The Gender Confusion: How Science, Relativism, and the LGBT Community Intersect
How many times when someone questions the intelligentsia’s popular view of evolution, global warming, and gender have we heard in response, “you’re just a science denier!” even in spite of the significant (and often covered up) dispute over such in the scientific community. Now here we have identity politics quite at the forefront of this dispute.
Traditionally gender has always been quite clear, you’re either a boy or a girl, and it’s not hard to tell the difference. Gender is decided simply by the presence of the Y chromosome. Females’ final chromosome pair is XX whereas males’ have XY as their final chromosome pair. The Y chromosome is only inherited from the father simply because males only have the Y chromosome in their genome, females do not possess it. Only in extremely rare instances is someone born with both testicular and ovary tissue or some other malformation of gender development, and those are detrimental medical conditions, not exactly a “new” gender. However! As is the way with certain circles of our era this it being challenged more and more. But why?
Predominantly in the leftward spectrum of politics, gender has become more of an opinion than biology. Many in the LGBTQ community testify that even though they were born female they are now male, and visa versa.
There was even a search for genes that caused one to be homosexual. However, without the ability to reproduce homosexually, such genes (if they ever existed) would not be passed on and thus eliminated. But this idea of gender and sex flies in the face of the left’s popular scientific philosophy of evolution. After all, evolutionary doctrine states that over millions of years life mutated into more advanced forms, while any of the harmful mutations were eliminated due to the organisms bearing such mutations being unfit to survive and/or reproduce. Homosexuality as it is, inhibits reproduction, thus such behaviors, according to evolutionary theory, would harm the survival of the affected race and via natural selection be eliminated due to the reproductive harm it causes. Yet this is politically and socially encouraged as forms of diversity and human rights in spite of how taboo it is in their own science, according to their own science!
Scientists and doctors of the our day even state that it’s impossible to change one’s biological and genetic sex (not to mention the neurological and psychological differences that we certainly don’t even understand), yet many claim to transfer from one gender to another. Cass Clammer posted a now viral photo stating that “men” have periods. However, “he” is lacking the Y chromosome (basically female), in other words he is a she that says he has a biology that only she should have. But what about the women with a Y chromosome? Then she couldn’t be a she because she is a he that can’t have the biological functions that she would if he became a she. I think there’s a far deeper root to this than diversity.
We live in an era now where truth is often spoken of as being relative, much like Protagoras’s relativism. One may just as easily say that my science is wrong, though if a reader thinks that I’d most certainly like to hear why it is wrong. Or even say to me “well, that’s true for you but it’s not my truth.” This relative truth that says that each person has their own realty is used not only in sexuality but also religion and nearly every other aspect of life. Yet does this really grant one true fulfillment and allow one to find their true self? Or is it a simulacrum of such that in sooth denies fulfillment and one’s self?
If a relativist says to me: “Truth is relative, and is only a matter of opinion. What is true for you is your truth, and what is true for me is my truth.”
I could say: “Thus if one believes that there is one god, it is true. Yet if another believes there is no god, it is also true?”
Even though this is self defeating, a relativist would have to respond: “yes.”
Then subsequently I could say: “I believe that truth is absolute and not subjective to one’s opinion. That there is only one truth and one reality. Thus I believe you are wrong.”
The relativist then could not disagree with me, because if everyone’s truth is true for them then by my saying “you are wrong” it would have to be true. Thus this relativism actually is self-defeating, it would be like saying “this comment is false.” Instead of granting everyone truth, it denies it even though it promises the opposite.
Look back at the LGBT community, this form of talking is common in explaining what they believe. Yet I believe that this actually harms them. Look at the data on suicide for the LGBT community, it’s incredibly high. Some say “well society doesn’t accept us and that causes this.” But it’s politically and socially cool in many high circles to be gay or trans. There are some scientists that say there is a legitimate problem with gender confusion, and this along with the suicide rates are almost never talked about. Political and social propaganda mask over this and with relativism saying that you are whatever gender you want to be, instead of accepting one’s self as they claim to be doing this seems more like denying what one truly is.
And as is traditional with my articles, the word of the article: It would “behoof” thee to post a comment down below.