New Scientist expunges references to humans having two sexes

January 11, 2023 • 11:30 am

UPDATE 2Ms. Sheepshanks has commented below and has verified that she is indeed a real person bearing the name she wields so proudly. Her remarks are in the thread after comment 11. And if she reads this, I urge her to keep writing in this vein and with that critical acumen. (She’s now made several comments.)

UPDATE 1: After doing a bit of sleuthing about Octavia Sheepshanks online, I wonder if that’s her real name (see here, for instance), though that may really be her name and she pretended while at Cambridge that it wasn’t.  Regardless, whatever real person wrote the article was serious, humorous, and should write more.

____________

Seriously, people, I get no pleasure from calling out wokeness (even using that word gets me excoriated), for along with that comes opprobrium from the ideologically pure. Even worse: I feel awful that academia, and especially biology, is being distorted and corrupted by ideologues.

One of the examples I used at the Stanford free-speech conference was the inability of people to recognize that, biologically, there are only two sexes in humans. Just two. In our species sex is effectively binary, with only a tiny handful of people who are “intersex” (these exceptions constitute about 0.018% of the species, or about one person in 5600).  Sex is not gender, for the latter is a true social construct because there are far more sex roles or sexual identities than two, although even gender is bimodal, with most people identifying as traditional male or female. A frequency plot of sex would look like two huge lines, each about 50% of the population, with one of the lines at “male” and the other at “female”, and a few almost invisible blips between those lines. A frequency distribution of gender would look more like a bactrian (the two-humped camel), with more intermediates. But the humps would be high.

Enough: I’ve written about this before. At least biologists recognize that humans have two sexes. Or so I thought, until I encountered this article in The Critic by Octavia Sheepshanks, a freelance writer).  It’s leavened with humor but makes a serious point: New Scientist, the British equivalent of Scientific American (that is not praise), is now removing the words “women” and “woman” from its articles about advances in science, even when the original papers did use the w-words. (For some reason the magazine is not cutting back so much on the words “boy,” “man” or “men”, and given the ideological underpinnings I find this disparity puzzling.)

In other words, New Scientist is bowdlerizing language, presumably in the interest of illiberal left-wing ideology. I trust by now that I don’t have to explain to readers why this ideology won’t use the word “woman” when referring to biological females. (Oh hell, I guess I’d better for new readers: it’s because of the trans-activist mantras that “trans women are women” and “trans men are men”.)

Click to read Sheepshanks’s piece:

Note that New Scientist has no problem with males and females in other species, like sheep. It’s humans where they bridle, and we all know why.

Anyway, Sheepshanks wrote a good piece, and it’s funny in places. I’ll give you a long excerpt, but her arguments for retaining the w-words are more extensive, and you should read those in the original piece. The bold headings are mine:

Sheepshanks’ awakening:

I assumed that New Scientist was doing what it had always done: synthesising and disseminating research findings in a way that was easy to understand, situating them in the context of the real world. It describes itself as “a trusted, impartial source of information about what is going on in the world, in a time where facts are in short supply”, and I had believed this without reservation. It was the voice of reason in my life. After reading one article in which miscarried male foetuses were given a sex (“boys”) but the women who had suffered miscarriages were not (“pregnant people”) I wrote a long and passionate letter to the editor about how it had made me feel (not good). I received no reply, and I began to wonder if my strong belief in the significance of sexual dimorphism in humans was inaccurate and hateful after all. This was the most popular weekly science publication in the world, and it was reporting science as it was. I must be the problem.

Then I encountered the most befuddling article yet. A new form of contraception “for people” had been discovered. After a minor brain adjustment, I established from the sentence “a gel that is applied inside the vagina has been shown to block sperm injected into female sheep”, that this was a new contraception for women. The article was so strange to read that I sought out the original journal article to witness this bizarre wording in situ. When I read the first sentence of the abstract, “Many women would prefer a nonhormonal, on-demand contraceptive that does not have the side effects of existing methods”, I was astonished. Science had not changed; New Scientist had. It had lied to me. (Gaslighting is an overused accusation but resonates here. I intend to avoid one-sided love affairs with magazines in future.)

