Erik Larsen | Truth, Consequences and Science

Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on email

David Hegg’s Sunday column “Truth or Consequences?” (March 3) shows a lack of understanding of how the scientific method works, the difference between gender and sex, or the difference between morals and ethics. As a proud product of Santa Clarita’s excellent school system, I’d like to share some “truths” with him.  

While the current scientific consensus is that sex is determined by biological factors, that does not make it an absolute truth as Mr. Hegg states. That simply means it is the best explanation we currently have given the totality of our understanding of the facts we currently know and is always subject to change from new information. Further inquiry and challenges to currently held theories are part of the scientific process. 

While the “laws of nature” may not change, our understanding of them certainly does, and with that our understanding of “truth” does as well. Scientific truth is, by definition, being ever refined and honed, unlike religiously revealed truths that stay far more static.  

Furthermore, Mr. Hegg seems to confuse sex and gender, conflating the two. The current issues being discussed around things like bathroom bills have to do with gender identity, not biological sex. Gender identity is, and always has been, a social construct that has varied across time and cultures. For example, in 18th century Europe, it was men who started wearing high heels as a fashion statement, something that would be gendered completely differently in today’s context. Mr. Hegg is trying to disguise a moral argument — based on personally held beliefs about right and wrong — as an ethical argument, based on agreement and recognized by an external source or social system. 

While he is certainly entitled to his opinion, that does not make it truth.

Erik Larsen 

North Hollywood 

Related To This Story

Latest NEWS