Being an excerpt from my new book that certain readers might want to skip Part SEVEN
NOTE: While everyone is, of course, free to read, these particular excerpts are, essentially, footnotes provided for readers of my books and are there to make sense of what they are reading AS THEY READ. So, they may not make as much sense to those who are not reading at the time...
Scientists have understood the basics of genetics for centuries. They’ve had an inkling of something that interferes with genetics, with human development, for about one hundred years, as well. The environment. All sorts of things, and I’m not speaking about mommy and daddy’s attitudes, either. No Freud, here. Actually, no damn Freud anywhere. Sorry, an extravagance. And it would be years before they understood the effects of diet, smoking and alcohol. They saw something else, decades ago. We knew that random, highly charged particles, tinier than atoms, traveling at high speeds, were capable of striking and altering, or otherwise “damaging” a fertilized egg at precisely the right moment, likely to cause incidental mutations. Some might be outwardly noticeable enough to cause an immediate and unpredictable miscarriage or, later, infant death, or a deformation of the body at birth. Other mutations might not be so quickly discerned. Some even speculate this could be a precursor to evolution itself.
Other factors may occur. With identical twins, for example, where the genetic material is exactly the same, some researchers have discovered that minute hormonal differences in the amniotic “soup” floating in the tiny space between one fetus and another can result in one baby being born with a predisposition to one characteristic, the other to its opposite. One red-haired, one blonde. One could be straight and the other gay or trans later in life, for example.
Science is only a matter of evidence and probability. Any good scientist will tell you they only know what they know, nothing more. Scientists who tell you otherwise are fools or, better, not very good scientists. Most scientists are truly better referred to as artists who require more research and practice.
Some not-very-well-trained or supposed scientists insist to this day that gender identity is a behavioral or psychological disorder of some sort, treatable by psychotherapy. For example. This despite decades of conscientious psychological, medical, biological and social research to the contrary. All of this research indicates—indicates through evidence and probability—that it is a biological predisposition. What evidence and probability do these outlier scientists have on their side? Some, of course, but usually little. Not nearly as much in the face of the majority. As is often the case in countless other issues like the effects of tobacco smoking, or climate change. It isn’t a matter of being politically correct but of catching up with the evidence and being good at your profession. Some people can’t, some are not, some simply refuse to be. Quite happily, too. Yet they still manage to be heard from. I wonder why?
In this case it's about “sex,” of course. People—all people, not only scientists—have a fairly easy time distinguishing the differences between human behaviors and accepting them as a given in nearly every other sphere of life. That some people are extremely intelligent and some mentally challenged. Some have a talent for farming and others a talent for writing. I’d probably make a better farmer than writer or detective, for instance. What is wheat, by the way? Some are predisposed to be skinny, others athletic and others fat, some small and others tall.
Surprisingly, most people accept most differences but cannot, somehow, understand sexual difference beyond “male” and “female” dependent upon genitalia, even though all the wide rainbow of differences manage to manifest during early childhood, long before supposed “outside influences” could manage any change in personality or physiology.
What determines such prejudices about sexuality which skewer our attitudes about gender orientation? Morality, and that has in turn been twisted, usually, by politics or, more likely, religion. Religion tells us all these things have been predetermined by a higher power with a plan, and that this plan has a particular method which excludes certain immoral activities. This higher power—let’s call it God for brevity’s sake—may allow the immoral activity of drunkenness now and then or lawlessness now and then because they are too common and may be part of the plan, even though they cause disruption, even violence and death. But sexual “deviation”? That’s not possible, because that leads away from making babies, doesn’t it, and so cannot be part of the plan. Sex without babies can’t be part of the plan… But, wait a second. There is quite a bit of sex without babies between “normal” men and women, even outside of marriage. It is frowned upon, I know, but… They don’t treat it like a crime, do they? They don’t go around beating people up over it, do they? At least not around here. (Now, in other countries, that is exactly what they do. To the women, at least. Therefore, we are soooo much more progressive! Aren’t we? Most of us. Give yourselves a pat on the back, Judeo-Christian brothers and sisters, for not being backwards!)
This is all bullshit in the name of a deity. Progressive-expressive hate in the name of a deity. Which has a massive history. No kidding. Another good justification for removing deities of all sorts. However, removing deities will not remove hate, Stalin proved that, good old Joe comes to the rescue once again, so…that thinking, too, is a bit narrowminded. The supposed purpose of deities, recently, at least, most of them, at least, has been to remove our hate. Hasn’t been too much progress from that direction, but perhaps some. We’re only beginning to collect the data. Give it time.
