Leftist editor resigns from Scientific American after foulmouthed rant about Trump supporters



The editor in chief of Scientific American has resigned from her position after going on an unhinged rant about the supporters of President-elect Donald Trump.

On Thursday, Laura Helmuth took to the social media platform Bluesky to announce that she was stepping away from Scientific American, the oldest continuously published magazine in American history.

"I’ve decided to leave Scientific American after an exciting 4.5 years as editor in chief," she wrote. "I’m going to take some time to think about what comes next (and go birdwatching)."

The statement itself is rather innocuous, seemingly obscuring the hate-filled context in which it was made.

On election night, Helmuth descended into a foulmouthed meltdown on Bluesky after Trump emerged the winner. Rather than direct her ire at the once and future president, Helmuth took aim at the 75 million or so Americans who cast a vote for him, as Blaze News previously reported.

Her statements that night included:

  • "I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of f****** fascists";
  • "Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f*** them to the moon and back";
  • "Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist"; and
  • "The moral arc of the universe isn't going to bend itself."
In a post shortly after the election, she added: "Any advice on what workplaces can do to help people who are devastated by the election? Thanks so much."
Her comments quickly went viral online, where users began demanding her resignation.
Helmuth then attempted to quell tempers by issuing an apology a few days later, admitting that her foul-mouthed remarks had been "offensive and inappropriate" and claiming that the "shock and confusion" of the election results had gotten the best of her.
She also insisted that she does "respect and value people across the political spectrum" and remains "committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity."
While her apology seemed to offer a spirit of bipartisanship, Helmuth reverted back to left-wing ideology in the Bluesky thread announcing her resignation. Perhaps in homage to herself, Helmuth also included in the thread a list of Scientific American articles she has "been so proud to support," some of which focus more on promoting far-left narratives than actual science.
Not only does one headline — "Gender-affirming care for trans kids is good health care" — encourage the genital mutilation and possible sterilization of children, but three also profess to tell "justice"-related "stories":
  • "Racial justice is a science story";
  • "Environmental justice is a science story"; and
  • "Reproductive justice is a science story."
Kimberly Lau, president of Scientific American, told CNN that Helmuth left the outlet of her own accord and that leaders there are already in the process of seeking her replacement.
"We thank Laura for her four years leading Scientific American during which time the magazine won major science communications awards and saw the establishment of a reimagined digital newsroom," Lau said in a statement. "We wish her well for the future."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Science magazine editor under fire after foul-mouthed rant against Trump supporters



The editor in chief of a once-highly respected science publication has issued an apology after descending into an expletive-laden meltdown on election night when former President Donald Trump emerged the winner.

Last Tuesday night, Laura Helmuth, the editor in chief of Scientific American — the oldest continuously published magazine in American history — reportedly took to social media to unleash a series of invectives against those of her generation who voted for Trump.

"I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of f****** fascists," she wrote, according to screenshots shared by the Daily Mail.

"Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f*** them to the moon and back," she apparently added.

Helmuth even apparently expressed shame for her Midwestern roots, decrying the entire state of Indiana as a haven for bigotry.

"Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist," she said, according to the Daily Mail.

"The moral arc of the universe isn't going to bend itself."

As might be expected, these alleged comments did not go over well, and soon social-media users began to call for Helmuth's resignation.

"Wow you should fire your unhinged editor. She needs a long rest somewhere padded," one user commented, according to the Daily Mail.

"She should be stripped of membership for any science organization she’s a member of. Trust in science is tanking because of these egregious, pathetic, bigoted scientists," reportedly added another.

'I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity.'

By Friday, Helmuth had backpedaled, issuing an apology for allowing the "shock and confusion" of the election results to get the best of her.

"I made a series of offensive and inappropriate posts on my personal Bluesky account on election night, and I am sorry," Helmuth wrote in a statement, according to the New York Post. "I respect and value people across the political spectrum. These posts, which I have deleted, do not reflect my beliefs; they were a mistaken expression of shock and confusion about the election results."

