August 5, 2021 | David F. Coppedge

Gender Is a Fact, Not a Choice

With rare exceptions, there are males and there
are females, and they are distinguishable by science

 

Ever heard of an XY female? They do exist. Dr. Howard Glicksman has written about them. They are women who look and act like women and have female breast development, but have XY chromosomes. In the human embryo, a female develops by default. XY females do not develop as males because of an abnormality where their androgen receptors don’t work. He explains this odd but rare situation in an article at Access Research Network.

There are a few other types of genetic abnormalities resulting in ambiguous genitalia or abnormal sexual development. These, however, only account for about 0.02% of humans. In those with normal sex chromosomes and physical features, biological sex equates to psychological sex. There are individuals who develop psychological issues lumped as “gender dysphoria” for various reasons, often due to faulty relationships in childhood; most of those grow out of it around puberty and become comfortable with their biological sex. Those wanting to know more about gender dysphoria and the impacts of transitioning should read this seven-part series by Jonathan Wells on Evolution News:

  1. Is is a boy or a girl?
  2. Money, sex and gender
  3. The boy who was raised as a girl
  4. On delaying puberty
  5. Delaying puberty, or destroying it?
  6. Examining causes of gender dysphoria
  7. Some effects of transgenderism

There is no such thing as becoming the opposite sex by choice, when one’s normal biology is pushing it toward male or female. Science recognizes the reality of biological sex and its associated psychological tendencies. The rule is confirmed by the rare exceptions.

Explaining the difference between men’s and women’s football (PLoS One). Men play soccer. Women play soccer. It’s the same game, but the sex of the teams makes an observable difference. Four scientists developed a model that could be fed into a machine. The machine could predict from the actions of the players whether a men’s team or a women’s team was playing.

Our model accurately distinguishes between men’s and women’s football, revealing crucial technical differences, which we investigate through the extraction of explanations from the classifier’s decisions. The differences between men’s and women’s football are rooted in play accuracy, the recovery time of ball possession, and the players’ performance quality. Our methodology may help journalists and fans understand what makes women’s football a distinct sport and coaches design tactics tailored to female teams.

The paper does not complain about the trendy words equity, fairness, or justice. The authors were just noting biological facts.

It’s time to expand the definition of ‘women’s health’ (Nature Editorial). This editorial focuses on unmet needs of women in medicine. It would make no sense if women did not exist biologically. If gender is a choice or a preference, or if any man could declare himself a woman at any time, that would not give him the unique health needs (such as reproduction) that women have.

Researchers identify new genes linked to longer reproductive lifespan in women (University of Exeter). A man choosing to identify as a woman is not going to live as long as women, on average. Women have genes that researchers at U of Exeter identified that are linked to longer lifespan.

Testis-Specific Gene Involved in Sex Ratio Regulation Discovered (Gwangyu Institute of Science and Technology). There are genes and transcription factors that are specific to male organs. The researchers identified one that affects the sex ratio: the proportion of males and females in a population. That important ratio disappears if sexes are not distinct, or if genders are fluid.

How men can be allies to women right now (The Conversation). This article written by a man and two women, again, would make no sense if genders were arbitrary, fluid categories. Obviously liberal social scientists within academia, the three excoriate men for being so masculine that they too often harm women (read about the either-or fallacy, because many strong, masculine men are gentle to women). If gender were simply a matter of preference, why not nudge the men to identify as women? Problem solved!

Have girls struggled more than boys during the COVID-19 pandemic? (Medical Xpress). Taking a position on the question in this headline is not necessary for the present discussion. The question pivots on the assumption that girls respond differently than boys to stresses caused by the pandemic.

How to make teaching more women-friendly in post-COVID times (Phys.org). This article matter-of-factly talks about distinct characteristics of women: they “are more likely than men to be carers,” they have needs different from men. What stereotypes! What discrimination against the nonsexuals, pansexuals and whateversexuals! This could all be solved by having the women identify as men or as any of the dozens of other non-women identities, right?

Gender-affirming hormone therapy may increase risk of high blood pressure (American Heart Association). Trying to be as politically correct as possible, these researchers state that transgenders taking “gender-affirming hormone therapy” have elevated risks of high blood pressure and heart attacks: 2.5 to 5 times higher than “cisgender” people. Is that not because the two biological sexes respond differently to such hormones?

We must include more women in physics — it would help the whole of humanity (The Conversation). Taking a position on this headline is not necessary to the point: women are biologically and psychologically distinct. If that were not true, the solution would be to tell more male physicists to identify as women, or to bring in more categories that are neither male or female.

In the image of God he made him; male and female he created them (Genesis 1:27). Everything created by God is good (I Timothy 4:4). Photo by DFC from AiG Creation Museum.

Pushing Transgenderism Is Anti-Science

Despite the obvious fact that men and women are biologically distinct, some science news outlets and scientists are trying their best to affirm the LGBTQ agenda, either by affirming transgenders or trying to blur the distinctions between the sexes.

It’s time to expand the definition of ‘women’s health’ (Nature). Notice the irony in this editorial. Nature strives to be accommodating to trans women so that the radical left will accept them, but they cannot help but acknowledge that real women have distinct biological needs. It’s almost humorous. At one point they say,

Unfortunately, fibroids are just one of many understudied aspects of health in people assigned female at birth. (This includes cisgender women, transgender men and some non-binary and intersex people; the term ‘women’ in the rest of this editorial refers to cis women.)

