On March 31st of 2019, biologist and IDW (Intellectual Dark Web) member Bret Weinstein took to his Twitter account and tweeted the following:

Upon reading this tweet, I was puzzled. Not necessarily offended, but genuinely confused. What on Earth was this message trying to ultimately convey? That trans people are not born biologically in a way that visibly conveys their gender? Because if so, it is incredibly silly of Dr. Weinstein to feel the need to tell trans people this fact. They knew it well before any cis people did, well back in humanity’s history.

Then I thought about why Dr. Weinstein took the time to emphasis his academic credentials in his salutation. He seems to think his credentials as a biologist should back up what he’s saying, here. So, what he’s saying is likely something he assumes could be challenged by someone. But, challenged by the trans community or by anti-trans bigots?

The reason why this distinction is not so clear has to do with the fact that Dr. Weinstein is keeping some fairly controversial company these days in his IDW fellows. For those who might not know, the IDW is essentially a circle of intellectual Internet figures whose views are often criticized for any number of reasons relating to how said views might be perceived as socially irresponsible. Possibly the most well-known IDW member, Neuroscientist Dr. Sam Harris, has long been chastised (oftentimes unfairly, in this author’s opinion) for his critical views of radical Islam. Such views have been equated by Harris’s critics to outright bigotry against Muslims, though Harris has qualified many times throughout his career why this is not the case. Like Harris, Bret Weinstein came to the IDW after his own prior statements were used against him to frame him as a bigot–at the college he formerly worked at, Evergreen State, Dr. Weinstein took a stand against what he viewed was a discriminatory call from the students of color on campus for a day of white absence on campus (this mirrored the day of black absence on campus that had long been established by the black students and faculty of prior years as a demonstration of how necessary black thought and black labor was for society to function). To Weinstein, simply calling for a white day of absence in an attempt to counterweight the black day of absence not only missed the point of the black day of absence, but also went further to needlessly force an entire demographic off the campus that did not elect to leave of its own accord.

Whatever one might think about Dr. Weinstein’s reasoning behind his stance, the response from the students on the campus amounted to extreme and near-ubiquitous outrage in which Weinstein and his wife, another faculty member at the college, became targets of severe maligning, threats, and calls for resignation. Dr. Weinstein was called a racist. The irony of that charge, however, became apparent once it was revealed on various news outlets that Dr. Weinstein had been a social justice activist and advocate for most of his life, with a voting record that leaned considerably left (for instance, Weinstein voted for Bernie over Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries of the 2016 presidential race). There was no evidence of racist feelings or behavior linked to Weinstein, and even his written response to the initial call for white absence itself does not read like the work of someone plotting on behalf of nefarious racial actors. Weinstein simply had an opinion on the matter that, even if one might want to argue it was misguided or ignorant of a non-white social perspective, seemed sincere and not consciously bigoted. However, the train had already left the station, and Dr. Weinstein was, much like Dr. Harris before him, edged out of more mainstream intellectual discussion spaces due to what was perceived as a bigoted worldview.

Here is where things get interesting, though–instead of simply taking his lumps, defending his reputation when able, and seeking out new employment elsewhere so he could continue working as a biologist, Dr. Weinstein instead became chummy with the Intellectual Dark Web–which includes alongside Sam Harris even more controversial figures such as conservative pundit Ben Shapiro and clinical psychologist-turned-self-help guru Dr. Jordan Peterson. The latter of these two figures first joined the world stage by misrepresenting a law in his home country of Canada that added trans people into the country’s already-existing list of legally protected classes of people. Dr. Peterson presented the situation as if the law would lead to innocent people being arrested for mistakingly misgendering trans people (the law does no such thing). Why Dr. Weinstein, a lifelong leftist, joined this crew anyway seems to be accounted for by Weinstein himself, as he has multiple times on his Twitter and in interviews stated or implied that he now feels accepted and not scorned by the people in this circle. And indeed, that must feel nice–especially if one truly was not saying anything consciously bigoted before yet become publicly lambasted for it anyway. However, just because it might feel nice to finally be accepted again by an intellectual circle, this does not mean one should gloss over what problematic elements do indeed exist within said circle.

This brings us back to the puzzle of Weinstein’s more recent professed positions on any number of hot-button issues. In the beginning of Weinstein’s associating with figures like Harris, for instance, Weinstein was very adamant during a live conversation on-stage with Harris that “race” as a concept is nonsensical and unhelpful when speaking on biological and genetic grounds. He’s right–“race” is a socially constructed concept that misunderstands phenotypical variation on humans as being genotypical. And as any good biologist should, Weinstein made this point clear, stating instead that if we wish to discuss human variation, it is much more accurate to speak about groups or populations, as that accounts for geographical and environmental factors into how natural selection is occurring within human populations on specific parts of the globe. Weinstein went so far at this juncture as to claim (rightly) that to use the term “race” to describe any meaningful genetic diversity among humans is “close to indefensible,” and that when people talk about what the perceive as race, their concept of it is “cultural and not biological.” The clip below features that portion of the discussion.