Note that the “original article” she’s referring to is the Science article highlighted by New Scientist. Note that NS gladly admits that there can be female sheep, but the equivalent in H. sapiens is, well, “people.” People with vaginas. “Female” is mentioned only once in the article, referring to sheep with vaginas, and “women” not at all. Sheepshanks was onto something. As she dug deeper, she found more bodies.

Sheepshanks’ investigation:

I looked back at all the New Scientist articles that had confused me and found the original publications. They had been altered, too: every time only women or men (i.e., males or females) were being referenced, they said so, in stark contrast to New Scientist’s interpretation.

Essentially, New Scientist is blithely misreporting published research to remove any implication of two sexes in humans. Presumably the purpose of these scientifically inaccurate linguistic gymnastics is to include those with alternative gender identities without causing offence. New Scientist has yet to respond to a request for comment, so I can’t be sure.

Sheepshanks’ take on why it matters (I love the name “Octavia Sheepshanks”, and note that it was the reproduction of female sheep that got her going):

Why does it matter if New Scientist is doing this? Perhaps an alien happening across the publication would class humans not with other mammals but with snails and slugs, merrily churning out children all by themselves. Most readers are human and can work out for themselves which sex is being referred to, however. If certain language choices make some people feel happier and safer (again, I can only assume that this is the goal) why ignore this in the name of accuracy?

There is nothing trans-inclusive about pretending humans are a hermaphroditic species. If we were, trans people wouldn’t exist. Perhaps New Scientist, if it wants to include trans people in future(for example, trans men in a study on female contraception) could do so by writing about them? Just a suggestion! Accuracy does not have to mean using the words “women” and “men” — “males” and “females” would include those with all gender identities, including non-binary people.

The alteration of scientific studies to avoid naming the demographic previously known as “women” has serious consequences for anyone female. Returning to the example of the new form of contraception for women, New Scientist’s wilful misinterpretation ignores the positive consequences of the study for women globally, because it cannot name the group it is discussing. These consequences — social and economic liberation through reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies — are discussed in the original paper, which I found fascinating and enjoyed reading. Meanwhile, New Scientist contents itself with informing us that researchers “inserted the gel towards the backs of the vaginas of sheep, which are similar to those in humans”. New Scientist was founded in 1956 for “all those interested in scientific discovery and its social consequences”. Now, female readers interested in studies affecting themselves must read the original academic papers to gain a full picture.

When the same approach is used with studies concerning only men, women are still adversely affected. . .

Read the original to find out why. But I like the fact that Ms. Sheepshanks can write a piece that’s deadly serious while still keeping a sense of humor.  But of course she’ll still be labeled as a transphobe. I get the feeling that she doesn’t care.

Here’s her ending, which is great [note that “gonochorism” describes a biological system, as in humans, in which a species has only two sexes and every individual is a member of only one of those two sexes].

I look forward to a day when I have a place to read about the physical and social implications of research into women’s bodies and health, without limitation. In the meantime, I note that New Scientist remains happy to acknowledge gonochorism in other animals; it recently rejoiced over a study of female robins that discredited the sexist theory that only male robins sing. Maybe I’ll support the liberation of female songbirds until I can read about my own species. In fact, if there’s a rally for feminist robins, I’ll be there with a placard the size of my thumbnail, desperately seeking a new safe haven of sanity.

I don’t read New Scientist regularly, so I don’t know if it has a plethora of bad articles. But it has certainly been unscientific in the past. Here’s the most egregious example, which I wrote about in 2020:

But there have been quite a few other missteps in this journal, and I’ve called the venue out more than a few times (see here).  Imagine if Scientific American merged with New Scientist.  The result would be the scientific equivalent of The Onion!

h/t: Cora

51 thoughts on “New Scientist expunges references to humans having two sexes

    1. It depends on how you define “male” and “female”. If “male” means “produces small-cell gametes” and “female” means “produces large cell gametes”, then yes, there are only two sexes.

  1. It is rather curious that, in his latest book of popular science, Neil deGrasse Tyson writes that “the presumed binary of sex in nature is overrated and rife with exceptions, not only in ourselves but also in the rest of the animal kingdom” (Starry Messenger, page 132); he implies elsewhere that the “wokeness” of his children has had some influence on his thinking.

    1. As long as his children don’t have advanced degrees in biology (which I doubt after reading this), maybe he should let himself be influenced more by the actual experts in this and any other scientific field.

