Going to bed with off the shelf Genes

“A lack of belief in transgenderism and conscientious objection to transgenderism in our judgment are incompatible with human dignity and conflict with the fundamental rights of others.” Employment Tribunal Ruling on a doctor who refused to address a male transgender patient as ‘Mrs’ or ‘Ms’

And the actress Helen Mirren (whom we should believe because famous actresses know everything) dismisses ‘binary sexuality.’ According to her, we are all somewhere ‘In the middle.’ Are we? 

Anyone who has ever been to bed with someone of the opposite sex will know that, a bit of ‘In the middle’, is not attractive to either sex. It is the differences that make for sexual frisson. How many heterosexual men want to bed a muscular, hairy woman? How many women want a weak, feeble, effeminate man?

Aside from the obvious physical differences, we are also certainly not ‘in the middle’ genetically. The chromosomes are quite distinct. DNA shows that all humans are genetically 99.9% the same but humans are also genetically 99.9% the same as their nearest genetic ancestor, the chimpanzee. That 0.1% is really important. 

The  percentage genetic difference between a woman and a man is the same percentage genetic difference as between a human and a chimp. Men are 99.9% the same as women. Women are 99.9% the same as a chimpanzee.  Men are 99.9% the same as a chimpanzee. Perhaps we should all go to bed with a chimp since they are roughly the same as us genetically;  a bit of ‘in the middle’.You can see how important that 0.1% is.

Indeed, when studying cell biology for diseases, we always ask the question, ‘Is this a human cell?’ but we do not always ask the question, ‘Is this a male or female cell?’ We should be and often we do not.

Also many diseases are predominantly ‘male’ or predominately ‘female.’  (Even without the obvious ones like breast cancer 99% female, or prostate disease,100% male).

Autism is four times more likely in men than women. Anorexia and Bulimia are ten times more likely in women than men. Postural orthostatic tachycardia (Victorian Damsel fainting Syndrome) is five times more likely in women than men.

Diseases of X-linked recessive inheritance, such as colour blindness occur more frequently in men, and haemophilia A and B occur almost exclusively in men.

Men and women are clearly different and this includes diseases of the mind. Most people with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) (75%) are women.And so on.

At the same time today, we had a doctor fired for refusing to call a transgender patient by the correct pronoun because ‘it was incompatible with human dignity.’

A certain Dr Mackereth who said he would refuse to refer to “any 6ft-tall bearded man” as “madam” thirty years of medical experience was removed from our health service for ideological purposes at a time of an acute shortage of doctors.

The ideologues need to remember that when you are dying and need a doctor, it does not matter what pronoun they use.

Without male and female, the species does not survive.

Liked this Blog ? Why not post it to a friend ?

Subscribe To Quarterly Digital Edition

Subscribe To Quarterly Traditional Print Magazine (delivered to your door)

11 Comments on Going to bed with off the shelf Genes

  1. When I, and indeed the vast majority of the populace across the globe and throughout history, use the terms Male and Female, we are referring respectively to those who, barring some form of impairment, either make sperm and are attracted to egg-makers (male) or who make eggs and are attracted to sperm-makers (female). This distinction is used because those are the intrinsically complementary and binary roles defined by biology, brought about and selected for by evolution, over hundreds of millions of years, across countless millions of species of plants and animals, in relation to procreation and thus the nature and continuity of life itself. That’s the sexes’ point. That’s what they are. That is their purpose. They are procreative categories. That’s why they and sexual attraction exist (the attraction goes with the purpose – eggs and sperm are not made for their own sake – females exist to become mothers, males exist to become fathers, and sexual attraction exists to make that happen). So that is what they are all measured against, defined by their function and granted meaning by their purpose in the structure and continuity of life itself. To deny this is to deny uncounted millennia of biology and the very nature of life on earth.

    But apparently, today, this makes me a bigot unemployable by the public sector.

    When did we, to borrow from Tolkien, exchange reason for madness?

  2. Well reasoned arguments will not cut much ice with the transgender fanatics and their sympathisers. As with so many Liberal-Left causes this is not about the facts – it is initially about the ideological posturing and ultimately a power grab.

