Bill Nye: Gender-Chromosome Correlation Is So ’90s

Bill Nye: Gender-Chromosome Correlation Is So ’90s

Bill Nye hasn't edited old segments from his show to better adhere to the scientific method. He's doing it to align himself with progressive orthodoxy.
Daniel Payne
By

The transgender machine rolls on. It shows no signs of slowing down; indeed, it has all the appearance of a lasting, solidified phenomenon.

The socio-sexual anarchy wrought by the transgender zeitgeist is perhaps the most interesting of all, if not also the most horrifying. Nothing really seems to mean anything anymore. GLAAD, for example, claims that “For transgender people, the sex they were assigned at birth and their own internal gender identity do not match.” But elsewhere, GLAAD claims that “sex” is “a combination of bodily characteristics,” while “gender” is “a person’s internal, deeply held sense of their gender.”

This doesn’t add up in the slightest: by GLAAD’s own reckoning, “sex” and “gender” are two radically—qualitatively—different phenomenon. How could the two ever “match” in the first place?

Put another way, it would be like saying, “Their foot size and their own internal gender identity do not match,” or, “Their hair color and their own internal gender identity do not match.” Two phenomena of fundamentally different essences cannot be considered discordant if they were never supposed to “match” in the first place.

But that is the nature of the transgender game. It just says things—meaningless nonsense things that transgenderism can’t even square by its own kooky logic—and everyone smiles and nods and agrees and pats themselves on the back for being an “ally” or whatever.

Bill Nye Shows Where Transgenderism Takes Us

It would be helpful if there were more medical and scientific officials willing to point out the logical absurdity of the whole charade. But many of them seem to have been cowed into silence, and the rest of them have eagerly jumped on board, happy and willing to be a part of the next great civil rights march. Last week, the Federalist reported on the selective editing of an episode from Bill Nye’s mid-90s television show, changing a segment that affirmed the chromosomal basis of biological sex:

On Netflix’s collection of episodes of “Bill Nye,” the 23rd episode, entitled “Probability,” is identical to that which originally aired in 1996—except that the segment on sex and chromosomes has been excised completely. The episode offers no explanation whatsoever. The show simply moves from the segment immediately prior the deleted clip to the segment immediately following it.

At Vice, Kaleigh Rogers tries to set the record straight, claiming that “the gender-chromosome information [in the episode] is outdated:

There are lots of things we believed in the 90s—like that Pluto was a planet, for example—that is different from what we now understand. The beauty of science is that the more research we do, the more nuanced our understanding of the world becomes. We get to discover new things and expand our knowledge. There was a significant period of history when prominent scientists believed, based on the evidence at hand, that the world was flat. As Nye says in his episode about gender, we’re still figuring a lot of this stuff out.

 Notice at the outset that we have yet another example of meaningless nonsense language: Rogers asserts that the segment in question dealt with “gender-chromosome information.” But of course that’s not true: chromosomes determine sex, not gender, which is—at least as of a few minutes ago—an “internal, deeply held sense.” As a matter of fact, Rogers herself affirms this in the very same article, just a few paragraphs later! People who believe in gender ideology are very rarely able to get their terminology straight, let alone the logical foundations of their own bizarre arguments.

We Knew Things In The ’90s, Believe It Or Not

But consider the other, deeper absurdity implied in Rogers’s argument: the idea that, in the mid-1990s, scientists were not aware of chromosomal variants within human biological development. “There are lots of things we believed in the 90s,” she writes, “… that is [sic] different from what we now understand.” But this is nonsense: scientists knew decades before the 1990s that there were variants and abnormalities in the standard XX – XY paradigm of sex chromosomal arrangement.

The way Rogers would have us believe it, geneticists were totally oblivious to conditions like Turner’s syndrome, Klinefelter syndrome, and trisomy X up to and through the late 1990s. It was apparently only in the glorious, super-sciency 21st century that scientists finally cracked the code and discovered that things weren’t so simple.

Only a deeply unserious person could assume this. Here’s the truth: when one is attempting to communicate a broad biological scientific principle—particularly when one is teaching the principle to children, which is what Bill Nye’s show was made to do—it is perfectly acceptable, necessary even, to gloss over the malformations and abnormalities that arise in the human population. You cannot expect a child’s weekend education program to delve into the eccentricities of XYY syndrome when teaching the basics about genetics. Any competent educator of children recognizes the need for sound and defensible generalities from time to time.

You can see this principle illustrated perfectly in (where else?) an episode of “Bill Nye the Science Guy” that focuses on genes. “Every one of your cells has 46 chromosomes,” a young woman explains in this episode, which remains fully unedited on Netflix. But we know this isn’t true for everyone: aneuploidy, which manifests itself in humans as the abnormal presence of less or more than 46 chromosomes in cells, is well-known to science and had been known for decades prior to Bill Nye’s television show.

Merciful horrors! An episode of “Bill Nye the Science Guy” from the 1990s doesn’t provide a doctoral-level survey of chromosomal irregularities!

There’s Only One Reason Bill Nye Edited His Show

In cases like this you have two options. You can be an insufferable pedant, gripe about how Bill Nye mis-educated eight-year-olds on his Saturday morning children’s television show, and demand that he memory-hole the offending segment; or you can recognize that it’s acceptable to teach children fundamental scientific principles without delving into every single possible variation regarding human biological development within the confines of a 22-minute programming block.

A normal, reasonable person would choose option two. Gender ideologues, on the other hand, seem content with option one. This is deeply embarrassing for the ideologues, but to their credit they do not seem to realize how embarrassing it really is.

Bill Nye, of course, is perfectly welcome to update his show if he believes that the scientific method demands it. But the question then becomes this: why did he slash the “gender-chromosome” segment but leave the 46-chromosome segment?

The answer is obvious. It’s because Nye is no longer interested in “science,” so to speak: he is interested in progressive orthodoxy, and in advancing the absurdist and illogical ambitions of modern gender ideology. “We’re still figuring a lot of this stuff out,” writes Rogers. Keep at it, princess.

Daniel Payne is an assistant editor for The College Fix, the news magazine of the Student Free Press Association. Daniel's work has appeared in outlets such as National Review Online, Reason, Front Porch Republic, and elsewhere. His personal blog can be found at Trial of the Century. He lives in Virginia.

Copyright © 2017 The Federalist, a wholly independent division of FDRLST Media, All Rights Reserved.