  2. Do other species have two sexes? If so I wonder where in the evolutionary chain did humans, or primates, or vertebrates, or.. cease to have two sexes?

    1. There’s some content on this around the site but you have to hunt it up. There are fungi and microorganisms that have multiple different mating types, but they don’t have differentiated gametes (e.g., eggs and sperm). In all animals, there are only two sexes (females and males), and there is strong theory explaining why that’s evolutionarily stable.

      Some commenters here like to claim that individuals that make neither eggs nor sperm (e.g., due to developmental disorders or chromosomal abnormalities) are a third sex. This is a claim based on the study of words and language, not a claim that arises from the study of organisms.

      1. Some commenters here like to claim that individuals that make neither eggs nor sperm (e.g., due to developmental disorders or chromosomal abnormalities) are a third sex

        That seems to me like saying that people born with severe birth defects like missing limbs are a second human species.

      2. There are two sexes, in that there are two parts needed for sexual reproduction, but true hermaphrodites exist in the animal, and especially plant, kingdoms. I think it’s fair that true hermaphrodites are recognized as a separate category from species that specialize for male and female.

      3. Even hermaphroditic species like tapeworms and some types of flukes (flatworms) still have two and only two distinguishable sexes. They just have both sex organs in the same individual, to ensure that even if you are the only parasite that matures into an adult in the host you got into as a larva, you will not want for companionship. (And fertile eggs, which of course is the point.)

    2. The white throated sparrow has an interesting sexual system involving two sexes and two morphs in each. The morphs involve both color and behavior. About half of these sparrows have white stripes on their heads, are very aggressive in territorial defense, and do not exhibit very good parenting skills. The other half have tan striped heads, are much less aggressive, and are better parents. They almost always mate with the opposite morph. White striped males mate with tan striped females, and vice versa. These characteristics seem to be linked together in a supergene. This is a result of a mutation of a long segment of a gene which became inverted and prevented proper genetic crossover.
      It seems that the biologists who described this phenomenon say that it’s a bird species that acts like it has four sexes. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982215015626 Of course, in an article in Nature, the writer claims that it is a bird with four sexes.
      https://www.nature.com/articles/539482a
      Looking at this in the conversation that is going on here, the sparrow’s system always results in getting the male and female gametes together while in humans, mixing in the variable gender traits does not necessarily do so.
      To Mike’s point, this sexual system in the white throated sparrow is probably evolutionarily unstable. Sorry, I read that but have lost the reference to it.

      1. Of course it has only two sexes but several mating strategies. A bird either has sperm or eggs, but not both. Therefore, the white throated sparrow has two sexes.

        Lots of other species have diverse mating strategies involving different morphs an behaviors, but they’re not thought of as involving more than two sexes. Note that they say the bird “acts” like it has four sexes, not that it actually HAS four sexes.

  3. “Woke correctness” has moved beyond a matter of “keeping up with the Joneses” to one of trying to get ahead. Everyone is actively trying to outdo each other in a wokism race. It’s a case of trying to prove your woke credentials in order to give yourself the smug satisfaction that comes with doing something which suggests that others are wrong or out of touch. Editors trying to make a name for themselves!

  4. Women don’t exist. The entire feminist movement was just a big mistake, apparently. A subject with no subject matter. Betty Friedan (who sat in on my section of Science B-16 when I was a teaching fellow) must be rolling in her grave.

  5. “Note that New Scientist has no problem with males and females in other species, like sheep.” This rank example of speciesism will certainly warrant outcry from the trans-caprinae community. We can expect indignant letters from its members and their allies, protesting the use of the words “ram” and “ewe”. Come to think of it, I wonder if the celebrated Stanford list of forbidden words included these.

  6. There is nothing trans-inclusive about pretending humans are a hermaphroditic species. If we were, trans people wouldn’t exist.

    Of course, at the same time they are trying to eliminate women, many Wookiees assert that there are not trans people, just men and women. The whole discussion is like something from Lewis Carroll, and, while there are undoubtedly sincere proponents of these views, at their heart is just a project to destroy objectivity.

