September 14, 2016
For the last six years London’s Science Museum has been indoctrinating children into the false pseudoscience of “Brain Sex” via an exhibit designed by transgender activists called “Boy or Girl?” The exhibit was dually funded by the UK government and drug company GlaxoSmithKlein.
According to the website of transgender lobbying youth group Gendered Intelligence the creation of the exhibit was overseen by Dr. Jay Stewart, whose doctorate was awarded in art by Goldsmiths College. Stewart is a testosterone-injecting woman who identifies as transgender.
From the Gendered Intelligence website:
“Dr. Jay Stewart
Jay is co-founder of Gendered Intelligence and chairs the Board of Directors. Jay carries out and oversees the main activities that take place across the organisation. Recently Jay has lead on the projects: ‘What makes your gender? Hacking into the Science Museum’ – a £10,000 project funded by Heritage Lottery Fund with the Science Museum, London – and ‘GI’s Anatomy: a life drawing project for trans and intersex people’ – a £30,000 project funded by the Welcome Trust carried out in collaboration with Central School of Speech & Drama, London Drawing and the Gender Identity Development Service, Tavistock Clinic, NHS Trust. Jay also delivers much of the youth group sessions and is a mentor.”
The ‘Boy or Girl?’ exhibit at the Science Museum taught visitors falsehoods about the science behind sex-stereotypes, claiming traditions of ‘gender’ which privilege males and subordinate females through social rituals of male domination and female submission are ‘hard wired’ in the brain. The museum also presented displays of pharmacology and sex-based prosthetics (breast implants, silicone penises) to children as examples of medical interventions to help them conform to stereotypes of gender.
Included in the exhibit is a ghastly ‘test’ that children can take to determine if they have ‘Pink’ female brains or ‘Blue’ male brains. You can take the test here:
Feminists have criticized the display for years but recent complaints from the feminist parent’s groups FourthWaveNow and TransgenderTrend have succeeded in raising public awareness widely on the issue.
Today the ScienceMuseum announced it would finally take steps to modify the anti-scientific and offensive exhibit.
Excerpted from the ScienceMuseum blog post “A question of sex, gender and how to keep museums up to date” By Alex Tyrrell | 14 September 2016:
“In the past week many of these questions and challenges have been playing on my mind, following a lively discussion on social media about an exhibit on the science of sex and gender in our Who Am I? gallery, which explores the wealth of scientific ideas that inform our understanding of human identity.
I worked on Who Am I? when it was last refreshed back in 2010 and the aim at the time was to present the cutting-edge scientific knowledge of the day on what makes us us, me me and you you. I headed up a team of researchers (we call them Content Developers) who spent many months scouring scientific journals and interviewing countless inspiring researchers from around the world. We also worked with a vast network of eminent geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists and other experts to create the gallery.
Scientific accuracy is vital to the Museum – our reputation depends on it – and we put in place rigorous processes to ensure we get things right, from expert advisory boards who look at the broad messages in an exhibition, to subject specialists who are invited to scrutinise every word we write.
It is now six years since Who am I? was updated – and much of the research featured in the gallery is a decade older. The exhibit in the gallery that has recently received attention on Twitter is titled Boy or Girl? It features stories, objects and research including studies into sexual preference and behaviour, tests to see the sex of an unborn baby, and a section looking at gender identity and the evidence for biological differences between the sexes.
The thinking behind Who am I? – and the sex and gender display in particular – was to communicate the latest research clearly and accurately, but we also believe that featuring contributions from other viewpoints and disciplines is essential when examining a question as complex and profoundly personal as ‘who am I?’.
With this in mind, we chose to include work from numerous artists (including, most famously, Antony Gormley’s Iron Baby) and stories from a range of people who are personally involved in the issues covered. In the sections of Who am I? that examine gender and sex, for instance, we collaborated with a transgender person – ‘Alex’ – whose experiences feature in one of the gallery exhibits.
Some of the comments we have received question the accuracy of the science in the exhibition – and the words and images we chose to explain it. Words such as ‘hardwired’, for instance, which feature on several labels, are today especially and understandably controversial when used in combination with ideas like gender.
Other concerns have been raised about an interactive game in the gallery that explores the male and female brain. Specifically, the game presents studies scientists have carried out to investigate if there are small differences on average in the way that men and women complete certain tasks, largely based around the recognition of abstract shapes and patterns. This game – which dates back 16 years to the gallery’s inception – was designed to be tongue in cheek and provocative (think silly voices akin to a Pathé news reel) and visitors are invited to take some of the real tests that scientists used, scoring male or female ‘brain points’ on a ‘sex-o-meter’ that is coloured pink and blue.
