Humanity Unmoored from Biological Reproduction

Is sex binary? The question is almost as philosophical as "What is a woman?"

Implied in a debate co-hosted by The MIT Free Speech Alliance and Adam Smith Society on April 27, 2024, is the necessity to delve into the deepest levels of understanding about these questions in our current era. While reproductive sex and women are undergoing rapid deconstruction in Western societies—in law, language, institutions, and materiality—resulting in young people experiencing intense dissociation from biological reality and their sexed bodies, and doctors are cavalierly assaulting their vital reproductive systems and sterilizing them, we in Western cultures find ourselves trapped in the cul-de-sac of gender ideology that we've been navigating for a decade.

The debate at MIT posited the following proposition: "Resolved, that sex is biological and binary, and gender identity is no substitute for sex in social policy."

Alex Byrne, Professor of Philosophy at MIT and author of "Trouble with Gender: Sex Facts, Gender Fictions," and Holly Lawford-Smith, Associate Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Melbourne and author of "Gender-Critical Feminism," argued in favor of the proposition. Alice Dreger, historian and author of "Galileo's Middle Finger," and Aaron Kimberly, Executive Director of the Gender Dysphoria Alliance and co-host of the Transparency podcast, posing as a man, argued against the proposition. Nadine Strossen, professor emerita at New York Law School and former president of the ACLU, served as the moderator.

The co-hosts took no official position on the debate proposition. Their stated goal was to provide a model of vigorous yet civil discussion for both the MIT community and the wider public.

This discussion, which I urge my readers to watch (video below), exemplifies the narrow confines within which discussions about the gender industry are allowed to unfold. The debate remained within the framework of one group's rights versus another's, and whether an inclusive balance can be reached in society between them. Put another way, it was debated as to whether reality can coexist with anti-reality, which is constantly shifting. Furthermore, the getting-very-old question, "Is reality real?" was thoroughly exhausted.

Though overall, I found the discussion enraging, I must confess to having laughed at various intervals at the mental gymnastics we humans love to subject ourselves to. Watching those on the affirming side of the debate try to pin down Alice Dreger into a solid point of view was akin to watching two adults attempt to wrestle a 300-pound, wet tuna.

I think Alice Dreger will win my Transhumanist Handmaiden of the Year award, even though it is only April. I was disappointed when those attempting to affirm the argument got entangled in her ridiculous narrative of disorders of sexual development constituting other sexes and ended up debating chromosomes, hormones, gametes, and third categories of sex, and third category sexed spaces and sports.

Neither side of the debate discussed why sex is being compartmentalized into parts when our sexed humanity is a wholly functioning system. It is an integrated biological system that is integrally connected to, and very much interdependent on, a much larger biological system (the entire planet—HELLO!), the whole of which continuously reproduces life through reproductive sex. The further we stray from this reality, the more reliant we become on technology, and the more confused we become about who and what we are.

Without a lifelong attachment to the techno-medical complex, Aaron Kimberly, an adult human female trying to pass as an adult human male, does not get to live out her dream of fooling people into believing she is a man. If we allow these individuals and their mental gymnastics to subjugate our sense of reality to conform to their comfort levels, we frankly deserve the consequences.

Some of the questions that should be asked about the gender industry today, that weren't addressed in this debate, and are almost never raised in debates on this issue, revolve around why sex is being deconstructed. Why is society being rapidly rearranged for the comfort of a few, at the expense of the many? Even if there were a third sex (there isn't), or several sexes (there aren't), we predominantly reproduce—currently—through sexual dimorphism: fully functioning male systems and fully functioning female systems copulate to create the next generation. Why is this fundamental process being so utterly disrespected and disregarded, beyond comprehension? And, my favorite question, which always winds up answering all the others, is who is funding this deconstruction process?

There are zero reasons to deconstruct this process or to organize society away from the male and female sexes, which have efficiently functioned for billions of years of evolution, and hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution, unless there is an intention to introduce another method of reproduction, or the corporate state aims to create something other than humans (one does not exclude the other). Enter: advancements in technological reproduction, without coitus and without women, which are being researched, along with other technologies like genetic manipulations and AI, that will alter us as a species.

Aaron Kimberly's struggles in a society that is still homophobic, even more so now than it was ten years ago due to the absurdity propagated in conferences like the one hosted by MIT, do not concern financial entities like Black Rock, which will withdraw funding from anyone who challenges the nonsense of gender ideology. Fracturing our sense of ourselves and our connections to the natural world, in what amounts to a biological nanosecond of evolution, because people are uncomfortable in their sexed bodies, because sexism and homophobia persist, is junk philosophy and the most extreme form of gaslighting I have ever seen perpetrated against the human population, for a corporate coup. This coup is advancing society toward a technological usurpation of reproductive sex and allowing technological intrusions into our biology that will radically change us as a species. Why is this being permitted, should be at the forefront of every debate, every interview, every hearing, about every bill that is passed that furthers this agenda.

If we continue to ask the wrong questions and succumb to this tyranny, attempting to appease those who will not be satisfied until the human community is fractured beyond recognition, we will remain uncomfortably ensnared in dead-end conversations, like the one at MIT, masquerading as robust debate.

Debate: Is Sex Binary? Co-hosted by the MIT Free Speech Alliance & Adam

---

This research depends on the generosity of readers like you. If you like what you are reading on the 11th-hour blog, please consider a donation or paid subscription in support. Use this link for donations. Thank you.