Scientific American, a once-revered science magazine, has devolved into another left-wing propaganda outlet under the warped stewardship of its liberal editor-in-chief, Laura Helmuth.

This week, Helmuth was lampooned on social media and fact-checked by Twitter’s truth team for pushing the bird-brained, Democratic talking point that there are more than two biological sexes.

“White-throated sparrows have four chromosomally distinct sexes that pair up in fascinating ways,” she tweeted Wednesday.

Helmuth added: “P.S. Nature is amazing P.P.S. Sex is not binary.”

The tweet linked to a Scientific American article that read: “Looking at White-throats in the breeding season, we see four distinct types. To oversimplify, we could call them super-aggressive males, more nurturing males, somewhat aggressive females, and super-nurturing females.

“It’s almost as if the White-throated Sparrow has four sexes. That may sound like a joke, but it’s actually a good description of what’s going on.”

Helmuth’s absurd tweet received an “Added Context” notification through Twitter’s Community Notes feature, which explained: “White-throated sparrows have 2 sexes with 4 unique chromosome combinations.

“There are still just 2 sexes that produce either sperm or eggs. The female types are the white-striped females and the tan-striped females. The male birds are white-striped males and tan striped males.”

In other words, even if white-throated sparrows have four sex chromosomes, as Helmuth claimed, that does not mean they come in four genders.

Moreover, even if it were true that white-throated sparrows came in four genders, that does not mean this is a rule that applies to all species, especially humans. After all, people are not birds.

Numerous Twitter users roasted Helmuth’s farcical rejection of basic biology.

Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright tweeted: “No, these birds have 2 sexes. Stop spreading scientific disinformation.”

He then linked to an article he wrote in March debunking the very claim Helmuth had tweeted.

Several Twitter commenters said it’s sad to see Helmuth sacrificing Scientific American’s credibility on the altar of her twisted, left-wing activism.

Scientific American’s tragic slide into the steaming dung pile of left-wing propaganda emissaries masquerading as objective journalistic outlets has been happening for years, but it escalated on Helmuth’s watch.

In October 2020 — just six months after she became editor-in-chief — the pop science magazine broke a 175-year tradition by endorsing then-Democratic candidate Joe Biden in the presidential election.

In abandoning the oldest U.S. magazine’s tradition of being nonpartisan, the outlet wrote: “Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.”

In typical liberal media fashion, the magazine also trashed then-President Donald Trump by claiming — get this! — that he rejects science.

“The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people — because he rejects evidence and science,” the endorsement read.

By now, it’s painfully obvious that establishment media outlets have been incorrigibly corroded by toxic left-wing ideology. But the fact that a so-called science journal has joined the fray is disturbing beyond belief.

This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.