As the public Health Agencies in England, Finland, Sweden, France, Hungary, Poland, Bulgaria, and others review the merit-based scientific evidence and ramp down and discontinue gender affirmation policies, U.S. school systems continue to push forward, ignoring the science and the evidence and sticking to acceptance and teaching gender as a choice. FCPS is no exception; they have refused to meet and review the science we’ve compiled. What’s worse is they have repeated statistics that we’ve shown are incorrect or incomplete. This is not just in the area of gender but also in their explanations of CRT and the presence of its harmful principles in FCPS, and we think they are relying on bad data or are perhaps being selective in what they choose to rely on.

In an April 27 article in the Wall Street Journal, two professors* made the case that ideology now dominates scientific research more pervasively than in some of the most oppressive regimes, destroying merit, fact-based science. We’re seeing this play out as supporters of leaving 443 intact ignore the studies we’ve cited and attack us while relying on studies that fall precisely into that category of meritless and politically driven research.

On May 4 the WSJ published our response in support of the article. Here is what we wrote:

The idea that many scientific conclusions in publications are now more about political orthodoxy than scientific merit is real, dangerous, and more pervasive than most realize. This is especially true in public school systems where these reports are used to support policy and justify controversial curriculum content. Like many of the History curriculums we’ve reviewed, children are being exposed to a subject content that is managed to a political or social cause through the omission and revision of recorded history. The subject of science is being managed through a modification that relies on studies that have no scientific merit.

Some, like the studies that intend to shift the discussion on gender from a biological one to a matter of individual choice and civil rights, wrongly conflate the psychiatric condition of gender dysphoria (or confusion) with the science of biology. School programs are modified by relying on these meritless studies in virtually every school program we’ve seen, and the impact on students is devastating. 

In addition to our response, the Journal also published a response from Howard Winet of UCLA, who praised authors for challenging the “scientific establishment’s attempts to replace devotion to data with ideology.”

The bottom line is that our schools have been, and continue to be, heavily influenced by social ideology, and FCPS is no exception. Ask the BOE on what scientific basis they favor allowing sports team participation by self-identified gender or on what scientific research they draw data from that justifies not notifying parents when a child exhibits symptoms of gender dysphoria (confusion), a recognized psychological condition.

We have tried on multiple times to present our scientific and medical information to the board and have been turned down every time, and we have not yet received any scientifically (or logically, morally, or ethically) defensible rationale for the two provisions mentioned above.