commentary

any people seem not to understand why we're hearing all these strange terms like ‘LGBTQ’, ‘gay’, and ‘climate denier.’ It is true that these terms serve as rallying cries, shibboleths for people to prove they belong to an ingroup, and cudgels to use against their opponents. But they also serve a deeper purpose. If you take a common term and change its meaning, you can change how people think.

It is not just madness. They want you to believe that sexuality and sexual differences are not real, but constructs of society. If they can get you to say it, whether by pressuring you to say that the former guy from the Wheaties box is a woman or to admit that a boy could be trapped in a girl's body, you are halfway to believing it. It's like when an interrogator tortures a prisoner into saying there are five lights instead of four. The mind internalizes the idea and the prisoner gradually accepts that ideology and force, not reason, are the arbiters of truth and someone else has the authority to define what you believe.

M13mp18 DNA vector map

To appease them on this issue just to get along, as some have done, is more than to accommodate an unreasonable but silly demand; it is to admit that someone else has the right to control what we believe about fundamental facts of nature. That is why they scream so loud when people call the former guy a ‘him’. They want the power to make others see five lights.

But why, you might ask, would anyone want to deny biology? It would be like denying gravity or the existence of oxygen. Race, sex, IQ, and fetus are all terms that have biological meaning. They determine what our future will be. The Left must deny biology because their goal is to change the future—to reorganize society so its focus is no longer the individual, but the collective.

One might be tempted to say, to bastardize the expression of W.F. Buckley, that biology stands athwart leftism, yelling ‘Stop.’ But it would be inaccurate; the Left is trying to steal biology just as they stole Oriental studies and carved out vast chunks of sociology and climate science. It would be their biggest prize. (As an aside, I confess I never understood Buckley's expression. Wouldn't a conservative be inclined to beckon history to return, not stop it? But I guess it depends on which way you're facing.)

Scientific researchers who care only about truth (and who, when they think about politics at all, regard it as the realm of mud-slinging, character assassination and half-truths, the realm where the wrathful gurgle, slothful and sullen, in the black mud of the Styx, as Dante, probably referring to what we today call Internet trolls, put it)—these researchers are discovering more and more differences between male and female brains. The mechanism by which males and females experience pain is different. Their brain lateralization is different. Their left-right vs. front-back connectivity is different. There are profound gender differences (gender meaning ‘male and female’—it is a valuable term!) in how memory works and how their brains process information. These cannot be explained by social conditioning; they are real, biologically determined, and innate.

Biology has proved another inconvenient fact: life begins at conception. This has not been controversial in science for many decades. Conception is the point where the chromosomes from the two parents come together to produce a unique individual. Those who argue otherwise are denying well established biological facts. In the language of the Left, they are biology deniers.

Less well established, but gaining ground, is the idea that just as a fetus is not just a big clump of cells, a society is not just a big clump of people. Societies, too, are part of our biology—vast extensions of our genome. They co-evolved with us. Most of what it takes for a society to exist, and much of how it works, is written implicitly in our DNA sequences—or perhaps, as we are discovering, as epigenetic changes on the proteins, called histones, which regulate DNA transcription.

Society has still not come fully to terms with the realization, from Darwin to the Pill, that we are biological entities and that biology, in the name of survival, trumps ethics. Soon it will be considered unethical not to change the human genome: who would stand in the way of curing Down syndrome or sickle cell anemia when it would be easy to do so? We will soon be faced with the choice of deciding forever what it means to be human. If biology is co-opted by the Left, they will be the ones who decide, and our future will be written by ideologues.

Sooner or later reprogramming of our DNA will become as commonplace as taking an aspirin. Unlike aspirin, it will not stop at curing diseases—it will be used to change forever what we are. If we continue to deny biological truth our priceless genome will turn into a political battleground, and there will be no turning back.