Skip to main content

Sexual Dimorphism and You

It is indeed unfortunate that science has become a tool of leftists in many areas, especially regarding sex. This is in defiance of what people have known for thousands of years: men and women are different. In recent years, people have been increasingly rebellious against God's created order.

Medical science does not care about how someone feels regarding sex and gender. This and other research shows what people have known all along.
The Happy LoversGustave Courbet, 1844
It is frustrating — even infuriating — that this recent trend of establishing genders because someone feels like it. Most people, including those in medical science, know that there are only two genders. You can tell by looking most of the time because of build, bone structure, facial characteristics, and so on. Yes, there are exceptions where a man may be more delicate and a woman can rassle a bear. Sometimes female lions have manes and males have none. But those do not negate the fact that only male and female exist. Someone may say that what they feel is all that matters. Yeah, and the mark will get you through, it's alright.

When filling out the HCFA claim  and other medical forms in these here United States, there are only the male and female options. They give neither hoot nor holler how someone feels that day. Medicines, hormones, many other factors are important based on how God made a person. Even though people can be hit with massive fines or even be fired (as well as accused of committing a hate crime), sometimes deniers of science are not making an impression on science.
Science knows nothing of make-believe genders based on how people feel. Researchers only speak of males and females.
“Sexual dimorphism” is a scientific term that describes phenotypic differences between males and females. . .  One thing is clear: scientists speak of sexual dimorphism (two forms), not trimorphism, quadrimorphism, or multi-morphism.
. . . 
Men and women, furthermore, exhibit a substantial degree of sexual dimorphism. Secondary sexual characteristics begin to become prominent after puberty. The human race has accepted this and lived with it (and has celebrated the differences) ever since creation. Nobody ever thought to question this normality until radical liberals in recent decades decided to celebrate certain individuals who are confused about their biology. Instead of helping these individuals get over their confusion and become comfortable with their sex, they are defying nature. . . 
Activists are claiming that biological sex has nothing to do with “gender” which is socially conditioned, is fluid, and can be changed at whim. It’s getting dangerous. Some government leaders are letting immature children and teenagers be given life-altering drugs and surgeries, without parental consent, that will permanently alter their bodies—decisions they may later regret.
To read the entire article, which includes examples of research that don't pay no nevermind to what made-up "gender" someone feels like on a particular day, click on "Males and Females Are Real. All Others Are Fake."


Popular posts from this blog

Four-Legged Snake in the News Again

Writing about sciency things can be both fascinating and exasperating. The fascinating part is for those of us who like science, but the exasperating part is doing updates. New discoveries are a part of science, especially regarding origins. Darwin's disciples are continually attempting to rewrite history to accommodate observed evidence and still preserve their narrative of atheistic naturalism. Excitement over a supposed four-legged snake fossil slithered back ( which I posted about earlier ) and disputes continue. Tetrapodophis amplectus , Wikimedia Commons / Ghedoghedo  ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) This whole thing was sensationalized from the get-go to promote fish-to-fool evolution and millions of years. Indeed, some important facts about the fossil were not even discussed. It "sheds light" on evolution. Secularists think it would be (insert mouth click here like Cousin Eddie) really nice, but they still have nothing upon which to base that claim. Mayhaps if they realized that

The Secular Science Industry Propagandizes Same-Sex Attraction

We are told that the peer review process in the secular science industry is a method of providing truth and accuracy, and ensuring correct procedures were followed in submitted papers. That sounds like a mighty good idea, but peer-reviewed papers are often bad,  downright fraudulent, or hoaxes . Homosexual activists passed a peer-reviewed paper in  Science  magazine, but that should not have happened. It was fake science research, and  Science  was embarrassed by the fraudulent tactics. The secular science industry did not seem to learn from this. Assembled with images from Open Clipart After the Science  humiliation and the "We're so sorry if we've caused you any pain, Uncle Albert, and boy, does this hurt the credibility of science itself in the public eye" schtick, the disastrous Obergefell decision by the US Supreme Court struck. (That is one reason I believe we're under divine Judgment .) After that ruling, the militant Gaystapo cut loose with harassing peopl

Doing Evil in the Name of Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen (Material added 24 February 2024.) When Christians point out that the mass murderers of the 20th century were atheists (Hitler was a pantheist who believed nature was "god"), misotheists with things like, "Prove to me that Stalin said he did atrocities in the name of atheism!" Not in those words, but they hated the God of the Bible and had no consistent moral foundation to inconvenience their consciences. In a similar way, one would have a difficult time finding a scientist who says, "I am using science for evil!" Scientists are not blank slates driven by data. They are as corrupt or virtuous as everyone else, subject to operating within their worldviews. Open Clipart / Olga Bikmullina Professing Christians should be honoring God and following what he has revealed in the Bible. Those who are unregenerate (John 3:6-7, 2 Cor. 5:17) are unable to discern the things of God (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Rom. 12:2). We cannot expect