Through Thorns to Chromosomes: Intersex as a New Phase of LGBTIQ Revolution
“Gender debate”, “Gender wars”, “Terf wars” … in the course of the last few years, some of the crucial problems of the Western world got verbalized into metaphors that never quite surpass the standards set by recent episodes of Star Wars franchise. Regrettably, quite similar evaluation can be applied to quality of arguments – above all those proposed by the losing side in the clash over the so-called “gender ideology”; one is left flabbergasted by superficiality of the insight into nature of the LGBTIQ revolution on behalf of its supposed opponents, even those who participated in its earlier phases.
Now, with an advent of a new phase in the process of unfolding of LGBTIQ acronym, this already becomes something of an afterthought.
The Olympic Games in Paris publicly, and in grand style, inaugurated the penultimate letter of the LGBTIQ; a letter that stands for something against which both conservative opponents and LGBTIQ dissidents have not only no arguments, but one can even propose that they, while opposing “gender ideology”, developed some arguments against themselves on its behalf.
This is the letter ‘I’ which stands for “Intersex”.
Redefining sex
Whereas at the time when this text is being written public sphere is ablaze with cases of “intersex persons” kicking around female boxing contestants at Olympic Games, mainstreaming of Intersex was waiting in the wings for quite some time now. All of the sudden, both feminist and conservative opponents of “gender ideology” are trying to square the circle of whether certain quite mannish women in the ring are men or women, losing themselves, as we shall see further, in an infinite downward spiral of their contradictory arguments.
However, the outlines of “intersex revolution” were quite simple to deduce far before the new, insidious letter of LGBTIQ acronym hit the streets.
In the following we’ll provide these outlines, taking as a point of departure an article by Claire Ainsworth, published in Nature way back in 2015.
Having in mind that demands of exclusive political rights of the letter ‘I’ claim scientific basis, my argument that those demands, as indeed all LGBTIQ demands, are based on nothing also has scientific basis. However, the science I explicitly rely upon is not biology, which is supposedly the subject of Ainsworth’s article, but metaphysics which is implicitly, yet at the same time unequivocally, present throughout its passages.
Claire Ainsworth endeavors to leave an impression that her expose about intersex state, as a form of natural sexuality, is being based on biology. However this is not, and cannot be the case. The true basis of all of her propositions, let us say in advance, is one fundamental, unspoken principal claim:
That which can be has absolute, unquestionable primacy upon that which is.
In other words, and applied to the issue at hand, it can be formulated in the following manner:
If somebody can be intersex, then everyone is intersex.
Metaphysics posing as natural science
Ainsworth is working on unspoken assumption that possibility of something is sufficient reason to assert it is existent and, eo ipso, normative, whereas anomaly, as a negative normative qualification, has no existence at all. As metaphysics is concerned with determinations of being in general, and possibility is one of those, her argument is fully metaphysical, only wearing the lose garb of selected propositions from the sphere of biology.
Article at hand is hence a specimen of metaphysical/ontological argument buried in the jargon of modern natural science, quite characteristic for LGBTIQ advocates. All forays in “biologizing” are nothing but an attempt to muddle the waters and complicate the simplicity of inverted metaphysical/ontological principle lurking at the bottom.
Claire Ainsworth’s purpose is to present intersex state as a phase in sexual development which, solely by the fact that it can occur in nature, provides the basis for natural, i.e. necessary, right to political identity.
There is, however, one further issue which Ainsworth accidentally clarifies, so we’ll point it out as a footnote.
Namely, one aspect of LGBTIQ politics, which without exception causes stir, and often serves as a foundation for conservative counterarguments against LGBTIQ demands, is that those demands include providing LGBTIQ activists with open access to children. If we are prepared to, sine ira et studio, understand what is the true nature of the letter “I” in the acronym, then the true role of children in LGBTIQ politics comes to the fore.
Ainsworth writes:
”It is obvious that two sexes are physically different, but this is not so at the beginning of life.”
Here, author doesn’t refer to childhood, but to prenatal phase in human development. The implications are quite easy to draw into light.
Don’t blame it on pedophiles
The reason, why children rank high in the hierarchy of target groups for conversion into LGBTIQ has nothing to do with pedophilia, as conservatives and their allies constantly propose. The children are simply closer to the possible, as opposed to actual man, than the adults: both in psychological and biological sense, child is a far softer plaster than an adult. Nevertheless, rift between LGB and TIQ parts of the acronym is presented precisely as a struggle against transgender “groomers”, resting on assumption that through letter T the movement of morally immaculate human beings was infiltrated by pedophiles.
However, the matter is significantly more prosaic.