As a Museum we always attempt to present ideas in different ways – labels and objects but also games, animations and ‘interactives’ – and in this case the artistic licence taken in the year 2000 to create a provocative exhibit appears outdated. Certainly from preliminary work looking at the latest scientific evidence, the ideas presented are now in question.
Social attitudes also change. We have received responses from visitors who are concerned about how we feature transgender issues, which are now very much more in the public consciousness than they were back in 2010, let alone the year 2000.
The idea of Who am I? was always to raise questions. We present issues in ways that provoke debate, however we would never want to compromise the accuracy of the content on display.
Of course we would like to keep all of our galleries and exhibitions up-to-date, but with many thousands of objects on show and finite resources and time this is not always possible.
However, with an issue of such scientific and cultural importance as this we have decided it is essential that we look again at the exhibit. We are now talking to leading experts in neuroscience and clinical psychology to consider whether the latest scientific evidence warrants making changes to our exhibit.
Science moves fast, and while it isn’t always possible for us to keep up, on some issues it is essential that we quicken our pace to make sure we haven’t been left behind.
Watch this space for further details.”
Read the full post here:
[Actual screencap of Science Museum test administered to youth]
March 28, 2016
November 26, 2015
Mountain Bike ‘Groundhog Day’ as male rider Sylvia Castaneda sweeps Women’s division of Vittoria Eastern States Cup
July 12, 2015
In a story that will sound like ‘Groundhog Day’ to those familiar with the Michelle Dumaresq saga, a male competitor named Sylvia Castaneda was given the green light by mountain bike racing sponsor Vittoria Tires to compete in the prestigious Eastern States Women’s Cup on the basis that he claims to feel that he is mentally female, or has an internal female essence.
Like Dumaresq, who became the male Canadian National Women’s Champion of Downhill Mountain Bike Racing for three years under a similar policy until his retirement, Castaneda ran his first race in the novice female rank and swept the entire division, and just like Dumaresq, beat the top time of the entire elite female professional category by more than two seconds.
“Sylvia Castaneda of Boston, racing in her very first downhill event, was easily the biggest shock of the weekend. The fast and fearless Castaneda not only won the female beginner class by a whopping 41-seconds, she was also the fastest female on the day, beating the women’s pro division winner by more than two seconds. Talk about starting off with a bang,” reported PinkBike, who opted not to mention the fact that Sylvia is in fact a male competitor. A fairness complaint, left as a comment on their post by an event attendee was also not responded to. Castaneda would have placed 2nd in the male novice category for the 19-29 year old age group in the June 14 Pats Peak New Hampshire event. He would not have placed at all in the professional male category.
Sylvia Castaneda is a man named James “Jamie” Hargreaves, with a history of competing (and not placing) in male races, sources report to GenderTrender. He works as a bike mechanic for a large shop in Boston’s west end. He has also used the alias “Jamie Liddell”, adopting the surname of his apparent life-partner, another transgender male.
Boston’s Community Bicycle Supply, “Sylvia’s” official sponsor, opted not to mention or celebrate their sponsored rider’s “shocking” winning sweep on either their main business or their several times daily updated facebook site. Not a whisper for their triumphant “female” champion.
Like Michelle Dumaresq before him, Castaneda/Hargreaves does not believe that his male physiology, bone structure, musculature, and history/socialization as a male athlete advantages him over the females he is competing against, says a source who knows him (and who wants it stated that they are a strong supporter of LGBT people with many beloved friends and family members falling into that category). Sylvia/James truly believes that he has a “female mind” and that this mind-set makes him unquestionably female biologically. He believes that males who are predisposed to “femininity” are not physically male because femininity is the definition of womanhood and the mind overrides corporeality. Or something.
Perhaps like many transgender male athletes he views himself as a “disadvantaged” due to the social stigma he receives as a male who embraces “femininity”, and dominating in competition against female athletes is an entitlement that “equalizes” that “disadvantage”. Or perhaps, like Dumaresq, his narcissism is so great that he believes his male biology has disappeared under his command (and some hormone pills!), and his sudden fabulous win streak in athletics is based on the fact that he is simply one very, very special lady.
