Academia Incorporated today has several litmus tests that one must meet to qualify as an 'intellectual.' Acceptance of the settled science that gender can be anything anyone wants it be is one of these tests---despite there being zero scientific evidence for it. As we pointed out in the last article, however, the so-called scientific consensus these days is liberally supported with interest-group dollars, media promotion, and political pressure.
Science, though, is a difficult thing to sweep under the rug. That's why, whenever one debates this issue, the proponents of Gender Nullification always try to turn the discourse into one of Religion vs. Science. This part of the Delphi Technique, which many of their trolls and propagandists have been taught. It's an especially common practice on talk shows like Drew Barrymore's. Their entire theory is built on legal intimidation, propaganda, and suppression of dissenting science.
Biology is a science that the Gender Nullifiers have a difficult time dealing with. There are no examples anywhere in nature of homosexuality or gender dysphoria among any species that contributes in any way to a species' survival. Likewise, there are many instances of highly differentiated behaviors between males and females. In all higher species, reproduction is carried out exactly the same way; and even among birds and reptiles males and females can often be distinguished by different colors and very specific mating rituals.
According to Evolutionists, the sexual drive is instinctual---this presents a great difficulty for the Gender Nullifiers. They can't explain how males and females have an instinctual sexual drive for one another; yet at the same time be independent of biology. To escape this difficulty, they have to devise a pseudoscientific explanation. The one most commonly encountered is that since man is the highest animal, we can transcend our biological instincts by our free will.
If these people actually thought about any of this before running wild and screaming their collective outrage, they'd see two fundamental contradictions with Evolutionary Theory itself. The first is that it is a thinly-veiled postmodern throwback to Social Darwinism. In its earlier incarnations, Social Darwinism basically taught the idea that human races compete against each other for scarce resources and that only the 'fittest' (by their definition of course) were entitled to survive. (Sound familiar?)
The older forms of Social Darwinism focused on race and nation; the newer variant on technology and supranational corporatism. Lee Silver, a member of the revolving-door academic elite, informed us in 1998 in his book Remaking Eden:
“The GenRich—who account for ten percent of the American population—[will] all carry synthetic genes. All aspects of the economy, the media, the entertainment industry, and the knowledge industry are controlled by members of the GenRich class… Naturals [unaltered humans] work as low-paid service providers or as laborers. [Eventually] the GenRich class and the Natural class will become entirely separate species with no ability to crossbreed, and with as much romantic interest in each other as a current human would have for a chimpanzee.
“Many think that it is inherently unfair for some people to have access to technologies that can provide advantages while others, less well-off, are forced to depend on chance alone, [but] American society adheres to the principle that personal liberty and personal fortune are the primary determinants of what individuals are allowed and able to do. Indeed, in a society that values individual freedom above all else, it is hard to find any legitimate basis for restricting the use of reprogrammed genetics. I will argue [that] the use of reprogenetic technologies is inevitable. Whether we like it or not, the global marketplace will reign supreme.”
Transgenderism and transhumanism are naturally linked in this drive to stamp out gender differences. Sexuality is such a deeply-rooted element of human nature that it cannot be erased without destroying the concept of humanity itself. This is obviously contrary to the Theory of Evolution which posits that the goal of biological organisms is to reproduce itself and perpetuate the species.
Which brings us to the second point: according to the Evolutionists, sexual selection is based---at least on the instinctual level---on fitness for potential reproduction and perpetuation of the species. Now, in a higher organism like Mankind, where the mind also plays a role, the definition of 'fitness' is going to be variable. However, there is no possibility of 'fitness' in same-sex relationships. Whatever attraction exists can only be resultant of the primal release of sexual tension and form no basis of a productive relationship of any kind.
All of this leads to a conundrum: how do the practitioners of Scientism support the settled science of Evolution with the settled science of Gender Nullification. The fact is that they cannot. They can't simply 'cancel' the Theory of Evolution because they've invested too much of their reputations supporting it. The best they can do is go for a 'soft cancel' and essentially argue that Evolution, as taught for decades, is no longer true: the technocrats are taking over from here.
Many of the Evolutionists of the past argued that Nature (or God) set the process in motion and argued against attempts of Mankind to alter the course of Nature. What would they say about modern Scientism attempting to do this? Successful science has always learned the Laws of Nature and worked with it to solve problems. Superstition and barbarous modern ideologies have been characterized by their attempts to reverse or control the Course of Nature. The entire notion of homo 'equality' and the attempts to eliminate sexuality are, according to Evolutionary Theory itself, atavistic and not 'progressive.' It's supporters have no 'science' to appeal to; hence they respond as their ancestors-in-spirit did, by resorting to the modern equivalents of the Stake and the Gulag.
As further proof that Gender Nullification is against nature: consider that so-called 'Trans Positive' attitudes are highly reductionist. It is entirely based on the superficial appearance of what is 'masculine' or 'feminine' without actually being of a particular gender with that gender's unique purpose. Consider that little detail that only biological females can bear children. Are we going to implant artificial wombs and use artificial intelligence to create a Maternal Instinct? One can see at a glance how absurd these theories are; and that they are based in nothing but Scientistic fantasy.
We acknowledge that there are issues with Evolutionary Theory too; but the point is that postmodern Academia can't hold both positions simultaneously. Either they deny Evolution or they deny their Ideology, but they can't do both. It's ironically like the (Six-Day) Creationist vs. Evolutionist debates of a few years ago. The difference here is that there is no debate. The Evolutionists have lost this round simply by being outbid. Corporate and NGO cash settles science faster than anything else these days---especially when upheld by force.
No comments:
Post a Comment