Thursday, May 11, 2017

Hate Group Leader is the Latest to Become Immeasurably Excited Over the Fact That Men and Women are Different

Tony Perkins
According to Tony Perkins, leader of Family Research Council, scientists have detailed the genetic differences between men and women which means (according to Perkins) that gender nonconformity does not exist? This is my third foray into the intellectual shallow end of the pool on this matter. The first was some boob at LifeSiteNews. The second time it was Mat Staver. Apparently basic science is no longer a junior high requirement. Perkins explains:
Scientists have found 1,559 genetic differences between boys and girls [links to the LifeSiteNews nitwit] -- but try telling that to Oregon officials! The radicals in the Beaver State are doing everything they can to gloss over those distinctions in their latest push to wipe gender off drivers' licenses. In what ought to make every American shake their head, Transgender Oregonians are lobbying for the change, which would let residents identify as "nonbinary" (neither male nor female) on their most significant form of identification. Today, state leaders hosted a public hearing on the idea, which would let people choose between three options: M, F, and X.
As the second link to The Oregonian explains, Oregon is considering allowing people to choose non-binary, rather than male or female, on their driver's license. I have no clue why that is so concerning (or concerning at all) for Tony Perkins. I am also at a complete loss to explain how the genetic differences between men and women are pertinent to this issue.

As long as we are discussing science, it is a scientific fact that gender and biological sex are two different things. For the overwhelming majority of people, gender and sex are congruent. However, a few people have a gender (a psychological understanding of sex) that is at odds with their biological sex. Some of those people are unable to define their gender as either male or female.

It is also a scientific fact that some people (about two out of every 1,000) are born with some degree of sexual ambiguity. About 20% of those have ambiguous chromosomes — neither male or female.

Why should any of these people have to care about what Tony Perkins thinks? In 1975 RenĂ©e Richards, a highly respected ophthalmologist and an extraordinarily gifted athlete, had gender affirming surgery. She ultimately became the surgical director of ophthalmology and head of the eye-muscle clinic at the prestigious Manhattan Eye, Ear and Throat Hospital. I can assure Mr. Perkins that in 1975 — more than 40 years ago — scientists were keenly aware of the genetic differences between men and women.

For the record, this is about an Israeli study published in February of this year. It is titled: The landscape of sex-differential transcriptome and its consequent selection in human adults. DNA carries with it instructions for cell building and maintenance. For those instructions to be followed they must be read and copied (transcribed) to RNA. Transcriptome represents the sum total of those instructions. The study examined the difference in disease between men and women and how those differences correlate to genetic differences. It has nothing to do with gender. Nothing.

We waste a considerable amount of time, energy and money because science does not conform to those ancient chronicles that seem to be at the very core of Perkins' life. Rather than accepting or explaining the differences, Perkins and his ilk vigorously insist that the science must be wrong. They have been doing this at least since Nicolaus Copernicus determined, nearly 500 years ago, that the Earth and other planets orbited the sun at a time when most people believed in geocentrism. It might take a century or two for them to come to their senses but eventually they come around — only to fight the next battle as the advances in science provide further distance from scripture.

What is supremely ironic in this case is the reliance on science that is irrelevant to the issue to “prove” that the relevant science is incorrect. It is all just so stunningly stupid.

Related content:



No comments:

Post a Comment

Please be civil and do NOT link to anti-gay sites!

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.