May 17, 2004 | David F. Coppedge

Does Darwinism Contribute to Sexual Deviancy?

Joan Roughgarden (Stanford U.) is a transsexual biologist.  Although a convinced Darwinian, “she” claims to have disproved Darwin’s theory of sexual selection (see 02/26/2003 headline).  Two reviews of her book Evolution’s Rainbow: Diversity, Gender and Sexuality in Nature and People (University of California Press, 2003) appeared recently, one in Nature1 and another in Science.2  The book title refers to Roughgarden’s position that we should no longer believe there are only two sexes, but a spectrum (rainbow) of genders.  The book is part biology, and part agenda: as Sarah Hrdy describes, “a passionate cry from the heart for greater understanding of sexual diversity in nature and greater tolerance for the many gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders and others who do not fit comfortably into male or female binary categories.”
    Apparently eager to present themselves as enlightened and politically correct, neither reviewer had anything negative to say about Roughgarden’s advocacy of the transsexual and transgender agenda.  They were actually quite sympathetic about it, thanking “her” for raising biologists’ consciousness of the trials that transsexual and transgender individuals face in society.  The thing both reviewers did not appreciate was her disparagement of Darwin’s theory of sexual selection.
    In the Science review, Jolly takes some jabs at people of faith: “The readership should, but undoubtedly won’t, include the religious orthodox, who probably would not appreciate a transsexual professor of evolutionary biology quoting the Bible and the Koran.” (One such quotation by Roughgarden refers to Jesus’ comment about eunuchs in Matthew 19:12, that some are born eunuchs, some are made eunuchs by men, and some make themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God).  Alison Jolly thinks Darwinism can easily embrace the gender revolution: “what Darwinian theory needs is not so much radical revision as a simple expansion to take sexual diversity much more seriously.”  Sarah Hrdy seems to take a similar stance; “For readers craving information about transgendered existences, or for those like me who are deeply moved by Gay Pride parades and the social transformations that they represent, this book is going to have a huge impact.

1Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, “Sexual diversity and the gender agenda,” Nature 429, 19 – 21 (06 May 2004); doi:10.1038/429019a.
2Alison Jolly, “The Wide Spectrum of Sex and Gender,” Science, Vol 304, Issue 5673, 965-966, 14 May 2004, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1097003].

Only a radical twisting of Scripture could abuse Jesus’ statement about eunuchs to support the transsexual/transgender agenda (see context).  Are we to assume Roughgarden got religion and wants to pursue the kingdom of God?  Is that the agenda of Gay Pride parades?  Clearly not.
    In context, Jesus had just given his disciples stern warnings about adultery.  His comment about eunuchs was in response to the disciples’ alarm at the strictness of God’s law – they were taken aback, stating that it might be better not to marry.  Jesus responded with a mere statement of fact, an observation that some men go through life without marrying, either because they were born incapable of sex because of a birth defect, or were castrated (for example, by despotic kings to guard their harems), or chose not to marry so that they could pursue the kingdom of God without distraction (See I Corinthians 7).
    The Bible is sympathetic to singles, but not to sexual deviants.  It clearly teaches that God created humans with only two sexes, male and female (Gen. 1-2).  The Mosaic Law stated that wearing the clothes of the opposite sex is an abomination (Deut. 22:5).  We were not created to act like animals, no matter how many weird examples biologists find in nature; humans were created in the image of God, and the Maker has the right to set the rules.  It’s getting to the point already where quoting the Bible on these topics is being construed, not as common sense, but as hate speech.  Just this past month, in Canada, it became illegal to quote the Bible to speak in opposition to sexual deviancy.  Have you connected the dots from Darwinism to these developments?
    Treating a struggling individual compassionately is not the same as legitimizing, honoring and promoting a deviant lifestyle.  The way to heal the sick is not to tell them they are normal and society is sick.  The last thing deviants need is pseudo-scientific rationalization for their deviancy (see our satire on cannibal rights); this pours gasoline on the fire.  Darwinism has already been used to legitimize genocide, racism, eugenics, euthanasia, and abortion and other moral evils.  Sexual licentiousness is part of a long line of evolution-sanctified immorality.  That was exactly the message of the PBS Series Evolution episode Why Sex? (see 11/12/2001 notice and 09/28/2001 commentary): animals do it, so anything you want to do has Charlie’s blessing.  There is no Creator.  There are no rules.  I was born this way.  I evolved this way.  I can’t help myself.  Remove the Ten Commandments from the courthouse.  That line Thou shalt not commit adultery hurts my self-esteem.
    We are in the midst of a sexual identity crisis that symbolizes the modern culture war.  The sick are now normal, and the normal are now sick.  For the first time, homosexual marriage is legal in one state of the United States, with the likely prospect the movement will spread to the entire nation.  Rather than expressing alarm that four out of seven judges took it upon themselves to redefine the meaning of marriage without a vote of the people or their elected representatives, the news media are focusing instead on the euphoria of the newly liberated “oppressed,” and reporters are eagerly holding up microphones to their chants of rage against their “oppressors”.  Now that this check dam is collapsing, what will prevent downstream floods of polygamy, multiple partners, and child abuse?  Activists will be sure to find Darwinian rationalizations for their pet perversions, too.
    The impersonal, undirected, purposeless universe Darwin gave the intellectual world is hitting home, affecting your boys’ conception of who he is and what he should wear to school.  The innocent childhood years are being flooded with mixed messages from teachers, while TV images showcase immorality in parades hosted by celebrities and politicians.  The new sinners, deserving of the strictest denunciation and severest judgment, are those daring to call any of this immoral.  A California school district was recently forced to allow boys to dress like girls.  How will administrators redesign all the forms that request a designation of “Sex: M or F”?  Will the media have to concoct new gender-neutral pronouns?  Will anything written before 2004, using the pronouns he or she, become politically incorrect?  Serious debates are arising on college campuses about which bathrooms the gender-confused should use.  There is a risk that rapists might pretend to be transgender to sneak into women’s restrooms.  The potential for confusion, abuse, victimization and outright crime is enormous.  Now that Darwinism embraces the gender-bending political correctness of our day, the reader is left to draw his, hers, or its own conclusions about where this radical social evolution will lead.  Extinction?
    None of the transgender advocates seem to be very concerned about the soundness of the Darwinian model that legitimized all this social experimentation (follow the Chain Links on Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory).  It’s about time to revisit the tried and true model that predicted this outcome.

(Visited 59 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.