> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Yes, Trans Science Is Pseudoscience
- URL: https://goodoil.news/yes-trans-science-is-pseudoscience/
- Published: 2026-09-01T22:00:06.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-01T22:00:07.000Z
- Description: Lawyers, when they are about to diplomatically call an opponent an idiot, will first say, ‘in all due respect’. In this case, not only is ‘in all due respect’ not used, but you may as well preface everything with ‘Your Honour, my opponent is a retard.’
- Author: Kevin
- Tags: Science, Gender

You’ll be hard pressed to find a more brutal takedown than the following article. What’s surprising is that both the original article and the following article were published in the same place. 

> *Comment: Newsroom recently published an article claiming that MP Jenny Marcroft’s proposed definition of “woman” and “man” “*[*fails basic science*](https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/07/02/marcrofts-sex-definition-bill-fails-basic-science/?ref=goodoil.news)*”. Yet the article itself does not accurately describe basic science.* 
>  
> *It asks readers to believe that the two sexes are an 18th-century European adoption, that XX and XY chromosomes were merely “allocated” to women and men, that rare developmental disorders demonstrate a spectrum of sexes, and that scientists increasingly reject male and female as biological categories.*

Funnily enough, exactly all the things trans activists push. 

> *\[…\] Science has been instrumentalised this way before. Racial theorists used pseudoscience to manufacture biological hierarchies. Eugenicists dressed prejudice in the language of heredity. Claims about women’s intellectual inferiority were presented as conclusions from anatomy and physiology. They are not morally equivalent, but they share a method: dressing up political preferences as facts, supported by scientific evidence.*

 ‘Climate change’ being a prime example.

> *Human sexual development involves chromosomes, genes, hormones, gonads and anatomy. Its molecular machinery is complex. That doesn’t mean it’s indeterminate.* 

Basically one of the trans activists’ principle arguments – human sexual biology is complicated and so there can’t possibly be just two genders. Akin to saying since the Universe is so big we can’t possibly be the only intelligent life-form. 

> *Humans reproduce through two gamete types: ova and sperm. The* [*sexes*](https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01205-2?ref=goodoil.news)*, female and male,* [*designate the corresponding reproductive organisations*](https://doi.org/10.1002/bies.202200173?ref=goodoil.news)*. Children, infertile adults and postmenopausal women remain male or female because their reproductive systems are organised around one pathway, whether or not they currently produce gametes.*  
>  
> [*There is no third human gamete and no continuum between sperm and ovum.*](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3?ref=goodoil.news) *Hormones, anatomy and secondary sexual characteristics may vary, but variation in traits does not create additional reproductive classes.* 
>  
> *The article mistakes variation in sex-associated traits for variation in sex itself. Variation within categories does not abolish them. Polydactyly, the presence of more than five fingers or toes, does not make five digits an arbitrary convention; congenital heart defects do not mean there is no normal organisation of the heart.* 

Another trans activists’ principle argument taken down – the argument that because in some very rare cases someone can have both a map of Tasmania and sausage and two veg proves that there is more than just two sexes. 

> *\[…\] The claim that Europeans before the 18th century regarded men and women as manifestations of one sex is absurd. It is rooted in a disputed and obscure thesis associated with Thomas Laqueur’s “one-sex model”,* [*challenged by historians of medicine*](https://www.routledge.com/The-One-Sex-Body-on-Trial-The-Classical-and-Early-Modern-Evidence/King/p/book/9781138247628?ref=goodoil.news) *and largely unknown to contemporary Europeans.* 

Note the use of the word *absurd* instead of the word *wrong*. 

> *\[…\] The article says human sex chromosomes were discovered in 1905 and then “allocated” to women and men. Both the history and the verb are wrong.* 

Ouch! 

> *\[...\]* [*Nettie Stevens*](https://doi.org/10.1086/352001?ref=goodoil.news) *first identified chromosomal sex determination in insects in 1905\. That this mechanism applied to humans too wasn’t confirmed until the 1920s, by* [*Theophilus Painter*](https://www.nasonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/painter-theophilus-shickel.pdf?ref=goodoil.news)*. Scientists did not “assign” chromosomes to social groups. They discovered an exceptionally strong relationship between chromosomal configuration and male or female development and later identified much of its causal mechanism.* 
>  
> *\[…\] Other differences of sex development can produce discordance among chromosomes, gonads and anatomy. Complete androgen insensitivity, for example, can result in an XY individual developing typical female external anatomy because the body cannot respond to androgens. Such cases deserve accurate care and humane legal treatment. They remain rare disruptions of one of two developmental pathways, not evidence of a third pathway or continuum of reproductive functions.* 
>  
> *\[…\] The article describes sex as a “constant negotiation” that defies simple binaries. That is not a conclusion from molecular biology. It is a social-theory metaphor contradicted by the canalised and exceptionally robust developmental programmes biology reveals.* 
>  
> *It is especially troubling when an author with scientific training lends professional authority to such claims. Scientific credentials impose a greater obligation to separate evidence from ideology. They do not make unsupported assertions scientific.*

In other words, ‘What are you even doing calling yourself a scientist?’ Brutal. 

> *Human sexual development is complex. Human beings show variation. Rare developmental conditions exist and deserve careful accommodation. None of these facts changes the underlying biological reality: humans have two sexes, female and male.* 
>  
> *Ignoring that distinction has already produced measurable harms, particularly for women and girls, while speculative harms affecting a very small number of exceptional cases are treated as overriding. That is a striking inversion of priorities.* 
>  
> *The paternalism the article claims to oppose is visible in its own method: appropriating the authority of science, selectively elevating rare developmental conditions, and using them to support political concepts the underlying biology does not sustain. This is not science. It is quackery.* 

Lawyers, when they are about to diplomatically call an opponent an idiot, will first say, ‘in all due respect’. In this case, not only is ‘in all due respect’ not used, but you may as well preface everything with ‘Your Honour, my opponent is a fucking retard.’ 

Source: [https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/08/26/sex-definition-science-is-not-a-political-prop/](https://newsroom.co.nz/2026/08/26/sex-definition-science-is-not-a-political-prop/?ref=goodoil.news)