Scientific American, a once-revered science magazine, has devolved into another left-wing propaganda outlet under the warped stewardship of its liberal editor-in-chief, Laura Helmuth.
This week, Helmuth was lampooned on social media and fact-checked by Twitter’s truth team for pushing the bird-brained, Democratic talking point that there are more than two biological sexes.
“White-throated sparrows have four chromosomally distinct sexes that pair up in fascinating ways,” she tweeted Wednesday.
Helmuth added: “P.S. Nature is amazing P.P.S. Sex is not binary.”
The tweet linked to a Scientific American article that read: “Looking at White-throats in the breeding season, we see four distinct types. To oversimplify, we could call them super-aggressive males, more nurturing males, somewhat aggressive females, and super-nurturing females.
“It’s almost as if the White-throated Sparrow has four sexes. That may sound like a joke, but it’s actually a good description of what’s going on.”
Helmuth’s absurd tweet received an “Added Context” notification through Twitter’s Community Notes feature, which explained: “White-throated sparrows have 2 sexes with 4 unique chromosome combinations.
“There are still just 2 sexes that produce either sperm or eggs. The female types are the white-striped females and the tan-striped females. The male birds are white-striped males and tan striped males.”
In other words, even if white-throated sparrows have four sex chromosomes, as Helmuth claimed, that does not mean they come in four genders.
Moreover, even if it were true that white-throated sparrows came in four genders, that does not mean this is a rule that applies to all species, especially humans. After all, people are not birds.
Numerous Twitter users roasted Helmuth’s farcical rejection of basic biology.
Editor-in-chief of “Scientific” American tries to push unscientific gender nonsense and gets community noted. Glorious. https://t.co/aLdXZOEc3P
— Hans Mahncke (@HansMahncke) May 19, 2023
Laura didn’t see that window. https://t.co/n4TFWoZ060 pic.twitter.com/Zluurn53Ss
— Dutch Rapper Lil’ Wiener (@GayLittleWiener) May 18, 2023
When your gender flat-earthism gets the Twitter fact check. Outstanding. https://t.co/b7aO1sAG01
— Stephen Knight ?️ (@GSpellchecker) May 18, 2023
Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright tweeted: “No, these birds have 2 sexes. Stop spreading scientific disinformation.”
He then linked to an article he wrote in March debunking the very claim Helmuth had tweeted.
No, these birds have 2 sexes. Stop spreading scientific disinformation. https://t.co/L9SjbYYHHM pic.twitter.com/v6Xf05RGFG
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) May 17, 2023
Several Twitter commenters said it’s sad to see Helmuth sacrificing Scientific American’s credibility on the altar of her twisted, left-wing activism.
You really should ask why the religion of gender ideology would require you to destroy your professional credibility like this.
— Bleu Cheque (@VERBAL_CHANCLA) May 17, 2023
Tragic to see @sciam, like so many other once-serious outlets, turning into Buzzfeed. But that’s what you get for hiring “science journalists” instead of scientists, I suppose.
— Cecelia (@Ceceliaism) May 18, 2023
1/ What my eminent friend Professor Christakis says is, alas, true: It is incredible–unbelievable–how deeply the once esteemed magazine Scientific American has sunk into the mire of ideology. https://t.co/SpcUlRRHAN
— Robert P. George????? (@McCormickProf) May 19, 2023
This is the editor of a once-prestigious popular science magazine that published works by the likes of Nikola Tesla and Albert Einstein.
They really ought to consider changing the name from Scientific American to Activist American. https://t.co/Zktf9I1jXi
— Storm (@stormrobinson) May 18, 2023
Scientific American’s tragic slide into the steaming dung pile of left-wing propaganda emissaries masquerading as objective journalistic outlets has been happening for years, but it escalated on Helmuth’s watch.
In October 2020 — just six months after she became editor-in-chief — the pop science magazine broke a 175-year tradition by endorsing then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the presidential election.
In abandoning the oldest U.S. magazine’s tradition of being nonpartisan, the outlet wrote: “Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.”
In typical liberal media fashion, the magazine also trashed then-President Donald Trump by claiming — get this! — that he rejects science.
Subscribe
Gain access to all our Premium contents.More than 100+ articles.