The purpose of the letter T was to penetrate deeper into human sexuality, and in order to pull that off, it needed softer human material to mould it in its own image, than the one required by advocates of abortion on demand and same-sex marriage: one is hard pressed to convince already developed adult person that his or her gender identity is fluid and that sexual identity has to be adjusted to it, legally and/or medically, than a child. The fact that quite a large number of fetishists and even pedophiles used transgender revolution for their own ends is quite beside the point, except as a useful excuse for LGB schismatics to avoid facing reality.
LGBTIQ is a system produced by considerable intelligence, which is never to be confused with lack of it on behalf of those who willingly enter its cobweb. Hence, every attempt at analysis should stick to logical determinations of each letter in the acronym. What they all have in common is the purpose. LGBTIQ is always and everywhere concerned primarily with human reproduction, which is the final cause of all sexuality and everything that revolves around it, i.e.: sexuality is about procreation and not about recreation, whereas the purpose of pedophilia is a perverse recreation. In this respect it has no place in LGBTIQ, save perhaps as a perverse accessory, tolerated but inconsequent.
What is Intersex?
And what, then, is political intersex? Simply put, it is a further phase in manipulation of human beings and their sexuality, where initially purely possible and thus fluid identity is not founded on gender, but sexual spectrum. Sex is being understood as pure (micro) biological given, and gender ceases to be an applicable qualification.
In this respect, political demands of the letter “I” will be founded on the spectrum of possibilities inside the human organism, and not its personal superstructure, i.e. gender, as was done by the letter “T”, where both extreme and ideal case is, as it seems, pre-natal phase in the development of human sexuality.
Intersex condition is, supposedly, irrefutable evidence that two separate and immutable sexes are illusion coming to pass because, a) possibility was neglected in favor of actuality, and, b) the nature has been sharply separated from anomaly of nature. Moreover, the illusion stuck for the whole known history because people tend to cling to the obvious, implies Clair Ainsworth in her article:
“These discoveries do not sit well in a world in which sex is still defined in binary terms. Few legal systems allow for any ambiguity in biological sex, and a person’s legal rights and social status can be heavily influenced by whether their birth certificate says male or female.”
“ (…)The main problem with a strong dichotomy is that there are intermediate cases that push the limits and ask us to figure out exactly where the dividing line is between males and females (…) “And that’s often a very difficult problem, because sex can be defined a number of ways.”
Let us note that the wording of these passages already provides a framework for a reader to be misled by the author, a subtle sleight of hand – two sexes are referred to as two extremes inside the binary model.
However, this is a trap: as the nature of sexuality is indeed intrinsically binary, there is no room for extremes – if something is defined as binary, then there are no intermediary stages between A and B; if there are no intermediary stages, there are no extremes, too.
This simple fact is something Ainsworth seeks to sideline, but not by relying on the facts of biology. Instead, she’s making an assumption which no special science can make.
LGBTIQ metaphysics
This assumption is a metaphysical one, in the sense that general principle of differentiating potentiality and actuality has been applied to sexuality, inverting the natural order: LGBTIQ is metaphysics directed downward and not upward. Namely, traditionally, metaphysics transcends the obvious by observing it in the light of its principles and causes; its natural question is, therefore: “Why are things such as they are?”
However, metaphysics employed by LGBTIQ sinks below the obvious, posing the question: “why things exist at all, instead of nothingness, and further, since it doesn’t recognize any transcendent cause that would limit arbitrary possibilities, how could things be made different?”
Traditionally, metaphysics has only one limit and that is reality itself: all that is real, actual, cannot at the same time exist and not exist.
LGBTIQ metaphysics is not limited by reality, because, by taking the possibility as the original principle, it works on assumption that what is possible can at the same time and in the same sense exist and not exist.
The fact that human being is either of male or female sex is something actual, but, in temporal sequence, first there was a time when this fact was only possible; if the possibility is primary – and from this angle it certainly is – then sexual binary has neither necessary cause, nor sufficient reason: sex is a possibility that can be actualized in any given way and in this sense the sexuality is not binary, but spectrum between two hypothetical extremes.
When someone says: “Woman is adult human female”, as TERFS and their conservative allies have been chanting for years, the advocates of ‘I’ have a simple answer: “Man is potentially adult human female”. Both sides will invoke biology, but metaphysics of modern science at the foundation of biology will justify the latter, because potential trumps the actual. As Intersex came into spotlight with the Paris Olympics, practically overnight, the definition of woman, used by TERFS and conservatives to beat transgender activists over their heads, was amended into “Woman is adult human with XX chromosomes”. This was, of course, because gold medalist in woman boxing, Imane Khelif is an “intersex person” who, to an uncertain extent, possesses both male and female sexual features. As TERFS and conservatives don’t recognize the existence of gender, as distinct from biological sex, there is no way they can unequivocally call Khelif a man.
