One of the sanest arguments against the idea of humans choosing their own gender is the complete lack of scientific evidence to prove it.
Indeed, as a mammal, human reproduction is fairly straightforward. You’ve got your egg. You’ve got your sperm. And when the two come together, you got life — theoretically, at least. Males cannot produce eggs, and females cannot produce sperm, although it’s believed at some point in the future, it may be possible to artificially make that happen.
Females who refer to themselves as “male” are born with a vagina and a uterus and will never, ever, ever produce sperm, while males who refer to themselves as “female” are not and can never, in six million years of hominid evolution ever bear children.
This is the science of sex. Anything else — any other pretense or imagining — is fantasy.
But wait, now steps forward a brave pioneer, anthropologist Agustin Fuentes of Princeton, who claims that several animals whose reproductive biology differs considerably from that of mammals prove that the notion of “binary sex” is false.
Among these animals were sex-changing fish, hermaphroditic worms, and a single-sex species of lizard.
Fuentes then went on to argue that although mammals are less “freewheeling” as they exhibit physiological processes such as pregnancy that are limited to “ova-producers,” human sex is not binary because numerous biological and social characteristics of a person, ranging from homemaking ability to athletic prowess, are not fully correlated with whether they produce ova or sperm.
What does “homemaking ability” have to do with gender? Some of the best chefs in the world are men.
Scientifically, this makes about as much sense as saying humans are not warm-blooded because some humans have red hair. However, logic doesn’t matter because basic concepts of binary sex are incompatible with fashionable gender ideology and the policies supported by LGBT activists. Therefore, the basic idea of biological sex is increasingly under attack as anachronistic, bigoted, and unscientific for good measure.
This entire theology is based on the simple notion that there is no such thing as gender because we — some scientists — claim there is no classification for those who only produce sperm and those who only produce ova. It’s a false characterization to artificially create gender from these clearly delineated biological sex roles.
To say that this overturns the idea of biology is an understatement. But that’s what some scientists are trying to do.
Yet, nowhere in these or similar calls to arms against biological sex, often purportedly made in the name of accurate and precise discussions of biology, does anyone adequately explain how there is a meaningful biological difference between a menstruating person and a woman or offer a biological description of “nonbinary” for anything other than perhaps a fungus or alga.
Instead, like Fuentes, the authors of such pieces usually present a small ark of animals and other organisms with aspects of their reproductive biology that may seem bizarre to most people and act as if these are newly discovered exceptions that completely abolish antiquated rules that still shape our understanding of biological sex.
Indeed, I remember studying about hermaphroditic worms and a single-sex species of lizards in high school biology class 50 years ago. Back then, we saw them as exceptions to the binary dynamic and not a representative sample of mammalian transgenderism.
The problem is that biologists refuse to push back against this nonsense knowing that any opposition will be crushed as the autocrats in control of their scientific discipline would ruin their careers if they persist in opposing the transgender heterodoxy.
It will be very difficult to dislodge this ideology. We’re going to have to hope that common sense and reason will once again prevail and the scourage of anti-science gender biology will fall.