Here's something I'm seeing more and more in "woke" research papers: ritualized, emotion-filled confessionals about the authors' "positionality" designed to signal academic rigor. These aren't actual research methods, although they're often in the Methods section. In this paper, the section is called "Reflexivity and Rigor." One author's "experience as a Black, genderfluid, queer clinician and academic" apparently shaped the research questions, while the other authors are described as "white, heterosexual, cisgender women." Then we get this: "These ongoing dialogues created intentional spaces to question ideas and examine how each author's social location informed their meaning-making." They also "shared excerpts from analytic memos...which captured the first and second authors' emotional reactions to the transcripts and their analytic insights." All of this apprently "deepened the authors' understanding of the data and helped to manage bias; thus, ensuring a thoughtfully interrogated analysis." This is bizarre. Academic publishing is supposed to minimize bias. That's the whole point of blinded peer review. But instead of concealing the authors' immutable characteristics, these papers foreground the authors' skin color, sexuality, and gender identity. The authors claim this helps "manage bias," but I suspect it does the opposite. Instead, it signals to reviewers: We are good, progressive, emotionally empathetic people doing The Work. Please treat us accordingly.

You know what PHYSICS education needs more of? Indigenous pseudoscience. This new paper wants to integrate "Indigenous Knowledge Systems" into physics classrooms to "advance epistemic justice." You see, physics is frequently characterized as "culturally neutral" and "universally valid" despite being "grounded in Western epistemology," and this cultural bias "marginalises Indigenous ways of knowing." We need a "pluriversal engagement framework that operationalizes Indigenous Knowledge Systems integration...to teach thermodynamics [and] community-based astronomy initiatives linking Indigenous cosmologies with physics concepts." By "embedding Indigenous knowledge within physics curricula in universities of technology and similar Global South contexts," we can finally get to back to what physics education is supposed to be all about: "advancing epistemic inclusion." Just think of what @SpaceX could achieve if @elonmusk integrated Indigenous Knowledge Systems into rocket design. They would be truly unstoppable!

🧵A new woke paper introduces the concept of "temporal dysphoria" and "trans time," which is a distinct relationship to time experienced by transgender people. Yes, really. It supposedly manifests in three forms: • "Missing time" • "The time loop" • "Disjuncture of time, place, and progress"

This is a truly fantastic essay by @JowanM exposing the paradox of multiculturalism through the lens of human psychology. Multiple groups maintaining strong racial, ethnic, or religious identities does not foster national unity; it fosters prejudice. "We readily recognize the dangers of strong group identity when it fuels far-right movements, yet this insight mysteriously disappears when the very same dynamics emerge within migrant or minority communities. This blind spot reflects the core creed of multiculturalism: noble intentions and moral rhetoric paired with total disregard for real-world outcomes." Free article. Link below: 🔗realityslaststand.com/p/the-…

I frequently post absurd "woke" academic papers here on X. But there's one academic trend that I commonly encounter but rarely highlight: the reflexivity/positionality statement. These are not benign; they actively undermine scientific integrity. I explain why. Links below!

It’s genuinely frustrating that real scientific discoveries are constantly hijacked by activists. This fascinating whale deserves better than being turned into ideological propaganda. realityslaststand.com/p/a-wh…

A favorite activist tactic is to use non-human species—like clownfish & seahorses—that differ from humans in aspects of sex biology to push their ideological agenda about human biology. Last week, they attempted this using a novel animal—a whale. 🤦‍♂️ My response linked below ⬇️

Protecting women’s sports means acknowledging that sex-based performance differences are real, significant, long-lasting, and matter at every age. In my latest article, I summarize the 7 main findings of a new review paper. Link below!

