The Pelvic Divide: Anatomy, ideology, and pseudo-science

They called him “Elvis the Pelvis.” But except for his ability to swivel his pelvis in suggestive ways, there was nothing extraordinary about Elvis’s pelvis. An X-ray would have revealed that his pelvis had essentially the same structure as that of any other man.

By contrast, a comparison to an X-ray of a woman’s pelvis would reveal several significant differences. For example, the pelvic inlet on a male is narrower and heart shaped whereas for females it is open and circular. Another major differences can be seen in the pubic bones. Males have a narrower sub pubic angle where the two bones meet while females have a much wider sub pubic angle. The angle is about 30 degrees narrower in males. You don’t have to be a genius to figure out why these differences exist. Even a child can understand that a woman’s broader pelvic cavity facilitates childbirth. In short, the differences in pelvic structure suggest that men and women are meant to play different roles in life.

You can argue about whether God designed the pelvis this way or whether nature did, but it is an anatomical fact that children should know. It’s a fact that gives children an objective basis on which to discern who’s telling the truth about gender and who is not.

Defenders of the LGBTQ ideology like to say that gender is a purely social construct. But it’s well to remember that it is first and foremost an anatomical/biological construct. Societies do, of course have something to do with the assignment of sex roles, but it is not an arbitrary assignment. Rather, it is based on what nature strongly suggests, especially in the realm of reproduction.

Indeed, when it comes to the fundamentals, nature doesn’t simply suggest; she insists. Nature (or God) has made it impossible for a man to conceive or give birth, or for a woman to inseminate. Beyond the skeletal differences there are, of course, numerous other anatomical differences. These differences are not merely a matter of degree, but a matter of presence or absence. Males don’t have a differently shaped uterus than women, they have none at all. Men don’t have narrower fallopian tubes than women; they have none at all. Men don’t have fewer ovaries than women; they have zero ovaries. Moreover, there are chromosomal differences, hormonal differences, and even differences in brain structure between men and women. In short, it is not possible for a man to become a woman or vice versa. It is, however possible to convince a child that this transition is possible. And that seems to be the mission of many teachers, psychologists, doctors, and advertisers.

A basic introduction to anatomy would do much to arm children against the falsehoods about gender that are now taught in schools. Unfortunately, anatomy isn’t generally introduced until middle school while the cult of gender fluidity is introduced in kindergarten and even in pre-K. Thus, pseudo-science has a considerable head start over real science. The pseudo-science also has the advantage of fitting into current educational ideologies, and real science does not.

Still, anatomy and reproductive biology give the lie to the rigid doctrine of gender fluidity. So, if you’re a radical trans ideologue, what do you do? How do you prevent the kids from being exposed to the truths taught by the human body?

You could suppress the science or, at least, any science that contradicts the fairytale version of gender now being foisted on children. You could, for instance, convince publishers of school textbooks to rewrite the texts in order to make them conform to the fantasies of LGBT activists. In the meantime, existing biology books and plastic anatomical models could be put under lock and key in the school library. Or, better, you could simply burn them.

You may think that I exaggerate, but radical people seem to prefer radical tactics. They consistently cross boundaries that ordinary people are sure they’ll never dare to cross. You may think that publishers and librarians would never go along with radical schemes such as rewriting books to suit current ideologies, but, in fact, they do. If you doubt this, browse through the children’s section of a Barnes & Noble bookstore, or check out the picture book section of your local library (but be careful not to trip over the drag queen cavorting with the kids).

The publishers have already capitulated to the LGBT and woke agendas. Recently, authors as diverse as Roald Dahl, P.G. Wodehouse, and Agatha Christie have had their books rewritten to conform to woke guidelines. Don’t count on publishers or librarians to hold the line. Many of them are part of the madness.

But how about the scientists? Surely, they can be counted on to, er, follow the science. And it does seem that, in general, scientists have been more resistant to the politicization of their field than those in fields such as literature and history.

But scientists are not immune to ideology. Indeed, there are several examples of scientists who have capitulated to gender ideology. However, before considering their cases let’s first look at what is generally thought to be the most prominent historical example of the dangers of mixing science with ideology.

During the Stalin era in the USSR, Trofim Lysenko, an agricultural scientist, proposed a new theory of plant growth and crop yield. Lysenko’s theory gained favor with the Communist Party, partly because Stalin was impressed with Lysenko’s strong commitment to communist ideology and partly because Lysenko’s peasant background seemed to confirm the party’s idealization of the “common man.”

Despite his rejection of Mendelian genetics in favor of his own pseudoscientific ideas about horticulture, Lysenko became director of the Institute of Genetics within the USSR’s Academy of Sciences. Within a relatively short time his unorthodox ideas became state-sanctioned doctrine. Scientific critics of Lysenko were silenced, hundreds were imprisoned, and several were killed. Meanwhile, the agricultural practices that he encouraged only served to worsen the Soviet famines of the era. Lysenko’s methods added significantly to the death toll. In 1958 the People’s Republic of China foolishly adopted Lysenko’s methods and suffered similar deadly results during the Great Chinese Famine of 1959 to 1962.