NASA investigates renaming James Webb telescope after anti-LGBT+ claims (Nature). The James Webb telescope has been in production for decades, always behind schedule and over budget. Now it may have to take on a politically-correct name, because the esteemed astronomer and NASA administrator once spoke ill of “homosexuals and sex perverts” in the 1960s, when many felt the same way. But cancel culture reaches back into the grave, like an inquisition seeking heretics to disinter for posthumous burning at the stake. Nobody’s reputation is safe from the modern-day Jacobins. Have they considered that tomorrow’s Jacobins may do this to them, considering them insufficiently Woke for the standards of 2031? Revolutions tend to eat their own, it is said.

Study finds that princess culture can heal toxic masculinity over time (Brigham Young University). A photo of a boy reading a princess book begins this article. It proceeds on the dubious assumption that masculinity is a toxic condition or disease that needs to be “healed.” Sarah Coyne at BYU is a professor of “princess culture” and thinks it can help prevent boys from “toxic masculinity” (two words that almost never went together until recent years). But any parent knows that boys and girls are different, and naturally gravitate to different likes and feelings in their toys and relationships. Sexual differences are seen in the animals, too; elk fight rivals and woo females. If evolution produced sexual differences, which is almost universally believed in academia, who are modern PC eggheads to call it toxic? Evolution is what evolution does. Why not call academia toxic when it generates unnatural thoughts? Coyne’s “princess culture” advice is sure to help her police department when she calls to report a burglary or armed robbery at her house. The police can show off their pink blouses and talk with the robbers about their feelings.

Why Canadian dads are more involved in raising their kids than American fathers (The Conversation). Kevin Shafer wants fathers to be more like mothers in this piece. Readers need to have their baloney detectors tuned to card stacking and the either-or fallacy here. Certainly it is good for fathers to be as involved in their children’s upbringing as possible, but Shafer ignores the compensatory qualities that fathers can bring to child rearing, such as fairness, justice, discipline, self-control, courage and duty that can help kids become responsible adults able to endure a world of evil. Instead, Shafer measures involvement in terms of warmth, emotional support, relationship quality, caregiving and absence of harsh discipline. But that’s the beauty of having father and mother both involved. In a home only with the motherly qualities, a child can grow up to be a selfish jerk. In a home with only the fatherly qualities, a child can become a discouraged introvert. Both parents can exhibit different blends of both qualities: fathers with warmth and feeling, and mothers with just standards. The Creator’s two-parent ideal can bring a blend of qualities and strengths to give children a well-balanced start in life, especially when the parents love each other and agree on decisions. Shafer diverges into public policy matters that he feels make Canadian dads more involved. He has totally left science behind there; he should be writing for a political rag. At least Shafer acknowledges the existence of two sexes and genders—not dozens of them—which is the issue at hand. See also 7 December 2019, “Gender Dysphoria is Not Biological.”

Also recommended: “What the Darwin Lobby and the Transgender Lobby Have in Common” by Jonathan Wells.

Scientists should be chastising the LGBTQ movement, not endorsing it. What is more pseudoscientific than a denial that all sexual organisms have two (and only two) types: male and female? Follow the science, progressives! We can discuss practical accommodations for the very few cases of ambiguous gender due to physical/genetic causes without uprooting the history of civilization.

This is not just a casual academic debate. It is having global consequences already. Breitbart News reported that a woman was reported pregnant in a women’s prison that began accepting “transgender women” (biological males). Who didn’t see that one coming? At the Olympics, female athletes are being forced to hide their anger at transgenders who will steal all the medals they have worked their lives for, says John Stossel incredulously at WND. This is happening all over the country because of the redefinition of gender by leftist progressives. If they had their way, they would demand men be allowed in women’s prisons and men be free to take showers in women’s locker rooms. (Wait… that is already happening… see a shocking rationalization of this on Phys.org).

What does the label “woman” mean anymore if biological men can attend women’s colleges and compete in women’s sports? What happened to feminism and the history of women’s rights? If gender is so fluid, the leaders of women’s suffrage should have just identified as men and voted. The men could have appeased the suffragettes by identifying as women and saying, “Look, we allow women to vote; what’s your problem?” There would have been a complete breakdown of reason. How stupid can leftist progressives get? Why do sane people put up with this?

One solution could be to use their logic against themselves. Every time they try to shame you for being a “transphobe” or something, tell them you are identifying as a scientist and accuse them of being anti-science or a sciencephobe. If they try to force you to use weird gender-fluid pronouns, tell them you identify as a knight and require them to kneel, call you Sir and kiss your hand. If they try to shame you with moral posturing about your toxic masculinity, tell them you identify as logician and demand they apologize for logiphobia. Demand it and do not take no for an answer! Get their confession on video and post it on social media.

The more gentle Christians among us will probably just gently wag our heads and say, “I’m sorry, but I do not live by lies. I will pray for you, that God may grant you repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and you may come to your senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.” (See II Timothy 2:22-25.) And if they are shouting at you and recording it on video, walk away. Anything you say will be used against you.

 

 

(Visited 372 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

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