  7. I’m very pleased you call out the woke extremes. In part b/c most people aren’t in the position to. As emeritus you’re untouchable, as a lefty you have the cred, and you have the intellectual chops AND the audience. Your sinecure is rare so I’m very pleased you do what you do. Keep up the most appreciated good work.
    I should do more myself. I have a (long neglected) column, editors who back me up and for other reasons I’m untouchable. I’m also an anti-woke leftist.
    D.A.
    NYC (currently FL, in the sun)

  8. That’s an excellent, although saddening and infuriating, article by the wonderfully named Octavia Sheepshanks.

    I really hope that this blatantly unscientific nonsense gets knocked on the head soon, but I’m not holding my breath.j

  9. Sheepshanks is a perfectly cromulent English surname, albeit an uncommon one. There was an English astronomer named Richard Sheepshanks in the 19th century.

    1. Octavia Sheepshanks here confirming that this is my real name! Thank you for introducing the word ‘cromulent’ into my life, and for mentioning Richard Sheepshanks who was my great-great-great-great-great-uncle, and the brother of Anne Sheepshanks, whom the Sheepshanks lunar crater is named after (one of the few named after a woman). Richard was also Walter Sickert’s grandfather, which is another story entirely!
      The confusion around whether it is actually my name (beyond it being unusual) comes from an article in the Independent which reported on a column I’d written while a student. Basically I got a lot of hate over the eight weeks of my column (fairly innocuous, just me my life and I, plus my opinions) and much of it based around the idea that I was ‘exaggerated’ and a ‘fake character’. Just a lot of public speculation about whether I was just a persona. So for my final column (partly because I had an essay due and a tight deadline) I wrote a jokey ‘oh hands up everyone, I’m actually a really boring person with a boring name and I made this whole thing up’. Which I had no idea anyone would take literally – it was just meant to be sarcastic. Unfortunately it led to huge debate with people trying to prove whether I was real or not, which led to the Independent contacting me, & so on.
      It’s pretty much exactly a decade since that time, and having this article published today has connected me with a part of me that I now realise I had just shut away – the critical thinker, but also the person who wrote about her opinions and didn’t care what people thought. It’s such a nice feeling and I’ve remembered exactly how it felt when my column would be published and for some reason be so divisive, all the online negative comments but all the positive ones, being approached in university libraries etc. I feel like there’s something about writing about oneself that is just innately divisive – some people take it as an affront, as in, why on earth does this person matter more than anyone else? But for me I always want to situate my opinions in my own life experience…I think it makes it more interesting to read, and it’s actually less arrogant because I’m not assuming everyone else will have exactly the same one. Though of course everyone should in this case…
      Thank you to Jerry for writing this and thank you to everyone chatting about it!

      1. Sorry – please delete/ignore the comment above (and this one) as I added to it and posted it in the main comments section, without realising I couldn’t delete the original shorter version — and now Jerry I see you’ve replied and I’m trapped in a cycle of edits ! Hopefully you can re-link to the actual full comment (19) when you see this.

  10. I’m glad that people are pushing back on this nonsense with letters and editorials, but will this actually work? It seems to me about as effectual as writing to Catholic Weekly magazine to stop being so Catholic…

    Meaning, these publications are completely overtaken by the Woke ideology, such that their detractors, no matter how well-reasoned or eloquent they are, will just be dismissed by these publications as ignorant of the Woke Truth, the One True Way.

    They will not change…they will have to be ignored and more importantly replaced with better publications.

  11. I have an unsolicited suggestion: perhaps instead of referring to the woke thought police as the “ideologically pure”, which sounds complimentary to anyone who doesn’t know you have your tongue firmly in your cheek, I recommend, “the ideologically blind” or “the ideologically dogmatic” or “ideologically blinkered”, or “the new puritans” to borrow from Andrew Doyle…or even “the thought police” to borrow from another writer from in or around the British Isles. I just feel sometimes that you’re a bit too polite to these tantruming kids. But my insight into social mores is unreliable, so…probably you’re best just doing what you already do, since you do it so well.

  12. Accuracy does not have to mean using the words “women” and “men” — “males” and “females” would include those with all gender identities, including non-binary people.

    Many moons ago, it was acknowledged that transwomen, though women, were male — and that transmen, though men, were female. This was back when trans activists could insist, with some truth, that they were not denying that sex exists.

    They still insist that, but transwomen are now considered female, and transmen are now considered male. There’s now considerably less truth to their saying they’re not denying that sex exists. To support this they muddle sex with gender, and, while grudgingly still admitting human reproduction takes place, waffle on about how sex isn’t a binary, bring up disorders in sexual development, and point to some new dictionary entries which reflect the fact that yes, some people are now saying transwomen are female and transmen are male. So there.