Lysenko’s theories were eventually discredited in the Soviet Union, but Lysenkoism—the promotion of fake science at the expense of real science—is still with us. The field of gender studies provides several examples.

Perhaps the prime example is the work of Dr. John Money, a professor of medical psychology who established the John Hopkins Gender Identity Clinic—the first U.S. clinic to perform sex reassignment surgeries.

More than any other person, Money promoted the theory that gender is a social construct, that it has more to do with socialization than with biology. A test of his theory came when the parents of twin boys sought his help. As a result of a botched circumcision, one of the boys, Bruce, was left without a penis. Money suggested sex reassignment surgery followed by hormone treatment and re-socialization. At age 22 months, Bruce had his testicles removed, and Money instructed the parents to raise him as a girl: to give him a girl’s name, dress him in girls’ clothes, give him dolls to play with, and so on.

But Bruce, now called Brenda, resisted this feminization process almost from the start. He didn’t like girls’ clothing, he urinated standing up, and he loved rough and tumble play. In short, Money’s experiment contradicted his theory. Bruce never identified as a girl.

Nevertheless, Money, who saw the boys on a regular basis, published several papers claiming that the experiment proved his thesis. And it wasn’t until many years later that his deception was revealed.

Upon reaching adolescence, the twins refused to meet any more with Money (who had been molesting them.) And at age 14, Bruce was told the truth by his parents. He dropped the name Brenda, began to call himself David, and eventually he married. But it wasn’t until 1997 that he went public with his story which was first published in Rolling Stone and later expanded into a book.

In the meantime, however, Money’s contention that gender is largely a social construct had become the accepted wisdom in medical and academic communities, and thousands of youngsters had been subjected to life-altering sex reassignment surgeries on the basis of Money’s work.

Yet, despite the revelation of Money’s dishonesty, socialization not biology is still widely believed to be the main factor in determining sexual identity. And Money’s flawed research remains the basis for encouraging young people to transition.

Both David and his twin brother Brian were traumatized by their encounter with Dr. Money. Brian died of an opiate overdose at age 36 and David committed suicide two years later.

Arguably, several generations of suggestible young people have been deeply confused, if not traumatized, by our society’s acceptance of Money’s dubious theories about gender fluidity. Lysenkoism is discredited, but Money’s damaging theory continues to wreak havoc among children, teens, and young adults.

The confusion surrounding the business of transitioning—and it is a lucrative business—is further reflected in the collapse of the once prestigious Tavistock Institute for Gender Identity Development Services in London.

In 2019 an internal report concluded that the service was “not fit for purpose.” Under pressure from transgender rights groups, children were prescribed experimental drugs after only a few sessions. Another report found that staff felt “under pressure to adopt an unquestioning affirmative approach” to gender confused children. In other words, staff were expected to affirm whatever gender choice the child made.

One of the chief problems at Tavistock was that the staff were almost as confused as the children they were treating. There was no consensus about best treatment practices, and much disagreement among staff. One major disagreement concerned the use of puberty blockers. One side claimed that the use of the blockers would give youngsters more time and space to make their decisions. The other side claimed that blockers would only increase the likelihood of poor decisions. The natural process of puberty leads to more mature judgment and better planning ability. Blocking the process, they said, was a big mistake.

In addition to all the contentiousness, the Tavistock Clinic was being overwhelmed by an explosion of referrals. Finally, the only thing all could agree on was that the Tavistock Gender Clinic should be shut down. In June of 2022 the National Health Service decided to close the clinic within two years.

For a closer look at the Tavistock debacle, see journalist Hannah Barnes book, Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock Gender Service for Children. But don’t think that the collapse of Tavistock signals an end to gender insanity. The NHS has decided to replace the Tavistock gender clinic with regional centers which will provide more mental health interventions and less medical/surgical interventions. But they haven’t abandoned the doctrinaire belief that transitioning is still called for in many cases.

Some Brits seem to be having second thoughts about the treatment of gender confused children. That’s a positive sign. Elsewhere, however, the spirit of Lysenkoism remains strong. Recently, under pressure from transgender activists, a scientific journal has retracted an article on transgenderism. The Archives of Sexual Behavior, which is published by Springer Nature (the publisher of Scientific American and Nature) retracted an article on the subject of gender dysphoria. Among other things, the article reported that parents often felt pressured by clinicians to support their child’s transition to a different sex.

Ironically, the publisher was soon subjected to a similar pressure: a group of five transgender activist organizations demanded that they drop the article. The group published an open letter calling for the retraction of the article and the firing of the journal’s editor. The journal complied with the demand to retract. Whether the editor will be fired has yet to be determined.

Barely a decade ago, doctors warned about the phenomenon of “cutting” among confused teens; now they want to do the cutting themselves. In the process they’ve created a whole new branch of medicine euphemistically called “gender affirmative care.”

Critics of gender affirmative care can expect to be pressured, intimidated, and fired. However, unlike the critics of Lysenko, they don’t live in fear of imprisonment—not yet.