" /> Al's BLOG: December 2016 Archives

« August 2015 | Main | March 2019 »

December 29, 2016

Gender Revolution?


I've subscribed to National Geographic for years, but cancelled it today. On many occasions I have disagreed with them on some issues, scientifically and culturally, but still valued it enough to continue. A special issue "Gender Revolution" just arrived, and it covers all the different "variations" on gender (eg. a person who is "tri-gender"). A television special is to follow. Our culture has attempted to overrule our biology, and NG has been happy to advance this evolution (it is NOT a revolution). Their thesis is not science, as they purport, but is the very definition of unnatural. It is the agenda of humanism.
There are biologic facts about humans that define two genders. Simply stated, and ignored in our culture: only females can reproduce, and they can do so only by males. Yes, we have artificial means of reproduction, but they do not change the natural requirement for a zygote derived from a female and a male. Neither can surgery change gender, though egotistical surgeons sell this lie. Do you really think the intricacies of human anatomy can be so drastically altered by surgery as to duplicate the natural? They cannot.
If each person, and by extension, culture, is to define - or redefine - gender identity and gender roles, then there is no end in sight to our madness. If NG accomplishes anything useful with this issue, it is to demonstrate the unending variations once the door is opened. There are surely people who have psychological variance from the natural; they are important, their dilemma can be real and even painful, but they do not change biology. The easy course is to redefine gender to meet our desires or world view, rather than deal with the very complicated issues. Biologists know that altering biologic systems can be disastrous, even if the effect takes years to realize. In all species, there is a pattern for reproduction and all students of biology know reproduction is part of the definition of living things. But, ironically, the only option not available in these discussions is that of maintaining the biologic imperative, because there can be no absolutes in the humanistic/atheistic view.
If you think this is only a magazine and maybe harmless, remember that our children, in our schools and media, have already been influenced by these ideas in other areas of sexuality. If we are biologic machines without meaning or purpose, the humanistic agenda is right, and literally “anything goes”. There is an alternate world view, and if we are designed with a purpose, our choices do matter.