    The real reason behind this sex denial (which is what it is) is imo twofold: 1) referring to trans ppl’s sex rudely triggered their dysphoria and made them feel bad and 2) it is laughably easy to keep single-sex spaces single-sex by pointing out we should be using sex to do that.

    The science is therefore playing catch-up.

    1. Yes, I was going to point out the same thing. I found it very disturbing when Admiral Rachel Levine claimed to be the first female in their position. This person is a doctor so should understand the importance of putting biological reality ahead of ideological nonsense yet still said that. I hope Levine understands they are actually male. If they truly believe they are female they shouldn’t be in a position where medical knowledge is important.

      I actually had thought it was a good thing in terms of representation for Biden to appoint a transperson to a high position (I have long accepted transpeople as transpeople, I just don’t accept the gender ideology that’s developed in very recent years), but didn’t expect Levine to immediately start spouting nonsense. I used to think the “transwomen are women” mantra was meaningless but harmless. Now I’m seeing people who seem to be internalizing these non-scientific beliefs and seem to think people really can change sex. I’m concerned that some people who go for hormone treatments and surgery may have unrealistic ideas about what is possible based on the nonsense being promoted. I’ve decided that I will never say or agree to “transwomen are women” or “transmen are men” and I will always refer to transwomen as male and transmen as female in discussions where sex is an issue (like males competing in women’s sports).

      1. Unrealistic ideas? Indeed. Some people think that transwomen can have children, transmen can sire them, that a transwoman who detransitions will grow her breasts back after getting off of testosterone, that estrogen changes the angle of the hips, that transwomen have periods. It is absurd.

        I don’t know what puzzles me more: people who actually believe things like those, or people who go along with it but don’t really believe it, because they want to be nice or out of fear for being labeled a right-wing Bible-thumping redneck if they don’t.

        Increasingly, it seems that the only two choices are the evangelical right and the woke. Whatever happened to progressive liberals with sense such as Pinker and Jerry? Yes, there are some prominent pundits, and good for them, but in day-to-day life, one hardly ever meets gender-critical liberals.

  13. Lady Jane Sheepshanks is the romantic interest of the insufferably pious son of an equally insufferable baronet in “Vanity Fair” by William Makepeace (Makeshift as I like say good-humoredly) Thackeray, which I am embarrassed to admit I am just now reading and, as Maxell Smart would say, And loving it!

  14. Octavia Sheepshanks here clearing up a few things including confirming that this is my real name! David Harper, thank you for introducing the word ‘cromulent’ into my life, and for mentioning Richard Sheepshanks who was my great-great-great-great-great-uncle, and the brother of Anne Sheepshanks, whom the Sheepshanks lunar crater is named after (one of the few named after a woman). Richard was also Walter Sickert’s grandfather, which is another story entirely. hectorburleeives – I need to read Vanity Fair!
    The confusion around whether it is actually my name (beyond it being unusual) comes from an article in the Independent which reported on a column I’d written while a student. Basically I got a lot of hate over the eight weeks of my column (fairly innocuous, just me my life and I, plus my opinions) and much of it based around the idea that I was ‘exaggerated’ and a ‘fake character’. Just a lot of public speculation about whether I was just a persona. So for my final column (partly because I had an essay due and a tight deadline) I wrote a jokey ‘oh hands up everyone, I’m actually a really boring person with a boring name and I made this whole thing up’. Which I had no idea anyone would take literally – it was just meant to be sarcastic. Unfortunately it led to huge debate with people trying to prove whether I was real or not, which led to the Independent contacting me, and so on.
    It’s pretty much exactly a decade since that time, and having this article published today has connected me with a part of me that I now realise I had just shut away – the critical thinker, but also the person who wrote about her opinions and didn’t care what people thought. It’s such an amazing feeling to be able to be honest about my opinions, and also for them to start discussions among people I don’t even know. (Thank you!) I’ve remembered exactly how it felt when my column would be published and for some reason be so divisive, all the online negative comments but all the positive ones, being approached in university libraries etc. I feel like there’s something about writing about oneself that is just innately divisive – some people take it as an affront, as in, why on earth does this person matter more than anyone else, they obviously think they do from the way they’re writing. But the way I see it is I always want to give my opinions context, situating them in my own life experience. I think it makes it more interesting to read, and gives an idea of how I came to a conclusion beyond cold hard logic. To me that’s actually less arrogant, but I understand that not everyone wants to read that kind of article.
    Anyway an aspect of all this that I had completely forgotten about was the speculation around my NAME, so was whisked back ten years the moment I saw all these comments – amazing.
    Thank you to Jerry for writing this – I’m actually blown away. I was really hoping that some scientists would read my article and see beyond just another example of the language change that is happening everywhere, to the fact that New Scientist is going to such great lengths to complicate and obscure published science!! When their job is to do the opposite!! Loved your comment about the Onion, and pretty much everything else you wrote as well. There were so so SO many examples I couldn’t put in – I’ll check out your 2020 example.

