https://xcancel.com/SwipeWright/status/2081789091046182975
My scholarly article "Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes" has been accessed over 50K times, placing it in the top 8 of all articles in the journal's history.
Activists refuse to cite it or acknowledge it exists.
I'm still waiting for someone to publish a scholarly scientific takedown of it. You'd think this would be a top priority for those asserting "sex is a spectrum" who believe my work is bigoted, pseudoscientific, and actively harming a vulnerable community.
Until then, you can read it and arm yourself with a thorough understanding of the 5 major frameworks that activists and activist scientists use to undermine the binary nature of the sexes and why they all fail.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-025-03348-3
One reply to his paper, Response to Wright’s (2025) “Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes”, is probably why he had to qualify takedown with "scholarly" and "scientific". Nicely put, it's neither. He published a response to that, Response to Mahr’s (2026) Response to Wright’s (2025) “Why There Are Exactly Two Sexes”
Politically motivated as it may be, the original paper and response to critique, to me, read as straightforward and level-headed. From the original paper:
From the critique:
This quote makes me think directly about the previous quote from the original paper: "diminished public trust in science." The response seems to be saying, quite straightforwardly, that we should not make sex a binary because of the potential social and policy implications. But to me, this seems like the tail wagging the dog, and if a respected scientist made such a claim, it would certainly diminish my trust in their propensity to tell me concrete facts about the nature of reality.
OOP says as much in their follow up:
To me - I think this is why things like trans rights have been the left's undefended belly in public discourse for years now. The left lets the policy outcome it wants - equitable treatment of sexual minorities - override any discussion about the facts about the world. And this feels disingenuous and untrustworthy to people who would otherwise be very interested in more left leaning economic policies
Nah. There's a nice big fat block button for this discussion.
We can just let people be themselves.
Hiding divisive bias in science language isn't new, and it isn't bringing value.
I'm not entirely sure what you are saying. Maybe you could rephrase it so I could understand?