Dr. Weinstein further clarifies that he does still use the term “race” when discussing the social issues (as do I, as well as many other scientists who recognize the colloquial hold the concept still has on everyday language), but that when the conversation gets technical, the problems begin and he has to clarify that “race” isn’t actually a thing.

This is all very well-met science popularizing, so far. I certainly have no qualms with how Dr. Weinstein chose to phrase his position, there. And he’s correct to point out that we can indeed see certain (minute) difference such as antigens in the blood, surface-level (phenotypical) differences of common appearance of skin and melanin interactions, etc. based upon population bottlenecks and groupings over many generations that slightly adapted the given population to its immediately surrounding environment. None of this, however, means that the sort of thing Sam Harris is trying to peddle on his end of the conversation (mainly dealing with the concept of innate “intelligence” within certain “races” of people) is scientifically sound at all. Nevertheless, Dr. Weinstein does not seem to push back nearly as much as I would have were I in the same position. But nevertheless, Dr. Weinstein is not yet demonstrating anything blatantly bigoted or unscientific to my eyes or ears at this point.

Now, let us fast forward to more recent times. By now, Dr. Weinstein and his brother Eric have settled fully into the IDW scene and are considered to be among its members. Dr. Weinstein’s Twitter account is alight with many, many posts on many, many topics, but he does a good job of tethering much of the content back to his credentials as a biologist. But here is one Tweet from May 21st of this year that gave me pause yet again, much like his #TransDayOfVisibility tweet did a couple of months back, and it deals, interestingly enough, with the race issue once again:

Um… What?

To be fair to Dr. Weinstein, attached to the tweet was a New York Times article entitled “The Intersection of Race and Blood,” wherein an attempt to explain the phenomenon of different blood types is put forth (poorly, in my opinion) while still arguing against the blatantly racist idea that different “races” of people have different blood from each other, which has unfortunately colored a significant amount of the history behind blood donation for far too long. What the article is sloppily talking about ultimately just amounts to what I mentioned earlier regarding different blood antigens being present within different groups, not “races,” of people, whose tangible distinctions are based on very slight phenotypical (not genotypical) environmental adaptation.

In other words, the article Weinstein is citing is titled provocatively but its contents do not deliver on the headline’s promise. Furthermore, even if one would want to give blood to someone based on what their geographical heritage dictated in terms of what immunities their specific heritable antigens could bring, that would ultimately make little tangible difference because blood type is the ultimate tell of blood compatibility, not what antigens are present in the donated blood. Contrary wise, if one were to intentionally donate blood of the same blood type but containing antigens of a geographical lineage that might have built up specific immunities different to that of the person receiving the blood donation, the benefits of that addition would be temporary, as once again, blood type (which is not dictated by “race” and varies between individuals) is what ultimately dictates whether or not the donation will be successful. In short: blood is blood, and humans are humans. The variations present in blood that amount to anything tangible varies by type, not antigen, and blood type is not predictable by the color of a person’s skin.

Interestingly enough, when pressed, Dr. Weinstein seems to be fully aware of this:

Hmm… Interesting. Well, what about his vague tweet about trans people’s biology? Did anyone press him in that tweet’s comments?

Hmm… Very interesting! So, it seems that when pressed on these initially provocative declarations about race and gender, Dr. Weinstein acknowledges that the science conversation needs to be more precise in order to fully explain what is really going on and not further ignite cultural arguments. But hey, it isn’t his fault that Tweets are only so long and the nuance is now being missed even by him. It isn’t as if people could post multiple tweets in a row, numbering them accordingly, when a really important message needs to be conveyed and nuance needs to be retained. That’s never been done on Twitter before. And to do so would be utter madness–madness, I say!

Now, I’m certainly not going to suggest that Dr. Weinstein has willingly become less precise in his presentation of scientific concepts as of late because he knows that the Intellectual Dark Web’s primary paying audience is a demographic that at least flirts with things like race realism and transphobia guised as “skepticism,” and since the IDW is now his main gig, it might benefit him financially to ride the line between remaining scientifically sound and pandering to that sort of audience. No, no– I think that despite what we might perceive as Dr. Weinstein selling out, his general attitude about conservatism vs. leftism as the best way forward hasn’t changed much:

That “without a revolution” part is silly (not all revolution has to be bloody), but he is at least still arguing in favor of something beyond the present status quo, which is more than I can say for some of his IDW fellows. And good for him. Seriously. But, there is still the question of what in the world he was getting at with that truly bizarre and vague “between the lines” tweet about trans people, biology, and “progress.” But I think we might find some insight on this by looking at an earlier tweet of his dealing with trans issues:

Ah. Here we are.