    Although it may have backfired against feminists I believe the (quite recent) popularity of the transgender cause with social justice brigade is that it opens up a new front in their battle against the patriarchy. Masculinity has already taken a battering from decades of feminism – women claiming they can do anything a man can (only better). Now with the concept of gender fluidity masculinity can be reduced to a mere lifestyle choice.

  3. While this argument is certainly not new, and by no means wrong, are we not falling for the trap of confusing essence with substance? I quote Roger Scruton here who speaking in terms of architecture said, “The frame is no more the essence of a building than the human skeleton is the essence of a human person, or labour the essence of price”. And so too, the genome of a person is in no way the essence of their character, be it outwardly feminine or masculine. While instinctively, I am inclined to believe the answer is not in the total deconstruction of male-female identity which you aim your rifle at, is there no reasonable cause that can accommodate non-binary presuppositions about identity? I am open to disagreement. But my abstract suggestion would be that this deep psychical suffering, excluding those simply appropriating it, are expressing deep spiritual unrest that would otherwise have found consolation in art, music, literature; or remedied by a sense of belonging that cultural membership once provided. And that this behaviour is a legitimate response to a world void of such things.

  4. Another way of looking at this, of course, is that you have a doctor who was so stubborn and intransigent in refusing to accommodate this most simple and inconsequential of requests from a patient that he was prepared to lose his vocation over it after 30 years. Had the doctor been asked to perform a procedure impossible on a male patient it would have been a different matter.

    These types of case are rarely as straightforward as the headline suggests, and you have to wonder just what his bedside manner was like.

    • if its simple and inconsequetial why are the complainants so ardent in their vicious and self important campaign. why should i be entitled to dictate the terms of social interaction ? the nature of my sexual identity is of no consequence to the galaxy.

    • Every monstrous perversion of the truth begins as something ‘simple and inconsequential’.
      Have we still not learnt that after generations of left-wing dogma?

  5. It is also a question of meaning, especially in science. You cannot falsify the transgender conjecture, for that is all that it is, a conjecture, because there is no way of disproving or falsifying it. Science depends on falsification, all theories must be capable of being disproved, they can stand until they are disproved, which is why the west is such an advanced society – THE advanced society. Otherwise they are religions: Marx, Fascism, Jehovah Witness, Christianity, Islam, Christian Science. The one thing all religions have in common is an overwhelming desire to persecute unbelievers, in this case a doctor. Transgender is a step backwards into medievalism

  6. Man-made climate change is the same, we can prove nothing. We can prove the climate has changed but we cannot prove why.

    We also find it hard to distinguish at what point weather becomes climate. Climate is average weather. Most of what is considered change is not change at all but just a few outliers in a perfectly normal series.

    • The claim that we are facing an impending climate change catastrophe stimulates the totalitarian instincts of the Liberal-Left and gives them a stick to beat the capitalist West with. Where are the Extinction Rebellion protests against the gigantic Chinese and Russian carbon footprints?

      Why, for that matter, is it not more widely known that the most abundant greenhouse gas by far is water vapor not CO2? Perhaps because the word Carbon (never mind the dioxide bit) evokes images of black soot, black clouds and, by extension, the black satanic mills so despised by our feminised post 1960s culture. To pollute is patriarchal and to be a capitalist is to be a crook in the new “enlightened” age.

  7. A ‘lack of belief’ has nothing to do with any scientific discipline. Science isn’t advanced by consensus. That everyone must believe a particular doctrine, even the best one, is a feature of totalitarianism.

    Furthermore, these differences between both modern humans and earlier sub-species and chimpanzees seems to vary with each subsequent reporting. The genetic difference between modern humans and chimpanzees has been claimed to be 94%. Whereas that between Neanderthals and chimpanzees has been put at higher than 98%.

    It is in the area of speech that there has been much debate. MIT carried out an experiment where chimps were trained to follow orders but the creatures asked no question. Even with the babies of modern humans they can ask a question before they have learned speech. This can be dome by an inflexion in the voice or by raising an eyebrow. Such a capability was beyond that of the chimps. It is this ability to ask a question that defines humans.

    However, with reference to the vexed subject in question, if someone wanted to be addressed as Teapot that wouldn’t make you a cup and saucer.

1 Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Going to Bed with Off-the-Shelf Genes – Technical Politics

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.