Vittoria Tire, sponsors of the Eastern States Cup, agrees with this definition of “female athlete”: any man can be one. Rather than support women’s sports and the kick-ass female mountain bike division, they opted to prioritize the rights of any men who “identify” as “male-bodied females”.
After ignoring women’s fairness concerns following the male rider’s sweep of the women’s division, Vittoria responded by licensing James/Sylvia for his second race in the women’s division for round two of the New England Cup on July 4, in Killington, VT, this time in the top rated amateur women’s category. To no one’s surprise, he again swept the women’s division, besting all actual female amateur competitors and also all of the women’s professional category, except the #1 elite top women’s rider Mary Elges, who bested him by over three seconds. James/Sylvia would have failed to place at all in his top male amateur category at this event, much less the pro male category. Funny how PinkBike didn’t even mention “Sylvia” this time in their report of his second event.
What is striking beyond the extraordinary “Groundhog Day” synchronicities of the previous Michelle Dumaresq and the current Sylvia Castaneda incursion into women’s downhill mountain bike racing, (both sweeping the entire female division on their first novice race, both exhibiting utter entitlement to do so as men who feel “disadvantaged” by the existence of female sporting events), is the larger “Groundhog Day” of the male sporting authorities, media and sponsors shitting on women’s sports in general: Male sponsors like Vittoria Tire blatantly tokenizing and disrespecting elite women athletes. Male sponsors like Boston’s Community Bicycle Supply robbing female athletes of their right to compete fairly against other women. Male licensing boards prioritizing male feelings over basic female rights to licensed women’s athletic competition. Male sports media ignoring and censoring coverage of women’s sports. “Transgender” policies adopted by male sports authorities which solely benefit male competitors, to the sole detriment of female athletes. Rinse and repeat. Endlessly. Groundhog Day.
May 27, 2015
The following was written by Diane Ehrensaft, Director of Mental Health at the Child and Adolescent Gender Center at University of California, San Francisco. Ehrensaft’s clinic is devoted to the controversial practice of sterilizing pre-pubertal children with off-label medications which stunt the growth of their genitals and reproductive system, preventing them from ever maturing. The formerly healthy children are then made dependent on cross-sex hormones, and the medical system, for life. Ehrensaft’s rationale for this practice is outlined in the writing excerpted below. The full text can be read here.
[*For the sake of clarity, each usage of the term “gender” in the text below has been replaced with the term “sex-role”.]
“In traditional theories, it is assumed that children clearly know their own [sex-role] by the age of six, based on the sex assigned to them at birth, the early knowledge of that assignment, the [sex-role] socialisation that helps a child know how their [sex-role] should be performed and the evolving cognitive understanding of the stability of their [sex-role] identity. Yet if a child deviates from the sex assigned to them at birth or rejects the rules of [sex-role] embedded in the socialisation process, they are assumed to be too young to know their [sex-role], suffering from either [sex-role] confusion or a [sex-role] disorder.
Following this logic, if you are “cis-[sex-role]” (your sense of your [sex-role] matches the sex assigned on your birth certificate), you can know your [sex-role], but if you are trans-[sex-role] or [sex-role]-nonconforming, you cannot possibly know.
Yet a macro survey of trans-[sex-role] adults conducted in the US indicated that a large proportion of respondents knew at an early age what their true [sex-role] was – they just kept it under wraps because of social stigma in their childhood years. So we could say that [sex-role]-creative children can possibly know their [sex-role] – and do, at a very young age.”
“Over the course of time, if we do not impose our own reactions and feelings on the children, like the ones above, and allow a space for their [sex-role] narrative to unfold, the [sex-role] they know themselves to be will come into clearer focus. From there we can give them the opportunity to transition to the [sex-role] that feels most authentic, followed later by the choice to use puberty blockers to put natal puberty on hold and later cross-sex hormones to bring their bodies into better sync with their psyche.
If we do not give them this opportunity, they may feel thwarted, frustrated, despondent, angry, deflated – feelings reflected in the symptoms correlated with being a [sex-role]-nonconforming or [sex-role]-dysphoric child. The root of these symptoms is not the child’s [sex-role], but rather the environment’s negative reactions to the child’s [sex-role].
When acceptance and allowance of the child to live in their authentic [sex-role] replace negation or suppression of a child’s nonconforming [sex-role], the symptoms have been known to subside or disappear completely, much to the surprise of those caring for the child. We might even consider [sex-role] as the cure, rather than the problem, privileging the child’s ability to not only feel, but know their [sex-role].”