Escape into Zoo
Well, let us say then that even the Zoo will soon cease to be safe haven for feminists, new atheists and other anachronisms of LGBTIQ revolution. Their flight into biology – more to the point: into animalism – is delivering them straight into the clutches of the letter ‘I’. Whereas the letter ‘T’, or “transgender” pushed LGBTIQ dissidents into biology, simply correcting their assertion: “Woman is an adult human female” with an addendum: “or someone else, identifying as woman”, Intersex will finally finish them off precisely there where they took refuge. If we observe the way in which Claire Ainsworth defines intersex, it becomes clear that there is no escape from LGBTIQ. Intersex used to be understood as DSD or Disorder of Sex Development, but now it is amended into Differences of Sex Development, rendering anomaly into political right. Furthermore, with intersex sex becomes a spectrum on all levels:
“Conditions such as these meet the medical definition of DSDs, in which an individual’s anatomical sex seems to be at odds with their chromosomal or gonadal sex. But they are rare — affecting about 1 in 4,500 people. Some researchers now say that the definition should be widened to include subtle variations of anatomy such as mild hypospadias, in which a man’s urethral opening is on the underside of his penis rather than at the tip.”
“The most inclusive definitions point to the figure of 1 in 100 people having some form of DSD (…)But beyond this, there could be even more variation. Since the 1990s, researchers have identified more than 25 genes involved in DSDs, and next-generation DNA sequencing in the past few years has uncovered a wide range of variations in these genes that have mild effects on individuals, rather than causing DSDs. “Biologically, it’s a spectrum,” says Vilain.”
Metaphysics, not biology
If one is not led astray by listing of all imaginable anomalies that can come to pass in the pre-natal phase of human development, it is clear that Ainsworth considers human being to be pure possibility, actualized by the random combination of biological components.
She is quite consequent, granted her premises, because if human being is purely possible being, unconditioned by the final cause of its development, then its initial state, upon which the definition of humanity is based, is, ideally, pure nothingness. And from nothing comes, not something, but anything.
All the noise about new discoveries in biology serves only to obfuscate metaphysical argument according to which the man comes to pass from nothing and that it is legitimate to direct that development into arbitrary, non-binary, direction.
Of course, one can hardly assume that unborn intersexual persons, hungry for their political rights, will march on pride parade – it is instead necessary to show that same nothingness that makes possible manipulation of sexual spectrum in prenatal phase, exists also in adult individual. What else to propose as proof, then experiments on mice:
“According to some scientists, that balance can shift long after development is over. Studies in mice suggest that the gonad teeters between being male and female throughout life, its identity requiring constant maintenance.”
Intersex and LGBTIQ schism
The letter ‘T’ introduced an element of violence into LGBTIQ revolution; with the letter ‘I’ it will probably become fundamental for accomplishing political goals of “intersex persons”. Of course, once people are led to believe that there is no such thing as “human nature”, then the very notion of violence towards its various aspects becomes meaningless: manipulations of the sexual spectrum from that point of view are only recombination of various possibilities. When that becomes common practice, sky will certainly be no limit; neither literally, nor figuratively.
Violence is activity contrary to the natural activity of given being, therefore the very definition doesn’t make sense any more, if there is no intrinsic nature, but only the spectrum of random possibilities.
There are dogs that cannot be trained not to eat their own feces. Defeated old guard of LGBTIQ movement, i.e. radical feminists, homosexual rights activists and their allies seem to belong to that species.
Their first reaction to public coming out of “intersex persons” on Olympic Games was as predictable, as absurd and as futile as one could have expected. Instead of chanting “Woman is an adult human female”, the new mantra became just “XX” signifying female chromosome combination. Flashing X gesture with hands or fingers is now a sign of defiance, and there are already caps and T-shirts with “XX” insignia.
What those people don’t, and apparently cannot, understand is that by reducing women to chromosome Tetris, they just proved the intersex point – in the future sexual identity of all human beings has to be reduced to micro biological spectrum.
Simply put, there are no more men and woman, but only microbiological building blocks. And activists who consider themselves to be in the vanguard of women’s rights just affirmed that unequivocally.
This however is not coming from natural stupidity – not that it is lacking in those circles – but a sort of mental darkness holding sway on all people who accept anything offered by LGBTIQ. In the LGBTIQ universe everybody is “hero just for a day”, and then he has to pick up the tab. All kinds of TERFS, classical liberals, conservatives, gays and lesbians who oppose further process of remodeling human beings through political Transgender and Intersex are simply bio fuel for its engines now kicking in the next gear. And no matter how well one argues with them, proving them that they should simply step out of it all, they will never do that. Hence, they deserve everything they get and, judging by the way how aggressively intersex is pushed now, they’ll get plenty.
Let us then grab some popcorn and watch them being eaten by the monster they helped create.
Branko Malić
Kali Tribune runs on reader’s support. If you found the above informative and/or enlightening, consider supporting us.