Despite evidence to the contrary, Helmuth also insisted that she does have the necessary temperament to separate her personal views from her professional responsibilities. "I am committed to civil communication and editorial objectivity," she said.

However, Scientific American has hardly steered clear of political matters under her leadership. In 2020, the same year Helmuth took the reins as editor in chief, the outlet broke a nearly 200-year-old tradition of officially remaining above the political fray and endorsed Joe Biden for president.

The outlet likewise endorsed Kamala Harris for president in 2024.

Perhaps even more abhorrent, Scientific American has seemingly embraced junk science, especially regarding gender. In April, it republished an interview in which a man posing as a woman accused those who oppose gender ideology of peddling "misinformation" and perpetrating "epistemological violence," as Blaze News previously reported.

The outlet also denied the possibility that wealthy elites profited from the pandemic, stressed the COVID-19 vaccine was safe, and declared the lab-leak theory regarding COVID-19 "false." Scientific American even wasted ink, time, and money on multiple articles claiming that math, the NFL, and fighting obesity are racist.

In a post following the election, Helmuth also indicated that others at the outlet were having similar difficulty accepting the outcome, allegedly posting, "Any advice on what workplaces can do to help people who are devastated by the election? Thanks so much."

Despite an obviously leftward lurch at the outlet, Helmuth claimed in her Friday statement that her offensive insults of Trump supporters "of course do not reflect the position of Scientific American or my colleagues."

Scientific American did not respond to Blaze News' request for comment.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Scientific American demands federal regulation and background checks for homeschoolers



Scientific American, a 178-year-old science magazine published by the German-British Springer Nature Group, has prioritized ideology over science in recent years, having made clear its commitment to "advancing social justice" and to promoting progressive leftist perspectives absent counterpoint on various issues.

The publication, which broke with nearly two centuries of convention in 2020 and endorsed Joe Biden for president, has pushed social constructivists' pseudoscientific claims about gender; suggested Western science invented the sex binary; advanced the suggestion that the science informing legislation against sex change mutilations is "disinformation"; and championed the use of irreversible and dangerous puberty blockers, which were long used to sterilize sex offenders.

Extra to arguing that the deep state isn't real, denying the possibility that wealthy elites profited from the pandemic, stressing the COVID-19 vaccine was safe, and declaring the lab-leak theory regarding COVID-19 "false," Scientific American has also wasted ink, time, and money on multiple articles claiming that math, the NFL, and fighting obesity are racist.

Scientific American recently directed its activistic energies to concern-mongering about homeschooling.

In its Monday "Today in Science" newsletter, Scientific American reiterated claims from an article published in the June issue of the magazine entitled, "Homeschooling Needs More Uniform Oversight," by "The Editors."

'Federal mandates for reporting and assessment to protect children don't need to be onerous.'

The magazine's editor in chief is Laura Helmuth, a University of California, Berkeley, graduate who was called out by a peer-reviewed medical journal, the BMJ, last month for ignoring science that undermined her preferred crumbling narrative on gender. Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist at Harvard University, recently called Helmuth a "woke fanatic."

Jeanna Bryner, the managing editor at the magazine, appears to be an ideologue of similar stripes.

The editors suggested that the Biden administration "must develop basic standards for safety and quality of education in homeschooling across the country."

"It is clear that home­school­ing will continue to lack accountability for outcomes or even basic safety in most states," wrote the editors. "But federal mandates for reporting and assessment to protect children don't need to be onerous."

Scientific American suggested that in order to teach one's own children, parents "could be required to pass an initial background check, as every state requires for all K–12 teachers."

In addition to securing approval from Washington, D.C., to do what their forebears otherwise did freely, the editors suggested that parents "could be required to submit documents every year to their local school district or to a state agency to show that their children are learning."

While the editors sounded the alarm about the potential for abuse of students at home in the absence of federal regulation — despite the rampant abuse in the otherwise regulated public school system — they appeared more concerned about curricular content and the prospect some students may not be subjected to the orthodoxies of the day.

"Many parents are attracted to homeschooling because they want to have more say in what their child learns and what they do not," they wrote. "Nearly 60 percent of home­school parents who responded to the 2019 NCES survey said that religious instruction was a motivation in their ­decision to educate at home. Some Christian home­school­ing curricula teach Young Earth Creationism instead of evolution."

"Most states don't require home­schooled kids to be assessed on specific topics the way their classroom-based peers are," continued the editors. "This practice enables educational neglect that can have long-lasting consequences for a child's development."

It's unclear how productive the proposed changes would be granted the standards set by the government for the public education system appear to accomplish very little.

The Hill noted earlier this year that in 44 Chicago public schools, not a single student was performing at grade level in math. In 24 schools in Chicago, not a single student was reading at grade level. In 40% of Baltimore's city high schools, not a single student was satisfying standards in math.

Blaze News noted last year that the National Assessment of Educational Progress' 2022 assessment revealed that grade 8 students' history scores last year were the lowest they had been since the NAEP began monitoring in 1994. Significant declines in academic ability were also observed amongst public grade-schoolers in reading and mathematics as well as in other subjects.

In fact, the poor quality of the public education system is one of the reasons why homeschooling is so popular today.

The National Center for Education Statistics revealed in a September 2023 publication that the top reasons parents gave in a 2019 survey for homeschooling were: concerns about the school environment; to provide moral instruction; to emphasize family life together; dissatisfaction with schools' academic instruction; to provide religious instruction; to provide a nontraditional approach to education; and/or to help with their child's special needs.

In the years since, ruinous school closures, sporadic teachers' union strikes, and the politicization of the classroom likely also had a substantial impact.

The Washington Post revealed late last year that the number of home-schooled students jumped by 51% over the previous six years while public school enrollment dropped by 4%.

The Post found that for every 10 students in public schools during the 2021-2022 academic year across 390 districts, there was one home-schooled child. By October 2023, there was an estimated 1.9 million to 2.7 million home-schooled students in the country.

Writer and home-school mom Heather Hunter responded to the Scientific American article, stressing it "selectively picked extreme examples from every anti-homeschooling argument."

"'Horrific abuse'? Many parents are taking their kids out of school because their child is getting abused/bullying and schools are doing nothing," wrote Hunter. "There have been numerous examples in just the past year of students ending up in critical condition in the hospital because of other students beating them so severely. People forget that there is also negative socialization. The vast majority of homeschool parents are loving and going above and beyond in their child's education.

"'Poor education'?" continued Hunter. "My daughter will be a second grader this fall (but now doing third grade curriculum in language arts) and can count to 100 in French, is learning about ancient civilizations, Latin, math, playing soccer, socializing with her friends at the homeschool co-op while doing art projects and learning science hands on in field trips and in nature."

Corey DeAngelis, senior fellow at the American Federation for Children and executive director at the Educational Freedom Institute, said of the proposed regulations, "Hell no."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Scientific American pushes claims that science-based critiques of gender ideology are 'misinformation,' 'violence'



Gender ideologues have the Biden administration and multitudes of Democratic lawmakers across the country dutifully advancing their agenda and victimizing multitudes of Americans, but apparently that's not enough. They also appear keen to have the broader public buy into their narrative around sex, genital mutilations, and transgenderism.

In an effort to overcome or at the very least sidestep the common citizen's common sense, social constructivists have in recent decades attempted to mask their reality-defying philosophy in the language of science.

The trouble with this effort is that when exposed to actual scientific scrutiny, their claims have altogether failed to hold water. That has become especially clear in recent months where even Britain's National Health Service has pumped the brakes on so-called "gender-affirming care."

Faced with the collapse of their narrative, ideologues have worked to villainize critics and to reframe the debate about gender. On Friday, one such attempt was made in the pages of Scientific American, a 178-year-old science magazine published by the German-British Springer Nature Group.

Scientific American published an interview that originally appeared in OpenMind Magazine — former Discover magazine editor in chief Corey Powell's outlet that supposedly tackles "disinformation" in science.

The interview, originally made possible by a grant from the Pulitzer Center's aptly titled "Truth Decay" initiative, comprises an engagement between Powell and two transvestites, both of whom are self-identified activists: a French-Canadian man who calls himself Florence Ashley and describes himself as a "transfeminine activist, academic, and slut"; and Simon Dow-Kuang Sun, a senior fellow at the Center for Applied Transgender Studies in Chicago.

Blaze News previously reported that Ashley, an assistant professor at the University of Alberta Faculty of Law in Canada, wrote that where confused kids are concerned, "Unbounded social transition and ready access to puberty blockers ought to be treated as the default option, and support should be offered to parents who may have difficulty accepting their youth."

He claimed in an article for the leftist blog Truthout that efforts to protect children from irreversible puberty blockers, genital mutilations, and LGBT propaganda are "rooted in racism and white supremacy."

Ashley has also called for the decriminalization of rape by fraud, particularly in cases in which a transvestite has sex with a victim without indicating he isn't actually a woman as advertised.

Sun, unlike Ashley, actually has credentials as a scientist and has studied neuroplasticity. However, the credibility of his scientific declarations concerning gender ideology may not altogether be scientific.

In an article he co-authored last year with Ashley, Sun declared there is "no such thing as a male or female brain." Just months later, a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science revealed that a group of Stanford Medicine researchers identified "highly replicable, generalizable, and behaviorally relevant sex differences in human functional brain organization localized to the default mode network, striatum, and limbic network."

The framing of the interview in Scientific American made clear that science would be taking a back seat and that the aim was political.

Powell's interview is prefaced with the following statement: "In 2023 alone, more than 500 anti-trans bills were proposed or adopted in nearly every state in the United States, targeting everything from drag performances to gender-affirming medical care to school inclusion policies for trans people. Support for these measures has been enabled and propelled by scientific misinformation, which has proven to be a distressingly effective tool in outraging a public that might otherwise be broadly empathetic, or at least uncertain about where to stand."

After recycling the suggestion that the science informing legislation against sex change mutilations is "disinformation," Scientific American recirculated the suggestion by Sun that the notion there are "just two sexes" — characterized in the piece as "sex essentialism" — is "completely wrong about the biology of how sex characteristics arise."

"The error is simply that the gametes are a determining factor of sex — that once you know what gametes a person produces, that's their sex and nothing about it can change," claimed Sun. "But biology is a dynamic system where an organism starts in a particular state and grows through life and through development with multiple systems interacting. That is, more precisely, how sex works. Sex essentialism boils all that down to one, immutable characteristic to preclude transness as a biological phenomenon."

Ashley chimed in, saying, "The people who use ideas about biological sex against trans people are first appealing to the idea of biology as a description of difference, but then they do a jump and use that conception of biology as a form of meaning. The thing is, we organize society around meaning, not difference. Biology at its core can't tell you what matters to human organizations."

"We should really be asking what we care about, and then look to see if biology has anything to say about it. If you go through that exercise, then you realize that biology really has very little, if not virtually nothing, to say about things like trans rights," added Ashley.

The Canadian activist went on to intimate that when a scientist interprets empirical results in a way that hurts the transgender narrative, he or she is committing "epistemological violence."

"Epistemological violence occurs when a researcher or somebody else interprets empirical results in a way that devalues, pathologizes, or harms a marginalized group, even though there are equally good or better explanations for the same data," said Ashley.

Ashley then noted in the interview, "We should try to interpret the data in a way that's compatible with their inclusion and well-being, if that's an equally good interpretation."

The interview concluded with a call for shutting down undesirable speech.

"Shut down misinformation and hate when you see it crop up around you," Ashley told Powell. "Oftentimes we don't like confrontation, so we just let misinformation go. We need people to start speaking up whenever it comes up. And be loud. We’re in an ecosystem where the anti-trans voices are trying to portray themselves as speaking for a silent majority. We need people to be loud enough to counter any impression of a silent majority.

While Scientific American claims it is "committed to sharing trustworthy knowledge" and "enhancing our understanding," it has also indicated it is committed to "advancing social justice." It appears these commitments are not equally weighted.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Evolutionary biologist shuts down science magazine editor for using a bird to push far-left gender narrative



An evolutionary biologist shut down the editor of a prominent science magazine on Wednesday for trying to use birds to push far-left gender ideology.

Laura Helmuth, editor in chief of the prestigious Scientific American, cited the white-throated sparrow, a small bird found in North America, as evidence that biological sex is not a binary.

"White-throated sparrows have four chromosomally distinct sexes that pair up in fascinating ways," she wrote on Twitter.

"P.S. Nature is amazing," she added. "P.P.S. Sex is not binary."

\u201cWhite-throated sparrows have four chromosomally distinct sexes that pair up in fascinating ways \nP.S. Nature is amazing \nP.P.S. Sex is not binary https://t.co/NJhQI6uC0q via @audubonsociety\u201d
— Laura Helmuth (@Laura Helmuth) 1684360028

The obvious problem with Helmuth's argument is that she constructed a non sequitur. Even if it is true that white-throated sparrows have four sex chromosomes, it does not discount the observable truth in nature that biological sex is, generally, binary, and that biological sex in humans is binary in the same way that humans are bipedal, though rarely some humans are born with one leg.

Aside from the fallacious argument, evolutionary biologist Dr. Colin Wright explained that Helmuth is just plain wrong.

In fact, Wright debunked this argument just two months ago. Interacting with other interlocutors who have advanced it, he explained:

The example they give of a species “with more than two sexes” is the white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis). This species has two color morphs, males and females with either white or tan stripes. The more aggressive white stripe morph has a large inversion on chromosome 2, and the species mates disassortatively by color morph, meaning that white stripe morphs tend to mate with tan striped morphs. This chromosome inversion coupled with the disassortative mating by morph has led to a situation where chromosome 2 “behaves like” another sex chromosome.

But having more than two sex chromosomes is not the same as having more than two sexes. While this species may be an interesting case study for how sex chromosomes have evolved, it certainly isn’t an example of a species with “four sexes,” which would require four distinct gamete types.

Not only that, but Wright exposed how the very source to which Helmuth linked also does not say what she claimed. That article, after explaining the genetic peculiarities of the bird, declares, "It's almost as if the White-throated Sparrow has four sexes."

Wright mocked, "'Almost as if' means that it's not even 'as if,' meaning that they in fact do not have four sexes, but rather just two."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

'Pure garbage': Scientific American gets blitzed for exploiting Damar Hamlin's injury as a way to label the NFL as racist



Scientific American was sacked online for attempting to move the goalposts in the discussion about the horrific injury suffered by NFL player Damar Hamlin. A recent opinion piece in the science magazine founded in 1845 argued that the Buffalo Bills safety experiencing cardiac arrest during a Monday Night Football game exemplified the "violence black men experience in football." However, Scientific American was blitzed for attempting to exploit Hamlin's injury to label the NFL as racist.

The opinion piece in Scientific American was written by Tracie Canada – an Assistant Professor of Cultural Anthropology. She is affiliated with the Sports & Race Project that "critically studies race and sports at Duke."

Canada's bio reads: "Her research uses sport to theorize race, kinship, care, gender and the performing body, and she is currently working on a book project about the experiences of black college football players."

She previously wrote an article for Scientific American titled: "The NFL’s Racist ‘Race Norming’ Is an Afterlife of Slavery."

Canada boasted that she spent 10 years "learning how black college football players navigate the exploitation, racism, and anti-blackness that are fundamental to its current system."

In Canada's latest article for Scientific American, she expressed that violence is part of football, "but black players are disproportionately affected."

Canada argued, "While black men are severely underrepresented in positions of power across football organizations, such as coaching and management, they are overrepresented on the gridiron."

In 2021, approximately 71% of NFL players were people of color, according to the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport at the University of Central Florida.

In 2017, the average NFL salary was $2.7 million.

The writer said the violent aspect of the NFL has been "normalized," but "Hamlin's injury demonstrates that ordinary violence has potentially deadly consequences, and highlights how black men's athletic labor sustains this brutal system."

However, only one NFL player has ever died on the field. Detroit Lions wide receiver Chuck Hughes – who was white – died from a heart attack during an NFL game in 1971.

Damar Hamlin has made a miraculous recovery from his disturbing injury.

Canada declared, "The NFL gains both culturally and financially from black athletic performance. It is the most popular sports league in the United States and the most valuable professional sports league in the world. It is also a league that has exploited its black players for decades."

She accused the NFL of practicing "persistent anti-black practices."

Canada continued, "Further, to dismiss the almost certain breaking down of their bodies as just part of the game is a process of objectification and commodification that prioritizes the player over the person in a way that black feminist scholar Bell Hooks says calls to mind 'the history of slavery and the plantation economy.' The anti-blackness of the system is inescapable."

Twitter reactions blitzed Scientific American for the fumbled attempt at shoehorning race into a football player's unfortunate injury.

BlazeTV "Fearless" host Jason Whitlock: "The 'terrifyingly ordinary' stupidity of Twitter disproportionately affects the 'Scientific' American feed."

BlazeTV contributor T.J. Moe: "Let me assure you that there are white people lined up miles long to get into this league. To the degree that it’s 'disproportionately affecting black men,' it would only be because the black men earned the roster spot the white guys also wanted. This article is pure garbage."

Former Super Bowl-winning coach Tony Dungy: "As a black man and former NFL player I can say this article is absolutely ridiculous."

Author Christina Sommers: "Another absurd & incoherent article in the once-serious Scientific American."

Writer Dan McLaughlin: "Literally just an argument that NFL teams employ too many black players."

Podcast host Eric Weinstein: "Scientific American, ladies and gentlemen."

Singer Phil Labonte: "Football injuries are racist."

In the past, Scientific American published articles by more than 200 Nobel Prize winners. The science magazine featured brilliant minds such as Hans Bethe, James D. Watson, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Linus Pauling, and Albert Einstein.

However, the magazine has made a recent effort to promote woke ideology. Scientific American admits that it is committed to "advancing social justice."

In 2021, Scientific American complained that the Jedi in the fictional "Star Wars" universe are problematic white saviors steeped in toxic masculinity.

Last August, Scientific American accused Western science of creating the concept of two sexes in a concerted effort to "reinforce gender and racial divisions."

Scientific American claims Western science made up two sexes in order to 'reinforce gender and racial divisions'



Scientific American magazine was mocked and ridiculed over bizarre claims it made about binary sex roles in Western science in a series of tweets.

The claims were a part of a Twitter thread attempting to recast the binary sexual identities in order to fit the transgender agenda.

"Before the late 18th century, Western science recognized only one sex—the male—and considered the female body an inferior version of it. The shift historians call the 'two-sex model' served mainly to reinforce gender and racial divisions by tying social status to the body," read the sixth tweet in the series of seven.

“It's not just complex in the context of intersex," read a quote from medical anthropologist Katrina Karkazis. "Our bodies are far more variable than our categories. Part of what's happened is people become slotted into this binary framework.”

Critics of the claim lined up on social media to cast scorn on the science magazine and make their arguments against the claim.

"The propaganda from once-respected outlets like @sciam is truly incredible... People are still free to read book from the middle ages and earlier, and see how blatantly false all their claims are. Idea that 'Two-sex model' served for 'racial division' should be stand-up comedy," replied Maxim Lott, producer for John Stossel.

"The hijacking of science to parrot pure and absolute nonsense is just amazing," responded Ben Shapiro.

"This isn’t actually true at all," said radio show host Erick Erickson.

"It's so sad to see this horrific destruction of once-great institutions," said gender author Helen Joyce.

"History will laugh at this ridiculous period in time where half the people created a fantasy world for themselves. Good lord you people are insane," read another tweet.

Many critics pointed out that the Bible clearly set out the binary sexual system long before the 18th century.

Here's more about the transgender agenda:

The ridiculous battle between Trans Activists and TERFswww.youtube.com