So, notice that much like in his other trans-related tweet, Dr. Weinstein is careful to declare that this is just #FactsBruh and not a bias of his own clouding his judgement. And I am sure he truly believes that. But there is just one problem: “Rapid Onset Gender Disphoria” (sic) is not a real thing.

Many readers of this blog in particular will already know about this, of course, but on the chance that allies and even some outsiders come across this article, the background needs to be, even if briefly, laid out. I appreciate the regular readers’ patience.

This nonsense idea of “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria,” the claim that suddenly, inexplicably, a young person can realize he or she is transgender without any prior warning of any kind, was supposedly discovered by a professor at Brown University–and Brown is an Ivy League school, so this must be true! Right?

Well… No. In fact, hell no. The paper in question, researched by Brown University assistant professor Lisa Littman, didn’t just describe an apparent sudden shift into the trans experience for teens; it also went so far as to strongly suggest that excessive exposure to trans-related media and other trans people was the cause for the change. Does this sound like pseudoscience yet?

It should. Because it is. While the paper claimed to have case studied over 250 cases (wow!) of teenagers rapidly experiencing onset gender dysphoria without warning, the reality was that the paper merely surveyed the parents of these teens. Meaning that what the paper was actually delineating was what common mindsets of shocked parents look like upon a child coming out as trans. The shock and seemingly out-of-nowhere nature of this reveal, therefore, was not happening in the minds of the teens, but rather in the minds of the teens’ parents, who in many cases felt blindsided by the news. According to the parents of these teens, there were traumatic events that might have triggered the change in their children, and there seemed to have been a “clustering of transness” in the neighborhoods that also might have influenced them. These opinions of the parents were then collected as data that was seen as useful for determining whether or not Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is actually a thing.

Opinions. Not scientific data points. Not brain scans before and after the supposed onset gender switch, not even direct communication with the teens themselves in an environment that felt safe for them to speak freely about their actual states of mind. Just opinions from the shocked and appalled parents. Do you even science, Professor Littman?

Author Zinnia Jones took a deep dive into what seems to be the main source for these claims in the first place on behalf of the parents of these supposedly rapidly onset trans teens cited in the paper. What Jones found was that the idea that too much trans exposure can turn a person trans stems primarily from…

(the envelope, please)

…the Internet.

I know. I was shocked, too. And more specifically, three forums on the Internet, all of which house documented anti-trans biases: Youth Trans Critical Professionals, Transgender Trend, and Fourth Wave Now. But I can see how the parents of these teens might have thought the information on these places was legitimate–the site names seem so unbiased!

But I have an adjacent bone to pick with this study aside from the fact that it is absolute bunk: gender dysphoria is not itself the state of being trans. It is simply the feeling of being out-of-sync with the people around you’s perception of your gender. Meaning that this study (and the people it surveyed) clearly lacks a true scientific understanding of what gender dysphoria even is in the first place. Yet another sign that the people involved in researching this clearly started off without a real grasp of what they were looking at in the first place.

Now, since enough naysayers brought all of this to the attention of the publisher of the paper, PLOS ONE, said publisher actually went back and corrected the paper to be more scientifically sound. Which essentially means that they had to completely change the thesis of what the paper was even supposed to be about, therefore rendering it essentially worthless as a “scientific study” of anything, much less so-called rapid onset gender incongruence.

All’s well that ends well, right? I mean, the initial paper might have been bunk, but then good science swooped in and corrected the bad science in the end, so, we should be happy?

Well, while it is true that we should celebrate the correction, the error should never have happened in the first place. Meaning that the larger scientific community should be engaging in this conversation about the scientific veracity of the claims surrounding the legitimacy of the trans experience. Every time good science is done that follows actual scientific methodology, we learn more and more about how things such as sex, gender, and brain structure for cis and trans people are far more complicated than earlier claims postulated. Most importantly, the good science always ends up supporting trans legitimacy and promoting trans visibility. So, why doesn’t the science conversation at large veer more into these waters? The fact that it hasn’t yet means that well-meaning academic publishers will continue to fall for pseudoscientific nonsense like the Littman paper before the inevitable corrections come around. Until it does, people like Bret Weinstein will be able to keep tweeting “scientific” and “unbiased” coded messages about how it is immoral to properly treat trans kids and teens while still approaching the broader issue of trans rights with an ingratiating smiley face.

And that, by anyone’s truly empirical and scientific watch, is the actual blocker to “real progress.”


Dear Dr. Weinstein,

I believe you are capable of “getting it” much more than you currently seem to be. I appreciate your posited dedication to scientific literacy and your contributions to your field, but your recent proclivity to be vague when trekking into subjects that science can actually clarify seems counterintuitive for someone who claims to be in favor of trans freedoms. Perpetuating pseudoscience that was pulled from sources hostile to trans people is not skepticism. Debunking it is.

Sincerely,
An anthropologist (and proud trans ally).