Non-reflexive

While I'd like to spend some time picking apart Horowitz's latest blatherings based on cherry-picked syllabi (where, instead of looking like a shrewd critic, he comes off as someone who is over 50 years behind in the debates over epistemology and pedagogy), it's almost the weekend, and I really don't want to read any more of his inane ramblings. I did, however, want to ask a few questions about this:

The ideological claim that all gender differences between men and women, aside from anatomical ones, are rooted in social rather than biological factors and therefore can be shaped by human agency is a species of secular creationism, which is not only controversial but, as noted, flatly contradicts the findings of modern science, specifically evolutionary psychology, biology and neuroscience.

First off, I suppose that I'd dispute the notion that theories of social constructionism are "flatly contradict[ed by] the findings of modern science" (not to mention there are plenty of theories of social construction which attempt to account for biologically-derived gender differences).

Secondly, given that the proof of a completely biological source of gender (ignoring Horowitz's (quite conscious, I'm sure) unwillingness to separate the concepts of "sex" and "gender") is hardly unequivocal, does that mean classes in evolutionary psychology, biology, and neuroscience should discuss theories of social construction in their course work on, say, hormonal systems?

Read the rest of the piece and marvel at just how unsophisticated Horowitz's thinking is. It's as if Horowitz is rehashing (the losing side in) debates that were passé 30 years ago. But he's loud, and he's repetitive, and thus he's dangerous.