Meanwhile, give The Little Drummer Boy some… You never know. He might grow up to be queer. The woman who wrote the song about him might have been… You’d have to ask her very, very close friend, but they’re both dead, now. And the dead tell no tales, so they say.
As to the living...
Scientists have understood the basics of genetics for centuries. They’ve had an inkling of something that interferes with genetics, with human development, for about one hundred years, as well. The environment. All sorts of things, and I’m not speaking about mommy and daddy’s attitudes, either. No Freud, here. Actually, no damn Freud anywhere. Sorry, an extravagance. And it would be years before they understood the effects of diet, smoking and alcohol. They saw something else, decades ago. We knew that random, highly charged particles, tinier than atoms, traveling at high speeds, were capable of striking and altering, or otherwise “damaging” a fertilized egg at precisely the right moment, likely to cause incidental mutations. Some might be outwardly noticeable enough to cause an immediate and unpredictable miscarriage or, later, infant death, or a deformation of the body at birth. Other mutations might not be so quickly discerned. Some even speculate this could be a precursor to evolution itself.
Other factors may occur. With identical twins, for example, where the genetic material is exactly the same, some researchers have discovered that minute hormonal differences in the amniotic “soup” floating in the tiny space between one fetus and another can result in one baby being born with a predisposition to one characteristic, the other to its opposite. One red-haired, one blonde. One could be straight and the other gay or trans later in life, for example.
Science is only a matter of evidence and probability. Any good scientist will tell you they only know what they know, nothing more. Scientists who tell you otherwise are fools or, better, not very good scientists. Most scientists are truly better referred to as artists who require more research and practice.
Some not-very-well-trained or supposed scientists insist to this day that gender identity is a behavioral or psychological disorder of some sort, treatable by psychotherapy. For example. This despite decades of conscientious psychological, medical, biological and social research to the contrary. All of this research indicates—indicates through evidence and probability—that it is a biological predisposition. What evidence and probability do these outlier scientists have on their side? Some, of course, but usually little. Not nearly as much in the face of the majority. As is often the case in countless other issues like the effects of tobacco smoking, or climate change. It isn’t a matter of being politically correct but of catching up with the evidence and being good at your profession. Some people can’t, some are not, some simply refuse to be. Quite happily, too. Yet they still manage to be heard from. I wonder why?
In this case it's about “sex,” of course. People—all people, not only scientists—have a fairly easy time distinguishing the differences between human behaviors and accepting them as a given in nearly every other sphere of life. That some people are extremely intelligent and some mentally challenged. Some have a talent for farming and others a talent for writing. I’d probably make a better farmer than writer or detective, for instance. What is wheat, by the way? Some are predisposed to be skinny, others athletic and others fat, some small and others tall.
Surprisingly, most people accept most differences but cannot, somehow, understand sexual difference beyond “male” and “female” dependent upon genitalia, even though all the wide rainbow of differences manage to manifest during early childhood, long before supposed “outside influences” could manage any change in personality or physiology.
What determines such prejudices about sexuality which skewer our attitudes about gender orientation? Morality, and that has in turn been twisted, usually, by politics or, more likely, religion. Religion tells us all these things have been predetermined by a higher power with a plan, and that this plan has a particular method which excludes certain immoral activities. This higher power—let’s call it God for brevity’s sake—may allow the immoral activity of drunkenness now and then or lawlessness now and then because they are too common and may be part of the plan, even though they cause disruption, even violence and death. But sexual “deviation”? That’s not possible, because that leads away from making babies, doesn’t it, and so cannot be part of the plan. Sex without babies can’t be part of the plan… But, wait a second. There is quite a bit of sex without babies between “normal” men and women, even outside of marriage. It is frowned upon, I know, but… They don’t treat it like a crime, do they? They don’t go around beating people up over it, do they? At least not around here. (Now, in other countries, that is exactly what they do. To the women, at least. Therefore, we are soooo much more progressive! Aren’t we? Most of us. Give yourselves a pat on the back, Judeo-Christian brothers and sisters, for not being backwards!)
This is all bullshit in the name of a deity. Progressive-expressive hate in the name of a deity. Which has a massive history. No kidding. Another good justification for removing deities of all sorts. However, removing deities will not remove hate, Stalin proved that, good old Joe comes to the rescue once again, so…that thinking, too, is a bit narrowminded. The supposed purpose of deities, recently, at least, most of them, at least, has been to remove our hate. Hasn’t been too much progress from that direction, but perhaps some. We’re only beginning to collect the data. Give it time.
Meanwhile, give The Little Drummer Boy some… You never know. He might grow up to be queer. The woman who wrote the song about him might have been… You’d have to ask her very, very close friend, but they’re both dead, now. And the dead tell no tales, so they say.
As to the living...
No comments have been added yet.
