Churches, in the ideal, should be pure at the root, unadulterated in their philosophies and doctrines, and unassailable in their practices. However. . . . (!)
Personally, I find little reward in looking for purity in established churches. With good reason and ample experience, I don’t trust any of them too far, although most are full of decent, mostly unsuspecting people. It’s no surprise that I also have trouble trusting other institutions. Below are two reasons that the SGIM (Society of General Internal Medicine) should be distrusted, along with a host of other formerly scientifically oriented organizations and journals.[1]
These two “reasons”—Dr. Rochelle Walensky and Dr. Richard “Rachel” Levine—will give plenary speeches at the SGIM’s conference in May. But they should not be featured, or even heard, in any positive light.
Rochelle could have been forgiven for a while during 2021 because she was getting bad information. But she became a part of the problem, then flashed her smile regularly[2], ducking important questions posed by lawmakers in the fallout of the pandemic. She should not be a featured speaker anywhere, unless she is going to confess what she and others did to traumatize the U.S. Until she is transparent and honest about it all, she should not be heard publicly.
Richard could have been accepted by the public until he decided to make a mockery of sex, gender, and identity. He should not hold public office or be a featured speaker anywhere, period, because he is currently a cog in the wheel of gender ideology’s devastating harm to children and others, and because he is subject to delusion himself.
In inviting these people to be in the spotlight, the SGIM tips its hand. Perhaps this organization, too, is full of decent, unsuspecting people, but the leadership apparently needs a radical change, or at least people to keep the wool from covering the corneas of the SGIM’s medical practitioners.
The Right Wright
Now after having given two negative examples of what’s happened in recent years among prominent scientists—and in science generally (don’t miss the partial list of organizations and journals in the footnote)—I am sharing below some sound statements on gender and sex from another prominent scientist: Dr. Colin Wright. Wright has risen to fame primarily because of his uncompromising, biologically sound stance on “gender medicine.” While I cannot support him in full because he is an atheistic scientist, he is right about the biology of sex and has been called on to testify in high-profile venues worldwide. Hear just how right Wright is:
The biology of sex has been under siege by activists in recent years. These scientific distortions, which gradually moved from activist Tumblr blogs to “scholarly” humanities journals, have now infiltrated biology journals, medicine, and law. The consequences have been catastrophic, as one might expect when fundamental aspects of our biology are disregarded and inverted. The rights of women and girls to single-sex spaces and fair sports competition, along with children’s rights to bodily health and integrity, have all been sacrificed on the altar of a person’s self-declared “gender identity.”
. . .
Let 2024 be the year we’re all finally on offense. It’s time to reclaim the territory that politically-motivated ideologues have taken over the past decade, and anchor our laws firmly in the bedrock of reality.
TESTIMONY: MISSOURI HB 2309 | Dr. Colin Wright
. . .
Contrary to claims by some activists and medical professionals who promote so-called “gender-affirming care” that the categories male and female are “social constructs” or that the term “sex” refers only to characteristics of individuals and not individuals themselves, all of which exist along a “spectrum,” such views are biologically inaccurate, socially harmful, and logically self-refuting. (emph. mine -bc)
. . .
It is neither logical nor legally sound to overlook the objective reality of biological sex in favor of subjective concepts like “gender identity,” which are vaguely and often circularly defined. While individuals should have the freedom to perceive and express themselves as they wish, imposing one’s self-perception into law, particularly when it contradicts empirical reality and undermines legal protections based on biology for women and girls, is not justifiable. (emph. mine)
. . .
The rationale behind “gender-affirming care” is based on the erroneous belief that modifying various body parts through hormones and surgeries can literally bring a person’s bodily sex statistically into alignment with their “gender identity,” which is increasingly being portrayed as a person’s “brain sex” (another biologically flawed concept).
. . .
We cannot ignore fundamental realities of our biology and expect positive outcomes for society. It is crucial that our laws reflect biological facts rather than politically driven ideologies. Sex-based legal protections are necessary due to real and significant sex based differences that matter in certain contexts. The Defining SEX Act accurately incorporates our scientific understanding of biological sex, making it an effective tool for informing medical treatments and defending and enforcing sex-based rights.
Speaking now for myself alone, I strongly suggest that fundamentally incorrect, damaging views of biological sex, and the attendant, harmful gender ideologies, compose the most significant new societal, moral, and survival issue faced in western culture today. The sexual revolution is decades old, so it cannot be considered “new.” The southern U.S. border presents a massive challenge, but the consequences there are arguably only temporal. Abortion-related concerns run deep, and that whole sphere is societally and personally destructive, but I believe there is gray area there. Racism seems always to be in view these days, whether it’s based in anyone’s reality or not, and people will always have some trouble getting along, but the bedrock rights and wrongs of how to treat people seem clear.
The ramifications of sex and gender issues, however, are simply gargantuan. Let us never, never forget what is empirically observed is not to be eclipsed by teenage insecurities or self-proclaimed nonsense. A sense of the reality-based medical issues, not to mention the moral ones, must trump even the furthest-out, fringe ideologies. Right-thinking people of all types, whether believers in God or not, must prevail on sex and gender issues if society is to be livable.
Find other Tuesday Topics posts here.
[1] For example, the CDC, NIAID and NIH, AMA, APA, AAP, FDA, NEJM, and Nature. It’s no wonder that trust in science is no longer a given. On the other hand, there are a few organizations that are standing for truth and reality, e.g., Do No Harm Medicine and the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine.
[2] Dr. Walensky does have a beautiful smile. At times it has seemed to lean toward the childish, immature grin, which might lead us to connect her and her poorly informed 
ways to Nancy Pelosi . . . or to the glibly grinning person at the right, whose smile showed that she had no clue about the significance of the congressional DEI-related hearing she was involved in, or how badly the information that he just been presented was trouncing her uninformed side.
Earnestly Speaking 