By Joshua Arnold

The comment was ordinary, but the speaker was surprising. “We cannot avoid the biological/evolutionary differences between men and women,” said Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) in a tweet thread posted earlier this month. Everyone knows that men and women are different, but, in recent years, saying so gets many people labeled as right-wing extremists. Perhaps that’s beginning to change.

It’s probably obvious by now, but the reason why it’s suddenly out-of-bounds to acknowledge the obvious, fundamental differences between men and women is that interferes with the transgender fantasy. It requires defining “man,” defining “woman,” and identifying the very real and insurmountable obstacles with one becoming the other. Today, if a man “feels” like a woman, or a woman “feels” like a man, the facts must simply get out of the way. This deliberate self-delusion is most prevalent on the political Left, but it has infected many different corners of the political landscape.

That’s why it’s so surprising (and refreshing) to see a Democratic senator from a deep-blue state speaking openly about the differences. Murphy’s remarks came in response to his reading a thought-provoking book, which more people should do. It’s worth reproducing his entire thread for context:

“Finished Of Boys and Men by @RichardvReeves. Just excellent and so necessary. Covers some of the themes I wrote about in my book,” Murphy began.

“1/ The bottom line: the left is missing the crisis happening w[ith] men today and we need to talk about it openly and without fear.

"2/ We cannot avoid the biological/evolutionary differences between men and women. It’s not ‘toxic masculinity’ that causes men to commit 90% of murders, for instance. Both biology and thousand[s] of years of culture have wired men differently. Policy has to acknowledge that.

"3/ Both Reeves and I write about the identity crisis happening with men as, in one short generation, they lost their roles as primary family earners. The right is wrong to just say we should go back to the 1950s, but the left is wrong to just tell men to ‘get over it.’

"4/ Reeves is smart to suggest policies shaped toward men’s needs. More hands[-]on instruction for boys, who learn differently. More rights (and expectations) for non-married fathers. More paths (and less shaming) of men who go into teaching, health care, and social work.

"5/ But the bottom line for progressives is that our reaction to the Hawley book can’t be to think men and masculinity is just something the right talks about. There is something profound happening with American men and the left should address it with more responsible solutions.”

Murphy mentioned three different books in the thread, and it’s helpful to keep them straight. First, he read “Of Boys and Men” by Richard Reeves, president of the American Institute for Boys and Men, which is a project of the left-leaning Brookings Institute. Second, he referenced a book on males he wrote himself, “The Violence inside Us.” Third, he mentioned Senator Josh Hawley’s (R-Mo.) book, “Manhood.”

In response to Reeves’s book, Murphy acknowledged a “crisis happening w[ith] men today” and urged the Left not to ignore it simply because people on the Right (like Hawley) are also talking about it. While Murphy did not become a conservative (he claimed the Right is offering the wrong solution), he still arrived at the conclusion that “something profound happening with American men” and the Left needs to address it more responsibly. Neither does Murphy hold a biblical worldview, as his reference to evolution implies. Nevertheless, Murphy demonstrates that one does not have to be a Christian, conservative, or right-winger to recognize the differences between men and women.

Murphy recognized both biological and social differences. “Both biology and thousand[s] of years of culture have wired men differently,” he noted. For instance, something about men makes them commit 90% of murders, and he said, “it’s not ‘toxic masculinity.’” (It’s interesting that Murphy would reject this concoction of feminist theory, while elsewhere he applauded the feminist redefinition of traditional gender roles.) He also recognized that boys learn differently than girls and therefore need “more hands[-]on instruction.”

Murphy also recognized the social implications of gender roles and how they have changed “in one short generation.” Men have “lost their roles as primary family earners,” he noted. While he didn’t want to “go back to the 1950s,” he also acknowledged this created a crisis for men that wouldn’t disappear simply by telling them to “get over it.” He also acknowledged the problems with disengaged, non-married fathers and endorsed Reeves’s call for them to have “more rights (and expectations).”

The views Murphy articulated are logically incompatible with the gender ideology inflaming American culture and politics. They should (emphasis on should) lead to a rejection of the insupportable myth that a person can change his or her sex. In a world where female Supreme Court justices refuse to define “woman,” and where historical revisionism finds gender identity protections in 60-year-old laws, there are strong political pressures incentivizing politicians like Murphy against arriving at the logical conclusion.

But the mere fact that a prominent political figure on the Left can calmly acknowledge that there are “differences between men and women” may be an early sign that the dam of insanity is beginning to break.

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.