These day it seems everywhere we turn we are being told about gender identity. Whether it’s to highlight fringe behaviours or to suggest that kids be told they can pick their gender from the age they’re able to talk, hardly a week goes by without some news story or a talk show appearance that supports a ‘non-binary’ gender interpretation of humanity that flies in the face of the majority of biological, pychological, and sociological studies. It often feels like proponents of these beliefs are trying to rewrite reality, or that the patients run the asylum. But maybe, just maybe, It’s Not All Bad.

To be clear, using the definition of gender that we’ve used since we formulated language means that we still have two genders: male and female. These genders are the same biological pairing that all vertebrate share and form the productive mating couplet of the species. That is to say, there are precisely two different types of sex chromosomes (X and Y) and it’s largely the absence or presence of the Y chromosome that determines the gender (absent = female, present = male). Furthermore, there are many studies, both in the lab and in the social arena of the world, that continue to demonstrate the validity of a binary distinction in the biology, sociology, and psychology, of the two human genders (a good survey was carried out recently by an ex-google engineer James Damore and can be found on his site Fired for Truth).

Yet many, including cities (e.g. New York), states (e.g. California), and entire nations (e.g. Canada), insist otherwise. So where’s the confusion?

As far as I can tell, it’s an issue of contradicting definitions. The original definition of gender was entirely biological. Humans have two sex chromosomes and two different forms that make up the productive mating unit (incidentally, fungi have 36,000 different biological genders). Sometime in the last five to ten years the idea became popular that gender is not a biological descriptor, but a behavioural one. This meme became widespread and then enforced, first in the universities, then with Progressive politicians. It attempts to describe each slight variant in sexual preference or behaviour, each point on the colour wheel of human sexual interest, as its own gender, which is how we arrive at the current classifications of LGBTQQIP2SAA.

To those of us preferring the more traditional classification of gender as biological, and behaviour as, well, behavioural, this current fuss seems a lot of crazy for no reason. Is there really a need to sub-classify everyone’s sexual behaviour? Aren’t two classical genders good enough? And what about the trans-sexual movement that seems to be everywhere? Just what does it all mean?

The key to it all is technology — past, present, and future.

While some of the ‘non-heteronormative behaviours’ have always been present in humanity to a certain degree (and tolerated to a lesser degree), technology has greatly enable both them and their acceptance. To begin with, the advent of reliable contraception independent of male intervention has led to a dramatic change in a woman’s role in society as they’ve gained enormous reproductive control. This technology, the birth control pill, has forever altered the roles of women and, consequently, men. This change has taken several decades to begin to be fully realized (approximately two generations, i.e. very rapid in the lifespan of a species) and has led to something of a crisis in the male identity as much of their classical role as provider and protector is now deemed less important as women can take on many of those roles for themselves (due at least in part to other technologies such as personal protection, military technology). When this social dynamic combines with technologies such as social media, where any and all discourse and ideas become widely disseminated, it’s difficult to predict a prior what will happen. Now, in hindsight, what seems clear is that hatred, negativity, and frustration gain far more traction than their positive counterparts. The result has been a generation where many have dropped out of anything resembling a traditionally normal relationship.

But consider even further what happens when you’re frustrated with who you are and what you current options are? Enter modern pharmaceuticals and plastic surgery, which can make you — more or less — what you want to be. And in a world of the rising power of the femme, and the constant denigration of the masculine, is it any surprise that, while women abandon men, the naturally competitive males are deciding to change into women? Under these conditions, it should come as no surprise that male-to-female trans-sexuality is by far the most common version in the modern world. When combined with modern sensibilities, and guilt for the horrible history wrongs perpetrated against certain sexualities (homosexuals were killed by the British government up until the 1960s) can it be any wonder that we have the gender chaos of the modern western world?

Sometimes it seems like these groups are pushing us into the crazy, and sometimes I’m sure they are, but now comes the time to consider what the future will be like.

Within this century it is highly likely we will develop: advanced plastic surgery, weight control drugs, biological sex changes (harnessing biochemical techniques used by other organisms), artificial wombs, longevity treatments, to name a few. Just take a moment to consider what these will mean for the nature of our race. At such point, we will each have complete reproductive freedom. We will each be able to choose the form of our body and potentially even the actual biological gender (whether our body produces eggs or sperm will be irrelevant as we could create in a lab the versions we need). We’ll be able to eat as much as we want and still maintain our most beautiful body form. And we’ll be able to do it for more years. At this point, our birth gender will be all but completely irrelevant to both our life and our ambitions. At this point we truly could say that our gender would be a social construct (manifested through advanced biological control).

At this point, those who seem crazy now, will essentially be right (at least on this point).

Therefore, when I look at these Gender Identity Progressives and their policies, I still believe they are mistaken on a great many things, but perhaps they are actually preparing us for a future that will be here sooner than many of us are ready for. So, the next time you encounter what appear to be the crazy demands of the LGBTQQIP2SAA phenomenon consider that, perhaps, just perhaps, It’s Not All Bad.

Scroll to top