1. Emily is not promoting "a Biblical view of womanhood". The Bible agreeing about some detail of a topic does not make that detail "a Biblical view". You might as well claim the public has every right to expect zoologists to shut up about artiodactyls and perissodactyls in a science class because distinguishing cloven hooves from non-cloven hooves is "a Biblical view". Get a grip.
If they're using the
Bible's list? Like hell I'm going to accept that. Biology has advanced, and we must advance with it.
2. The view of womanhood you've promoted, even claiming forensic specialists can't tell a dead adult human woman from a man by examining their complete skeletons, is not "that which scientific consensus defines".
That's just a fact. At least as originally presented. You are, of course, misrepresenting what I said. And the very idea that you think working in a CRM lab for a year didn't give me more insight into forensic science than you got from reading some alt right websites is wild. Yes, most of the time we have a pretty good guess as far as
sexing a skeleton. Never 100%, but a pretty good guess.
Gender is another kind of question, as you and Emily pretend to understand one minute then forget the next.
3. A college science class is not some bloody madrassah where silent students dutifully copy down dictation from a certified-orthodox Koran scholar. It's a college. The public has every right to expect students to challenge what the professor says, make her prove what she took for granted, bring up facts that bear against the theories she propounds, and propose alternative explanations, even if the scientific consensus says those students are wrong. Prohibiting debate turns education into unscientific indoctrination even when the professor is right.
On this, we are in
partial agreement. A college that is doing its job allows for opportunities to question and discuss matters of contention, and mine does. No one student has the right to monopolize my classroom, though; they are all paying to be there, handily at that, and most students are there to learn, not to argue politics. And I'm definitely
not compelled to teach pseudoscience on any given topic just because it is popular outside the academy at the moment. Youo study law to learn law from lawyers, biology to learn biology from biologists, and theology to learn theology from theoogians. That's how the system is desgined, and the system has worked well for two hundred years, pushing the US and east Asia implausibly to the leading edge of most areas of academic research and pedagogy worldwide. If you think some bullshit rightwing pay-to-play "trade school" can give you an equivalent degree, you have every right to pursue one of those as well, it's your money. But public education isn't going to consent to being dismantled just because a vocal minority wants to be coddled.
4. Yes, you bloody well can teach religious beliefs as facts. Professors teach all manner of religions as fact, from Marxism and Critical Race Theory to Gender Ideology.
Fucking Orwellian double speak
bullshit. Scientific consensus is driven by objective observation, not ideological conviction. If you feel it is wrong in some way, you are free to present your evidence to the contrary, and this sort of 19th century nonsense is indeed thrown at real scientists constantly. It is rejected because its hawkers can produce no evidence to support it, not because scientists are closed-minded.
Also, theories and facts are not synonyms. Let alone legal theories. Who the hell taught you the scientific method? I am quite certain that UC Davis does not teach its students that theories are facts.