In 2019 US Senator Elizabeth Warren’s political instincts failed her. Believing herself to be Cherokee, she submitted to testing in the form of DNA analysis. That testing left any objective assessment of her belief in doubt. Had she waited until about 2022 she could have availed herself of an entirely new avenue of science: political science. Not the old political science of college majors, but the new political science of college graduates: science in the service of political self. Science in the service of political self treats established facts of science as optional tools to be conveniently hammered out of shape and into swords or shields of private truth.
Why 2022? The date is a bit arbitrary, but we have evidence that in 2022 science had become sufficiently politicized that everyone swooned over a man blogging his way through instant womanhood. In a modern miracle, Dylan Mulvaney became a she in his and the public’s imagination instantly. Everyone, that is, except many Bud Light drinkers and Target shoppers. But drinkers and shoppers be damned, the new political science demands unquestionable assent to the notion that men can become instantly women. Why, then cannot a non-Cherokee person ever become instantly Cherokee by a like miracle?
Men can become women magically by believing themselves women when true science yields to political science. When questioned about scientific evidence defining what is a woman, political science demands overly burdensome catch-all, and objectively meaningless, replies. For example, consider this definition of “gender identity” from the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information:
The gender identity of a person is the final result of genetic, hormonal and morphologic sex. It also includes all behaviour, such as body gestures and mannerisms, way of speech, sexual preferences and content of dreams. Particularly, gender identity is the result of the genetic sex, the gonadal sex, the internal genitalia, the external genitalia, the secondary sexual characteristics that appear in puberty and the social gender that is attributed in accordance with the norms and the beliefs of the social body.1
Note that the NCBI speaks not of gender, but gender identity. According to the new political science, gender identity is not determined by genetics. “Woman” means whatever the political self says it means and can apparently be definitively determined by what it looks like, sounds like, and acts like. In such a description, why is “genetic sex” and its always consistent “genitalia” even on the list? What happens when the “genetic sex” of a person is in conflict with what a person “looks like, sounds like, and acts like?”
Let’s apply this same political science to national identity. What if Elizabeth Warren resorted to the new political science to support her claim? She could have marshalled the following as a basis for her sincerely adopted national identity:
The national identity of a person is the final result of genetic, hormonal and morphologic heritage. It also includes all behaviour, such as body gestures and mannerisms, way of speech, sexual preferences and content of dreams. Particularly, national identity is the result of the genetic sex, the gonadal sex, the internal genitalia, the external genitalia, the secondary sexual characteristics that appear in puberty and the social gender that is attributed in accordance with the norms and the beliefs of the social body.
Elizabeth Warren’s political miscalculation lies in failing to recognize the approaching new political science quickly replacing the old. Had she waited but a year or so, she could have rejected any reliance on established genetics alone. Such outdated methodology carries no weight in view of one’s political self. Instead, she could have altered her behaviour, her mannerisms, and her way of speech to conform to Cherokee.
Her change could have been channeled to the public through Instagram or TikTok. She could treat the public to thrilling commentary on the challenges of applying war paint and the triumphs of making a feathered headdress. Elizabeth Warren’s success in maintaining Cherokee identity due to altering her behaviour, her mannerisms, and her way of speech to conform to Cherokee stereotypes would be entertaining. Many of the new order of political science would even describe her actions as unironically “brave.”
What remains confusing is the sure notion that were Elizabeth Warren to adopt stereotypical behaviour, mannerisms, and way of speech to conform to Cherokee, she would not be championed as a brave warrior of the new political science. Most would see her ploy as mere self-promotion at the expense of true Cherokees. Along with true Cherokees, most would find her stereotypes insulting, demeaning, and ultimately degrading to the Cherokee nation.
Why would the reaction to Elizabeth Warren’s newly adopted behaviour and looks as a Cherokee be confusing? Because if she suddenly revealed she was a man rather than a Cherokee, her adoption of stereotypically male behaviour, mannerisms, and way of speech would be questioned by few, and those few would be cancelled by the authority of the new political science.
It is not too late. If Elizabeth Warren retains any bravery she should embrace the new political science and adopt Cherokee identity again. By doing so, she would join the men in women’s sport and the women in men’s bathrooms, citing the new political science as affirmation of her political self. In doing so, she could freely enjoy all the benefits of being Cherokee, including displacing other Cherokees in hiring, in awards, and in promotion. Rather than back down in the face of mere genetics, she should push her act all the way to the winner’s podium in every aspect of society. Maybe she could become the United States’ first Cherokee assistant secretary for health, or even the first Cherokee president of the United States!
© 2023 Creation Reformation
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658794/