    1. Loved your article!
      I was relieved to learn that, so far, the scientists doing the actual studies still seem to recognize men and woman as sex categories. New Scientist is apparently intent on cleaning up the offensive mess for the general public.

      Reminds me of the ACLU revising history with the quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who did NOT write:

      “The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a [person’s] life, to [their] well-being and dignity. When the government controls that decision for [people], [they are] being treated as less than a fully adult human responsible for [their] own choices.”

      1. Thank you so much! And thanks for sharing that – I had completely forgotten the ACLU did that to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s words, and now remember having to suppress my anger about it at the time. It’s exactly like that! ARGHHHHH I can’t believe they did that!
        I wonder how many New Scientist readers still think, as I did, that New Scientist is just reporting ‘science’ as usual.. At least the ACLU used square brackets – I wish New Scientist would do the same – ‘Scientists have discovered a new contraception for [people].’ It would be hilarious and I bet a LOT of readers would be angry and shocked, rather than just being quietly stressed as I bet many are.

  15. Observation I didn’t have space for that you might like: the paper about contraception actually used the correct term ‘ewe’, so ‘female sheep’ in the NS article is still a downgrade from that! Next stop, ‘sheep with vaginas’ (I feel sick!) Maybe the feminist ewes are out there defending their right to a name as well!? And I probably owe more of my time to them than the robins!

  16. Ms. Sheepshanks, I must commend you on a brilliant article.
    Since you are from the UK, I hope you will find on point this shameful little story that happened at one of Canada’s premier universities earlier this week.

    The invited speaker, Robert Wintemute, who was silenced by a mob at McGill was attempting to speak on Sex vs. Gender (Identity) Debate In the United Kingdom and the Divorce of LGB from T.

    HIs work has inspired the formation in the UK of the LGB Alliance, which the CBC (Canada’s national publicly funded broadcaster) casually impugned as a hate group, citing unnamed “British officials and LGBTQ+ groups.”

    Says the CBC: ‘The LGB Alliance website includes statements like “Fact: Sex is binary,” “Fact: Sex is observed at birth,” “Fact: Gender transition can be the result of homophobia” and “Fact: LGB Alliance is non-political.”‘

    Gosh, sounds pretty hateful to me. /snark (in case any Canadian police are listening in and think I am trying to file a complaint of hate speech.)

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mcgill-backlash-anti-trans-talk-1.6708251

    I have written to McGill, reminding them of the obligation imposed on them by the Province of Québec to adhere to the Chicago Principles.

    1. Thank you!
      I hadn’t seen that, no – thank you. Astonishing quote – “The T (trans) is so much more vulnerable than the rest of LGB. I think there’s tons of scientific evidence speaking to that.” – so let’s silence a (gay) professor of human rights law…

      1. From your link:

        When the four of us went outside to get away from the crush, a man (who identifies as a trans lesbian, naturally) followed. He said he knew all about people like us because he used to be a neo-Nazi himself. This comment didn’t strike me quite the way he intended. I thought: Yes, I totally believe one kind of extremist can become another kind of extremist.
        “This is what it’s going to be like in this country for people like you,” he warned. But people like whom? All he knew about us was that we wanted to attend a talk that he didn’t want us to attend.

        This is Canada, for fuck’s sake!

  17. NdgT is a competent astrophysicist, and a competent science communicator. That doesn’t protect him from being wrong in this biological subject.

    As a geologist, I am quite careful about stepping outside my bailiwick.

Leave a Reply