One thing the American Left likes to do is repeatedly excoriate the Right for being “anti-scientific” for their positions on things like evolution and global warming. The problem is that the Left is just as unscientific, only about different topics … case in point are progressive views on gender, intersexual dynamics, and the human female biological clock.
Let me say first that, as a practicing PhD scientist, the Left is correct at least in that denying the validity of evolution is silly. The scientific evidence for that is solid, including both paleontological evidence (e.g. fossils) and genetic evidence. The Left is also correct in that denying the validity of climate change as it relates to the release of greenhouse gases and deforestation and melting glaciers is silly. One only has to look at our next-door neighbor Venus to see the effects. And long-term temporal climate data clearly shows a trend of rising global temperatures over the last century. One could perhaps argue over whether such climate change is man-made, but it is indisputable from the data that it is occurring. It is also indisputable that human activities are releasing large amounts of greenhouse gases.
But Progressives on the Left pointing the finger at people on the Right about being unscientific are basically like the pot calling the kettle black. A prime example of progressives’ equally deluded stances is their view on gender and gender identity.
Let me ask this question: if one accepts the validity of evolution, and acknowledges that humans are a sexually reproducing species, then what would be the evolutionary purpose for gender fluidity? Would evolution not ween those gender fluid individuals out over time? That is how natural selection works. Evolution clearly needs, for a sexually reproducing species, two distinct biological genders … to the point that in mammals it created separate X and Y chromosomes for sex determination (with a few more complicated exceptions like platypuses).
The advantages of sexual reproduction (versus asexual) are rooted in recombination of parental chromosomes and the genetic variance it creates, allowing a species to be resilient to wide-ranging environmental changes. But sexual reproduction also comes at a two-fold cost, with slower reproduction rates and the loss of the guarantee that all individuals can reproduce (they have to search for a willing mate first to do so). So given all of that, it doesn’t make sense for evolution to maintain 12 genders in humans, or gender fluid individuals … because the cost of sexual reproduction is already high enough. Species that did so would quickly go extinct.
And of course this doesn’t even broach the issue that most transgender re-assignment surgeries are Male-to-Female (most estimates say somewhere around 70-75%), rather than 50:50, nor the relative rarity of gender dysphoria in human populations based on epidemiological studies (averaging roughly 0.03% across studies). There are clearly social aspects to the push for gender fluidity that have no basis in biology.
To sum up, Progressives on the Left arguing for gender fluidity make about as much sense as people on the Right arguing we should teach creationism in schools. Both positions are equally anti-scientific. In fact, debating with Progressives about gender identity often feels strangely like debating with evangelicals about evolution …
Now, to be clear, I’m not arguing anyone should be mistreated … live and let live I say. If Progressives want to create a social construct (in the form of fluid gender identity), and then try to convince other people to accept it, they can certainly do so. In that regard, it’s no different than religion. The problem of course comes when people want to legislate their beliefs and force others to accept them. That would be equivalent to legislating religion … unfortunately that parallel is lost upon Progressives. Such attempts are a direct attack on the classical liberal principles Western society is built upon.
The above doesn’t even touch on other anti-scientific positions of the American Left, in particular their views on intersexual dynamics between men and women, and their denial of the existence of the female biological clock (or should we say “The Wall”).
The Progressive assault on masculinity in the West is a case in point here, attempts to redefine women as men, and co-opt masculine traits as some sort of ideal “feminine” traits. Despite the fact, as noted in the previous section, that evolution has clearly defined two separate biological genders, and created both the genetic and physiological infrastructure to maintain these two, with distinct physical and behavioral attributes. There is ample scientific evidence for the effects of testosterone on the human brain and its basis for differences in male/female behavior.
And so children growing up in the modern West are obviously confused when they get to adulthood and find – despite all the Progressive Left’s brainwashing about “gender being a social construct” and “feminized men in touch with their feelings being attractive” – that members of the opposite sex are NOT attracted to what they are told they should be … no, they are attracted to what millions of years of evolution has engrained them with. Any Red Pill man knows this intuitively.
Because that is how evolution works. And anyone who takes a scientific view of the world realizes the world doesn’t always work the way we think it should … it works the way it does. Or in other words: an Empirical view. Your feelings don’t matter, cupcake.
So no, lady, being bitchy and aggressive and “assertive” doesn’t make you attractive to most men. Men in general are drawn to women who exhibit neotenous traits, across cultures (more on the scientific basis here). I realize there are exceptions, but remember: the exception to the rule does not invalidate the rule.
The worst part of this is women literally believing they can still have babies when they are 40-years-old as if they are 20-years-old. About 1 in 7 women are infertile by age 35 (essentially triple the rate of a woman in her late twenties). not to mention the risk of birth defects and down’s syndrome skyrocket by the time you reach 40. Any pregnancy in a woman over the age of 35 is actually medically considered a geriatric pregnancy. A lot of women in their 30’s also think they have plenty of time, but the average duration of courtship in the West is 2-3 years, if not longer in many cases. So for that 30-year-old woman, if you meet someone today it will take years to get to the point of being married and pregnant.
All that said, women shouldn’t have to have babies if they don’t want to. But it is equally problematic for the Progressive Left to be filling their heads with anti-scientific ideology and fairy tales that undermine their ability to do so if they choose. Misinformation is a very dangerous thing.
Which brings us back to our main point: There are just as many anti-scientific viewpoints on the Left as there are on the Right, they just come in different forms. It is critical for those of us who believe in the importance of science and scientific integrity to objectively hold both sides accountable when they attempt to spread anti-scientific viewpoints, particularly when they attempt to pass those myths off as “fact”. And from a classical liberal standpoint, we must acknowledge that rational empirical thinking is necessary for individuals to make good decisions … indeed the entire premise of classical liberalism and the Doctrine of Individualism rests in individuals having correct information upon which to base those decisions.