Strong Boys and Flexible Girls Over 60 years of research supports the biological basis for sex differences in physical fitness. By James L. Nuzzo PART 1: Getting a Grip on Childhood Sex Differences in Strength “It is moreover impossible to prove that the differences in mean performances of men and women are the result of biology rather than education and training.” “Feminists do not deny that bodily differences between women and men exist; rather, they claim that many, if not most, of the uses of these differences are ideological… Men have the advantage because all men’s bodies are stereotyped as bigger, stronger, and physically more capable than any woman’s body. Realistically, we know that a well-trained woman, a tall and muscular woman, a woman who has learned the arts of self-defense, a woman soldier, or a woman astronaut is a match for most men.” The average adult man is physically stronger than the average adult woman, a difference that is both apparent to the naked eye and supported by extensive data. These sex differences in muscle strength correlate with differences in muscle mass. For example, in arm muscles, the average woman has 50 to 60 percent of the average man’s strength and muscle mass. In leg muscles, this figure is 60 to 70 percent. But what about kids? Do sex differences in muscle strength exist among them? If so, at what age do they arise? Are these differences present at birth, or do they only appear after puberty? Could they be attributed to biology or socialization? In 1985, Thomas and French conducted a seminal meta-analysis on childhood sex differences in physical fitness. They aggregated all available data on tests of fitness completed by boys and girls aged 5 to 17 across the United States. One attribute they examined was grip strength. They discovered that post puberty, boys’ grip strength significantly exceeded that of girls. No surprise there. However, they also found that boys were stronger than girls even before puberty, albeit to a much lesser extent. Thomas and French attributed adolescent sex difference in grip strength to biological changes that occur during puberty. However, they speculated that pre-pubertal sex differences in muscle strength were likely “mostly environmentally induced.” Consequently, they concluded that differences in muscle strength between boys and girls before puberty could “easily be eliminated if girls and boys were treated similarly.” Thomas and French deserve credit for pioneering the use meta-analysis to quantify childhood sex differences in physical fitness. Nevertheless, their speculation that pre-pubertal girls are physically weaker than pre-pubertal boys due to social and environmental factors was questionable. Additionally, their analysis included grip strength data from only four studies, two of which were not even published in scientific journals. This limited data likely explains why they did not explore sex differences in kids younger than five years old. Today, grip strength data in kids are plentiful, including in boys and girls under five years old. Despite this, contemporary researchers have neither attempted to update Thomas and French’s 40-year-old meta-analysis nor have they thoroughly addressed claims regarding the socialization of muscle strength before puberty. Thus, I recently updated and expanded Thomas and French’s initial analysis, quantifying sex differences in grip strength from birth to age 16. To indirectly explore the socialization hypothesis, I compared sex differences in grip strength across time and place. If socialization causes sex differences in muscle strength prior to puberty, then we might expect these differences to have narrowed over the past 60 years, given the increased opportunities for girls and women to participate in sports over that time. We might also expect sex differences in strength to differ between countries, reflecting differing customs and policies regarding physical activity for boys and girls. I identified over 150 studies that contained grip strength data from more than 300,000 boys and girls who were tested in 46 countries. The studies were published between 1961 and 2023... Please subscribe to support Reality's Last Stand and continue reading the article at the link below. xitter.cf/SwipeWright/status/185…

Sex differences in strength between men and women are well documented. But do kids also exhibit sex differences in strength? If so, are they present at birth, or do they only appear after puberty? Are they a result of biology or socialization? @JamesLNuzzo has the answers!

Why Our Country Isn't F*cked Three people who have never voted for Trump lay out the case for hope. On Tuesday, Donald J. Trump won the presidential election. Predictably, many Democrats have been acting like it’s the end of the world. Christina Applegate captured the general tenor of the left’s reaction in a post on X that, as of this writing, had amassed over 173,000 likes: “Why? Give me your reasons why????? My child is sobbing because her rights as a woman may be taken away. Why?And if you disagree , please unfollow me.” Author John Pavlovitz also expressed strong feelings in a post that quickly raked in 57,000 likes: “I will never forgive my family members and former friends for voting for him. Never.” The consensus seems to be that Trump’s election demonstrates that our great nation is irredeemably racist, sexist, and hate-filled. As author Jill Filipovic claimed, “this election was not an indictment of Kamala Harris. It was an indictment of America.” Such reactions are not unexpected: the same despair and fear gripped many leftists when Trump won in 2016. Then, too, depression rates rose, mental health declined, and many patients suffered from what clinical psychologist Jennifer Panning called “Trump anxiety disorder.” Now, as then, a significant portion of the left is in a state of terror. However, we are here—as three individuals who did not vote for Trump and who have spilled much ink highlighting his lies and character flaws—to say that this terror is unjustified. Instead of fear, the rational response to this election is hope. How can we say this? For one, the data simply don’t support the conclusion that our country is irredeemably patriarchal and white supremacist. Trump secured only 55 percent of the white vote. He also won 45 percent of the Latino vote and 44 percent of the female vote. Harris won white college graduates of every age. If racism and sexism did not propel Trump to electoral victory, what did?... Please subscribe to support Reality's Last Stand and continue reading the article. xitter.cf/SwipeWright/status/185…

Is the left’s fearful reaction to Trump’s election justified? No, says @Julian_Liberty et al, because it’s rooted in economic discontent, not bigotry. Instead of fear, we should be hopeful, seeing Trump's coalition as a diverse, working-class America rather than a hateful one.

This is why I criticize the Left more than the Right. A society cannot function when fundamental realities are denied. w/@buttonslives