You might remember last November when — are you sitting down? — the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services was proposing to establish a legal definition of whether someone is male or female based on the genitals they were born with.

Who should be more upset by that move than scientists? Science journal Nature came out swinging, saying the idea of defining someone as male or female based on their genitalia had “no foundation in science” and would “undo decades of progress on understanding sex — a classification based on internal and external bodily characteristics — and gender, a social construct related to biological differences but also rooted in culture, societal norms and individual behaviour.”

Remember, these are scientists who know way more than we do.

Now Nature is at it again, and the always-controversial Jordan B. Peterson is calling them out:

"The history of sex-difference research is rife with innumeracy, misinterpretation, publication bias, weak statistical power, inadequate controls and worse." https://t.co/SR8OFPjv1u — Nature News & Comment (@NatureNews) February 27, 2019

This new piece, titled “Neurosexism: the myth that men and women have different brains,” was written to discredit the research that has been done on distinctions between men’s and women’s brains. Hey, if you can’t tell a man from a woman based on their genitalia, you certainly won’t find any differences in their brains.

Nature goes farther down the social constructionist rabbit hole. Opinion. In what was the world's premier science journal. https://t.co/Yk9poEyjPg — Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) February 27, 2019

"The brain is no more gendered than the liver or kidneys or heart." https://t.co/o3jgKi0Ix6 — Clarissa Fleck (@clafleck) February 27, 2019

"most of us remain strapped in the “biosocial straitjackets” that divert a basically unisex brain down one culturally gendered pathway or another."

The debate encapsulated in a book review. https://t.co/QqVdmKrjXX — Bob Newport (@Bob_MatPhys) February 27, 2019

Political news. Not science. — Benjamin Donkey (@BenjaminDonks4) February 27, 2019

This is the description of gender studies, queer studies and all other ideologically driven pseudo-fields, not sex research. Sad to see @nature choosing political ideology over scientific inquiry, but when old institutions are too corrupt to save them, new ones will appear. — Edita Chmielik (@EChmielik) February 27, 2019

Science is dying. — Chris Nodimas? (@CholeraFan) February 28, 2019

Oh no! Even Nature…..one of the premier science publications has been infected by the dangerous leftist anti-science ideology. The march through our institutions is certainly thorough. It will take 2 generations to completely purge our institutions of these radicals. — Bubba Lewsh (@BubbaLewsh) February 28, 2019

Got an email 2 weeks ago from the Chairman of Medicine at a major NYC hospital system asking for volunteers to go to D.C. to attend training to give Implicit Bias Seminars 4-5 times/year. So much for the scientific method.. — Brent A. Williams, MD (@BrentAWilliams2) February 27, 2019

People need to learn from the historical precedent of Lysenkoism to realize the total intellectual and socioeconomic devastation that results when sociopolitical agendas, ideologies and activism are injected into objective scientific inquiry. Science is about facts, not feelings. — Simon Chen, MD (@simonbchen) February 28, 2019

Nature has been overrun with neo-Marxists. They are dangerous. Neo-Marxists are obsessed with identity & race—a fascistic way of thinking. And they are obsessed with equality—a Marxist way of thinking. Effectively a Marxist/fascist hybrid. Lise Eliot is a Nazi/communist freak. — Antony Gilbert (@AntonyRG1) February 27, 2019

I would call this complication bias. Why complicate and confuse and obfuscate simply biology, unless absolutely necessary? Why is this a fad? — Pamela Sund (@SundPamela) February 28, 2019

This is mind-boggling and subtly terrifyingly at the same time. As a Psychology student I had hoped that science would stay out of this mess… — Alan Chi (@Alan_Chi607) February 28, 2019

This is clearly social engineering at work. The question is are we going to deny reality and live in newspeak? — The fruitful Tree (@7FruitfulTree7) February 27, 2019

If penises aren't gendered anymore, there goes everything else. ? — ᵇᵃᵇʸ ????????? ? (@babybloodmoon) February 28, 2019

Speaking of penises, this isn’t a science journal, but it’s a good snapshot of where we stand in 2019:

"If a woman has a penis, her penis is a biologically female penis," @IndyaMoore said. https://t.co/vWudbq5e4x — PinkNews (@PinkNews) February 19, 2019

Related: