Intersectional Crazy: Lysenkoism Meets The Medicalization Of Everything Meets The Open Season Myth, Meets The Politicization Of Expertise Meets The Super-Peaceful Social Justice Riots For Peace

...and also justice.

   I've argued (well...I dunno...asserted maybe...) before that conservatives don't actually reject actual expertise. They reject bogus, co-opted, politicized expertise. The intellectual left commonly argues that politics does and should pervade everything. Lysenkoism merely follows from this: science (and expertise generally) ought to be used to advanced leftism. This is, basically, "the long march through the institutions." Medical experts have two different kinds of motives for pushing the medicalization of everything: even aside from politics, it increases their power and prestige. But also: it gives leftist medical experts another way to advance leftist causes. (Also: a generalized, meataxe naturalism pervades much of the culture, anyway.) Basically nothing applies to everyone--so I have no doubt there are dissenters in medicine. 

   At any rate, this has been going on for a long time now. The expansive medicalizers argue that our Second Amendment rights are a medical issue--that is, that they, as doctors etc., can speak to the 2A with more authority than ordinary citizens. There's a case to be made that they can speak to gunshot injuries--but they argue for much more than that. They have taken a position on transgenderism that they have no authority with respect to, also. Medical researchers have some authority to speak on, e.g., bran differences (though they typically botch it by politicizing that, too). On the more biological end of their profession, they may have some authority to speak on what constitutes maleness and femaleness as well (though that's really the realm of actual biologists). But they have no special expertise with respect to what constitutes being a man, woman, boy or girl. They often speak as if they do, but they're actually just parroting the denizens of women's studies departments--who have no actual expertise, either, since humanists don't have that kind of expertise. (Their expertise is on the side of x happened or x said y.)  Women's studies could, theoretically, tell us about historical or cross-cultural conceptions of man and woman...but such departments are known to be among the intellectually most disreputable and politically most devoutly leftist of departments. What comes out of them is usually worst than nothing at all. It doesn't even rise to the level of misinformation--it's typically disinformation.

   In short: conservatives are right to reject such pseudo-expert assertions. This nonsense is the equivalent of some 19th-century quack issuing a statement that women shouldn't be able to vote because it's likely to disintegrate their uteri. Again: this is one of the most dangerous and crazy things about the contemporary dangerous and crazy left: it controls almost every prominent institution, and turns them all to its nefarious purposes. Progressives would see through such shit in half a second if the tables were turned. But the groupthink and fear of outgrouping is so intense over there that they fall victim to their standard radioactive mixture of delusion + terrified, defensive pseudo-belief.