Delusions and conceits, shattered
This is such a thoroughly refreshing change from the usual blibbering lunacy force-fed to us at every turn, I’m just gonna have to excerpt at quite some length.
In a powerful commentary in the Feb. 3 edition of The Wall Street Journal, biologists Colin Wright and Emma Hilton explain that, scientifically, there are only two sexes, male and female, and there is no sex “spectrum.” They also stress that “biologists and medical professionals” must stop being politically correct and “stand up for the empirical reality of biological sex.”
With the phenomenon of some men saying they “identify” as women and some women saying they “identify” as men, or any “gender identity” combination therein, “we see a dangerous and anti-scientific trend toward the outright denial of biological sex,” state the biologists Wright and Hilton.
This notion that there is a sex “spectrum,” where people can choose “to identify as male or female,” regardless of their anatomy, is irrational and has “no basis in reality,” say the biologists. “It is false at every conceivable scale of resolution.”
As they explain, “In humans, as in most animals or plants, an organism’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of reproductive anatomy that develop for the production of small or large sex cells—sperm and eggs, respectively—and associated biological functions in sexual reproduction.”
“In humans, reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female at birth more than 99.98% of the time,” they write. “The evolutionary function of these two anatomies is to aid in reproduction via the fusion of sperm and ova.”
“No third type of sex cell exists in humans, and therefore there is no sex “spectrum” or additional sexes beyond male and female,” state the biologists. “Sex is binary.”
Furthermore, “the existence of only two sexes does not mean sex is never ambiguous,” write Hilton and Wright. “But intersex individuals are extremely rare, and they are neither a third sex nor proof that sex is a ‘spectrum’ or a ‘social construct.'”
The fact that it IS such a refreshing change—that such a self-evident truth even needs to be said at all; worse, that openly doing so in today’s stultified atmosphere feels like an act of heroic daring—is a dismal marker of how successful the Marxist campaign to disrupt and weaken American culture via undermining our understanding of reality itself has been.
Cautionary note to any shitlib who has wandered in here by mistake and now might want to argue that these guys are just your typical Reich-wing fascist H8RRRZ!! pimping the usual revanchist falsehoods, with nary a tolerant liberal bone in their bodies: better think again. I’ll kindly boldface the dispositive parts to make it easier for ya. You can thank me later.
According to Wright and Hilton, denying the “reality of biological sex” in favor of subjective “gender identity” raises “serious human-rights concerns for vulnerable groups including women, homosexuals and children.”
Women have fought hard for sex-based legal protections. Female-only spaces are necessary due to the pervasive threat of male violence and sexual assault. Separate sporting categories are also necessary to ensure that women and girls don’t have to face competitors who have acquired the irreversible performance-enhancing effects conferred by male puberty. The different reproductive roles of males and females require laws to safeguard women from discrimination in the workplace and elsewhere. The falsehood that sex is rooted in subjective identity instead of objective biology renders all these sex-based rights impossible to enforce.
Denying biological sex also “erases homosexuality” since “same-sex attraction is meaningless without the distinction between the sexes.”
Many activists now define homosexuality as attraction to the “same gender identity” rather than the same sex. This view is at odds with the scientific understanding of human sexuality. Lesbians have been denounced as “bigots” for expressing a reluctance to date men who identify as women. The successful normalization of homosexuality could be undermined by miring it in an untenable ideology.
See what I mean? Scientists whose views include a willingness to condemn the self-serving irrationality spewed by strident “transgender” lunatics openly…yet in the next breath mechanically regurgitate tired liberal shibboleths asserting that the threat of “male violence and sexual assault” is “pervasive,” rather than an aberration affecting only a statistical handful of psychologically disordered and dysfunctional men, tendencies which are condemned by the overwhelming majority; who offer unquestioning support for purported “sex-based rights” that are actually special privileges and status—ie, a pernicious form of sexual discrimination based on prejudiced assumptions; and who fret over the possibility of calling into question the “successful normalization of homosexuality,” which they obviously take to be an unassailable boon to society, rather than the bestowing of yet more special privileges and accomodations they have slowly evolved into; such views are NOT indications of any sort of “Reich-wing” extremism, mmmmkay?
Which just means that biological reality remains difficult for even liberal-leaning scientists to deny, or a couple of them anyway. Nice to know that even now, political correctness only carries some of us so far along the path to inanity and tail-biting irrationality.
- Entries