ifeminists.com: A central gathering place and information center for individualist feminists.   -- explore the new feminism --
introduction | interaction | information

ifeminists.com > introduction > editorials

Genetic Breakthrough Undercuts Androgeny Dogma
September 9, 2003
by Carey Roberts

For years, biologists have been predicting the imminent demise of males, about 5 million years from now.

Remember your Biology 101 class? Women have two X chromosomes, and men have an X and a Y. And each chromosome contains the genes where each person's genetic storehouse is found.

The extra genetic cargo that men carry on their Y chromosome regulates their sperm production, fertility, and other biological functions.

Having that Y chromosome gives men more genetic variety than women. But having that one Y also leaves men without a back-up system. If a gene on the Y chromosome mutates, that piece of the male genetic code may disappear. That's why researchers were worrying about the longevity of the male species.

This dismal view was turned on its head with a recent article published in the journal Nature. Dr. David Page of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported on two startling discoveries.

First, scientists previously had believed the Y chromosome had only a handful of genes. But Page discovered the Y chromosome has a rich mosaic of 78 active genes.

Second, the Y chromosome contains duplicates of its own code. It doesn't have to rely on a separate back-up chromosome to repair itself -- instead, it combines with itself. There you have it, the genetic basis of the self-reliant, self-made male!

The bottom line is, the genetic code of men and women differs by 1-2%. This is the same as the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees. What fun the late night talk show hosts will have when they get hold of that one!

Galileo's discovery that the sun did not revolve around the earth stunned and angered the religious leaders of his time. Likewise, the discovery that men and women are not genetic carbon copies will confound the gender high priests of the current era.

For the past three decades, radical feminist acolytes have bowed before the goddess of androgeny. Androgeny is the belief that all sex roles are "socially constructed." Like Arnold Schwarzenegger in a tutu.

Once you accept the notion of androgeny, the phrase "opposite sex" becomes meaningless. And male and female evolve into a useless dichotomy.

So instead of "sex," feminists substitute the vacuous term "gender." While there are only two sexes -- male and female -- there can be an unlimited number of genders. The transexual folks are having a ball with that one.

This whole line of logic eventually leads to a nihilistic void where the dualities of male and female cease to exist. Men were seen as biologically and socially redundant. And fathers came to be viewed as superfluous in teaching a boy how to become a man.

Heterosexual marriage became morally equivalent to the random pairing of any two persons. And the basic building blocks of society began to wither away.

Gloria Steinem is well-known for her quip, "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." But the discovery that men and women are cut from a different biological cloth strikes at the very root of all the androgeny nonsense.

Despite years of feminist enlightment, most women are still willing to search high and low to find that someone special.

Maybe that fish needs a bicycle, after all.

ifeminists.com > home | introduction | interaction | information | about

ifeminists.com is edited by Wendy McElroy; it is made possible by support from The Independent Institute and members like you.