and just come up with distinct terminology depending on whether your are discussing a social group or a genetic clustering.
The post The Race Question first appeared on NeuroLogica Blog.
Last week, HHS announced that all "new vaccines will undergo safety testing in placebo-controlled trials." Sounds good? Not so fast. This is really a deceptive weaponization of evidence-based medicine to undermine confidence in vaccines and eliminate at least some of them.
The post HHS is weaponizing evidence-based medicine to falsely portray vaccines as unsafe first appeared on Science-Based Medicine.On 20 April, 2025, the African Space Agency (AfSA) was formally launched at an inauguration ceremony in Cairo, Egypt. The decision to create AfSA was made by the African Union (AU) in 2016 to coordinate the continent's approach to space, and enact the African Space Policy and Strategy. AfSA will coordinate African space cooperation with Europe and other international partners.
I’m having big-time computer problems today, so there may not be any more posts. Bear with me; I do my best. But at least I got this one up.
Today is Sunday, and therefore we have photos from John Avise of dragonflies and damselflies of North America. John’s captions are indented, and you can enlarge his photos by clicking on them.
Dragonflies in North America, Part 3 This week I continue a series of posts on Dragonflies and Damselflies (taxonomic Order Odonata) that I’ve photographed in North America. I’m going down my list of species in alphabetical order by common name. Also shown is the state where I took each photo.Eastern Pondhawk, Erythemis simplicicollis, male (Louisiana)
Eastern Pondhawk (Georgia), side view of male:
Eastern Pondhawk (female), Louisiana:
Eight spotted skimmer, Libellula forensic (British Columbia, Canada):
Flame skimmer, Libellula saturata, male (California):
Flame skimmer, female, California:
Flame skimmer (another female), California:
Four-spotted skimmer, Libellula quadrimaculata (British Columbia, Canada):
Great pondhawk, Erythemis vesiculosa, female, Florida:
Halloween Pennant, Celithemis eponina, female, Florida
Halloween Pennant, female, head-on, Florida:
Little Blue Dragonlet, Erythrodiplax miniscula, male, Florida:
Little Blue Drag0net, female, Florida:
Little Blue Dragonlet, tenneral female (Savannas, FL.:
I may have posted this before, but I’m sure that even if I did, some readers may have missed it. It’s Bert Jansch (1943-2011), playing a song from his first album, the former called “Running from Home” (written by Jansch) and the album simply called “Bert Jansch.” The album was recorded on a reel-to-reel tape recorder and released in 1965. Jansch got £100 for it. I heard the album in high school and was greatly impressed, and in fact have never forgotten it. It has at least five world-class songs, including his most famous performance, “Angie“, a song written by Davey Graham. “Angie” has been covered several times, but no version is better than Jansch’s, not even Graham’s.
This is one of my five favorites on the album, “Running from Home,” here performed along with Finn Kalvik in 1973 (the original from the album is here). The structure is just A-A-A-A. . . there is no chorus. And it’s three-finger picking (“Travis picking”) with Jansch alternating the top strings with his thumb.
Jansch’s songs can’t really be classified as folk, rock, or pop. They are sui generis. But one thing they all are is plaintive.
Yesterday when I criticized Agustín Fuentes’s article in Natural History trying (and failing) to show that sex isn’t binary, I gave the magazine a break. After all, it hasn’t been nearly as bad as Scientific American, and I gave it a break because it published a gazillion essays by Steve Gould (yes, some of them were misguided, touting punctuated equilibrium, but they were all entertaining).
But now I’ve changed my mind, for I’ve learned that the editors actually published a justification in the magazine for publishing Fuentes’s piece. I guess they knew it would be controversial, and it is. It’s just flat wrong, but also misleading in a very annoying way: making points about variation within the sexes that have nothing to do with his thesis (and the title of his book from which the article was taken): “Sex is a Spectrum: Why the Nonbinary View is Problematic.” His presentation shows that some (but not all) aspects of sexual behavior, sexual dimorphism, and so on are more continuous that the discontinuous existence of the sexes themselves. In all animals there are two reproductive systems, male and females, with exceptions ranging in proportion from 0.00005 to 0.00017. And that, ladies and gentlemen, friends and comrades, is in all relevant respects a binary.
