We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

He flunks Scientific American, anyway. Bill Maher put Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the spot last night on his HBO show Real Time, discussing the politicization of science and the populist revolt against the radical progressive Left in the latest election. And the pop scientist can’t bring himself to acknowledge that the 170-year-old magazine sold out science years ago for social-engineering quackery and radical politics.

Advertisement

The debate begins with Maher blaming the election loss on the disconnect between Democrats and biological reality, using the meltdown by former Scientific American editor in chief Laura Helmuth as an example. Despite Maher’s repeated probing, Tyson refuses to acknowledge a biological difference in sports performance and declines to rebut Helmuth’s claim that all such differences are due to social bias. 

In the end, Bill Maher says, “I’m going to file you under part of the problem,” and he’s right:

MAHER: “But engage with the idea here. What I’m asking is, Scientific American is saying basically that the reason why an NBA WNBA team can’t beat the Lakers is because of societal bias.”

TYSON: “What you’re saying is not Scientific American says that. An editor for Scientific American says that, who no longer has the job. So don’t indict a 170-year-old magazine because somebody—”

MAHER: “Okay, this is called Scientific American, and they’re printing something. Why can’t you just talk about science? Why can’t you just say this is not scientific and Scientific American should do better?”

TYSON: “Well, does she still have her job?”

MAHER: “No, not because of this. I said the scandal is not her tweet. I think a year ago [when this was printed], women still couldn’t beat men in basketball or any other sport. And it wasn’t because of society. You don’t see a problem?… “Well, I’m gonna file you under part of the problem.”

Advertisement

My favorite part of this is when Tyson suggests that the magazine wasn’t wrong because of “long-distance swimming ” and suggests that Maher check that out. And so I did at the National Institutes for Health. Females do outperform males in longer-distance swimming, according to one study published by NIH in 2020 … below the age of 10 and above the age of 80, especially in very cold water. Emphases mine:

In open-water long-distance swimming events of the ’Triple Crown of Open Water Swimming’ with the ’Catalina Channel Swim’, the ’English Channel Swim’ and the ’Manhattan Island Marathon Swim’, women were about 0.06 km/h faster than men. In master swimmers (i.e., age groups 25–29 to 90–94 years) competing in the FINA (Fédération Internationale de Natation) World Championships in pool swimming in freestyle, backstroke, butterfly, breaststroke, individual medley and in 3000-m open-water swimming, women master swimmers appeared able to achieve similar performances as men in the oldest age groups (i.e., older than 75–80 years). In boys and girls aged 5–18 years—and listed in the all-time top 100 U.S. freestyle swimming performances from 50 m to 1500 m—the five fastest girls were faster than the five fastest boys until the age of ~10 years. After the age of 10 years, and until the age of 17 years, however, boys were increasingly faster than girls. Therefore, women tended to decrease the existing sex differences in specific age groups (i.e., younger than 10 years and older than 75–80 years) and swimming strokes in pool-swimming or even to overperform men in long-distance open-water swimming (distance of ~30 km), especially under extreme weather conditions (water colder than ~20 °C). Two main variables may explain why women can swim faster than men in open-water swimming events: (i) the long distance of around 30 km, (ii) and water colder than ~20 °C.

Advertisement

In other words, puberty even in long-distance swimming provides males with a clear advantage that lasts until the age of 80. Did Tyson even bother to look at the science on this before tossing it out at Maher as a rebuttal to his argument? The data actually supports Maher’s contention that actual scientific data shows why we have separate competitive categories for males and females, and that those differences are based in biology rather than social biases.

Furthermore, we have had Title IX equal representation in scholastic sports for over 50 years now. If the differences in performance were attributable to social biases, we would have seen those differences narrowing or disappearing altogether by this point. Instead, the male dominance while competing against females remains as significant as ever, as the recent study by the United Nations proved:

Female athletes have lost nearly 900 medals to transgender rivals competing against them in women’s sporting categories, an eye-opening United Nations report has revealed.

The study — titled “Violence against women and girls in sports” — stated that more than 600 female athletes have been bested at various events by competitors who were born male.

“According to information received, by 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes in more than 400 competitions have lost more than 890 medals in 29 different sports,” the report said.

How many males have lost medals to females competing in male categories? None. That’s what we used to call science. 

Tyson represents what we now call “THE Science.” It’s the gutted scientific establishment being used as a skin by radicals in an effort to bully people into silence for their irrational and unscientific ends. Democrats lost this election for more reasons than this, but there is no doubt that the radical-transgender agenda has alienated those Americans who haven’t marinated in the cesspool of “THE Science” at the Poison Ivies and their subsidiaries. 

Advertisement