Carole Hooven is a lecturer at Harvard, in the field of human evolutionary biology.
That single sentence tells us that Hooven probably isn’t a rightwing ideologue. To begin with, she studies evolution, and any good Bible-thumper will tell you that all of Creation occurred in six days, with the Almighty resting on the seventh. End of conversation.
Hooven also teaches at Harvard. My guess is that, given the Stasi-like environment at Harvard nowadays, you don’t get to teach at Harvard in the first place if your politics are much to the right of Joe Biden’s. The ideological vetting for a new prof at Harvard is probably just as stringent as the academic vetting, if not more so.
But Carole Hooven has been denounced as “transphobic” by her Harvard students and colleagues in recent days.
What did she say? It must have been really bad, right?
I’ll let you be the judge of that.
What Carole Hooven—a scientist— said is that there are two sexes, and that biological sex is real.
Then came the usual uproar. The social media outrage. The sputtering denunciations. The shouts of alarm, because such talk could lead to fascism, ya know. Didn’t Donald Trump say something like that once?
Laura Simone Lewis, a PhD candidate at Harvard, took to Twitter and called Carole Hooven’s affirmation of biological sex “dangerous language”.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, and suggest that if terms like male and female are now “dangerous language”, we’ve become a bit too politically correct. I could be more blunt, and say that we’ve gone stark-raving, over-the-rails, fucking nuts. But I won’t say that. I’ll merely say that we’ve become too politically correct.
I live in Ohio, so I probably don’t know much. But I can tell you this: I spent a lot of time in farm country while I was growing up.
I would like to tell you animal husbandry stories in which two mares successfully impregnated each other. I just haven’t seen it. I also have yet to see two male dogs produce puppies…or piglets or chicklings, for that matter.
I’ll get back to you, however, when I do see something like that. The horse farms, in particular, would be delighted, as stud fees can be quite expensive. Most of them would think that mares impregnating each other is an excellent idea.
But again, I have yet to see it.
This begs the question: should the farmer now ask the rooster if ze identifies as a hen?
Oh, that’s absurd! you say. Well, in this brave new world of ours, the lines between absurdity and political orthodoxy are extremely blurry. We therefore need to ask: are we still allowed to refer to two animal sexes? Or is that “dangerous language,” too?
Hooven’s Harvard critics would probably nod at this point, and congratulate me for taking instruction. Yes, yes, it is dangerous to speak of roosters and hens as if these terms were anything more than patriarchal social constructs! Say “rooster and hen” today, and you’ll be goose-stepping through the town square shouting “Sieg Heil!” tomorrow. It’s a very slippery slope.
I guess I’m kidding…or I wish I was kidding. This is like something out of The Twilight Zone, or maybe Mad magazine.
Am I the only one who can’t decide if manufactured controversies like this are more sad…or more risible?
As a lifelong student of history, this reminds me of the darkest days of the French Revolution, when a person might be sent to the guillotine for inadvertently failing to address a neighbor by the revolutionary title, citoyen (“citizen”).
But at least the Jacobins weren’t offended by roosters and hens. This is more than we can say for the academic cream of Harvard—once a great university, now a far-left ideological loony bin.