Fuentes, in other words, was attacking an argument that nobody had made, since we all realize there’s variation in sex-related traits, but his thesis was not about that. It’s about whether there is variation in the types of gametes in plants and animals (especially humans) that are the basis for defining sex (actually it’s really a “recognition” of a binary, not an a priori definition designed to impose a false binary on nature). And Fuentes uses many of the bogus tropes employed to “prove” that sex is nonbinary, even showing a photo of a bluehead wrasse, a fish that forms polygynous groups. When the alpha male dies, one female gets rid of her ovaries and develops testes, taking over the top job. But there are still only two sexes! I have to say that you have to be either ignorant or tendentious to use this animal as an argument against the sex binary, and Fuentes isn’t ignorant.
At any rate, the editors’ apologia–or rather “explanation”—is below. What burns my onions about this is their contention that “the science behind Fuentes’s thesis. . . is solid.” The claim that “the number of mating types (often called “sexes”) has been variable over hundreds of millions of years, ranging from two and sometimes three in most animals, to as many as seven in single-celled animals. . ” is wholly misleading. Well, Dear Editors, all animals and vascular plants have just two sexes (which ones have three?), though single-celled organisms, algae and fungi can have more “mating type”, which I’m okay with calling “sexes”if you want. But Fuentes and the editors, are defending the thesis that animals, including our own species, have nonbinary sex. This is not true.
Note as well that the editors have been taken in by the claim that the variability of “sexual behavior” and of “sexual activity” within and among species show that there is variability in the number of sexes beyond two. This is a false argument, as anybody who knows biology and isn’t warped by ideology should know.
What bothers me most about this editorial is the editors’ sanctimonious claim that they are acting “in the public interest” by recognizing the “science” in this debate, but the bogus-ness of that science is all on Fuentes’s side. Shame on you, editors of Natural History? Have you actually followed this debate? How can it be that the Supreme Court of the UK has apprehended and resolved this debate better than do editors of a science magazine.
This is what happens when scientists’ work is distorted by their ideology, and by now I shouldn’t have to tell you what the distorting ideology is.
Here is the editors’ preface:
h/t: Robert
Our stalwart readers have come through with several batches of photos, so we’re good to go for about a week.
Today’s contribution comes from UC Davis math professor Abby Thompson, also a Hero of Intellectual Freedom. Abby’s captions and IDs are indented, and you can enlarge her photos by clicking on them.
In Northern California, April blew in the way March is supposed to, like a lion, with gusting winds and high surf.
The first set of creatures below have a lovely common name: by-the-wind sailors, and a mellifluous scientific name: Velella velella. Each mini-sailboat is actually a colony of hydroids. They’re blown willy-nilly across the surface of the sea, and when the winds and tides hit just right, they wash up onshore in incredible numbers. The first picture is the beach so covered with them it looked like it had snowed. The second is a closer-up picture of a cluster of them. The third and fourth show first a single “boat” floating right-side up, with the sail sticking up perpendicular to the surface, and then a few upside down, showing the tentacles which usually hang underneath. Velella velella are related to Portuguese men o’ war, but their tentacles don’t sting (much- at least not for humans).
Both Velella velella and Portuguese men o’ war have nudibranch predators, including Fiona pinnata and Glaucus atlanticus (blue dragon). The spectacular blue dragon seems to be always blue, and Fiona pinnata can take on the beautiful blue of its prey. Glaucus atlanticus concentrates the (painful) venom of the Portuguese man o’ war and reportedly is excruciatingly painful to the touch. Luckily the two really venomous species need warmer water than we have in Northern California.
Velella velella (by-the-wind sailor):
Epiactis prolifera (brooding anemone) This species broods its young on the outside of its column. The babies are the cream-colored flower-like things:
Epiactis prolifera again- in this one, the kids seem to have taken over the place, as kids are wont to do:
Nucella ostrina (Striped dogwinkle). These usually have boring grey and white strips, but every once in a while they’re this spectacular orange. Also I like the name “dogwinkle”:
Doto amyra (nudibranch):
Paradialychone ecaudata (another species of feather duster worm). These just appear as a fuzz on the bottom of the pools, until you look at them with some magnification:
Camera info: Mostly Olympus TG-7 in microscope mode, pictures taken from above the water.