I’m sure you’ve heard it time and again: Biden and his people asserting that they’re going to ‘follow the science’ and ‘listen to the experts’ in setting policy and making decisions. To those who’ve been paying attention, this is pretty clearly a dig at the previous President and administration, who, we were repeatedly told, ignored “the science” in favor of his own whims.

That last accusation does indeed carry some merit. But… the implied conclusion, that his opponent and the opposition party behave any differently, is belied by history. It’s also a behavior that long predates Him-Who-Shall-No-Longer-Be-Named. Politicians choose policies to pursue based on the constituencies they’ve chosen to appeal to, and use whatever is available to claim those policies are superior to the alternatives espoused by their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. When “Science!” and “Experts!” serve to further those polices, they’re touted. However, when science and experts counterweigh a policy, other rhetoric gets elevated.

The latest example is Biden’s executive order on “Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation,” which many have parsed as granting the right to male-to-female transgender individuals to compete in sports against biological women. Women’s groups and women’s rights advocates immediately rose to protest, and for their troubles have all been castigated with the TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) label (one that’s intended to be derogatory in application).

The left-leaning press twisted up some pretzel logic to “fact-check” these protests away. The “fact-check” I referenced was primarily an appeal-to-authority fallacy, wherein it presented NCAA and IOC requirements for trans athletes competing in women’s sports and discussed the existing legal landscape rather than delving into science. We are, presumably, to conclude that the “science” is of secondary import, or at the minimum that the IOC’s rules (having to do with testosterone levels and how long someone has “declared” a female gender) are sufficient proof of a level playing field.

There’s ample scholarship that refutes that assertion. There’s also the obvious: Someone who went through puberty with male chromosomes and hormones grew differently than someone who did so with female chromosomes and hormones. Bone structure, bone density, musculature, cardiac capacity, and so forth are fundamentally different between XX and XY persons, and going on testosterone suppressors for a few years isn’t going to change that. This reality emerged in a horrific way when Fallon Fox, a biologically male trans woman MMA fighter broke the skull of her biologically female opponent Tamikka Brents. This reality is reflected that Florence Griffith-Joyner’s world record 10.49 seconds in the 100 meter sprint has been surpassed by literally thousands of high school boys.

As is always the case, there are some “experts” who’ve concluded that with enough hormone therapy, trans women lose their biological edge, and therein lies another bit of “Science!” shenanigan. Nowadays, with the peer review process badly broken (aka the replication crisis, wherein the majority (and up to 90% in some of the soft sciences) of the conclusions of peer-reviewed studies cannot be reproduced by other researchers), it’s pretty easy to find yourself an expert or two who’ll validate whatever predetermined conclusion you’ve chosen.

That Biden chose this particular issue as part of his “Day 1” package of proclamations is a head-scratcher, given how big and important a constituency women (including, especially, suburban soccer moms) are to the Democratic Party. How will this play when their daughters are forced to compete against biological boys?

That this line of logic is usually tagged as transphobic and dismissed as the product and benighted thinking, rather than discussed and debated, by the social justice crowd is also typical street politics. Label someone a bigot, and you pre-empt discussion. Libertarians, however, have been the first defenders of individual rights, and were way out in front of the mainstream Left on LGBTQ matters, so the “transphobic” angle isn’t going to play here.

This example may seem rather small in the grand scheme, but added to history and it’s a tell-tale. The “appeal-to-science” also ignores the fact that ‘science’ is never settled, that it’s often tilted by egos, academic politics (academia is notoriously political, and people coalesce around differing theories, ideas, and conclusion sets for reasons that often have far more to do with fame, tenure, preferences, funding, or peer pressure than dispassionate science), and groupthink, that it often encompasses legitimate disagreements (especially on newer matters), and that ‘science’ rarely factors in the countless variables and tradeoffs that are involved in policy choices.

We also have the reality that most people deviate from science in at least some of the things they believe (or more aptly, want to believe). This explains the persistence of astrology; of anti-vaccination attitudes; of opposition to GMOs, nuclear power, DDT use, and fracking; and of countless fringe and conspiracy ideas such as a faked moon landing, crystal healing, a flat earth, and so forth. While people want to believe it’s always the other side that’s anti-science, both sides of the aisle are guilty of rejecting science in favor of preferred conclusions, with the only difference lying in what they reject.

As always, groupthink is prevalent. If your team has chosen a side of a particular issue, you’re far more apt to conclusion shop for ‘science’ that validates your aligning with that choice, or more often simply ignore the science in favor of some pretzel-logic that gives you some relief from cognitive dissonance discomfort.

And, as always, inconsistency, hypocrisy, and whataboutism remain on full display. When convenient, “Science!” remains a popular rebuttal to the other side’s ideas or assertions, no matter that your own side has not had an unblemished relationship with it.

In politics, “Science!” is much like the Constitution. There to be used when it benefits the team, and to be ignored or dismissed when it doesn’t.

• About the Author

About Peter Venetoklis

I am twice-retired, a former rocket engineer and a former small business owner. At the very least, it makes for interesting party conversation. I'm also a life-long libertarian, I engage in an expanse of entertainments, and I squabble for sport.

Nowadays, I spend a good bit of my time arguing politics and editing this website.

If you'd like to help keep the site ad-free, please support us on Patreon.