The Scottish Parliament has just passed the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. Its advocates hail this legislation as a key milestone in our ongoing progress towards a fairer society, by literally inventing a new taxonomy of social constructs divorced from biological reality. As human beings, we have some immutable traits, which result from millions of years of evolution. We are a sexually reproducing species. Only women can give birth to new human beings and only men can impregnate them. Even in-vitro fertilisation does not change these fundamental facts of life. It merely enables conception without conventional coitus. Whether you like it or not, every natural child has a father and a mother. In theory, asexual reproduction, as in monozygotic twins, still relies on prior art, i.e. sexual reproduction via mitosis, involving a union of gametes, is still a prerequisite for subsequent meiosis. Stem cell reproduction techniques replicate sexual fertilisation through in-vitro gametogenesis or IVG, but does away with the need for a donor mother and father. The coming human GMO revolution, as Henry T. Greely foresaw in his 2016 book The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction, will separate the roles of erotic desire and biological sex from procreation and thus the genetic bonds between different generations of the same family tree.

However, this future is not inevitable. Natural procreation is still very much the life blood of modern civilisation, but for how long? With uncertainties about the long-term sustainability of our current high-tech way of life and the automation of most manual and clerical jobs, there is no shortage of children, only very imbalanced age pyramids with more over 65s than under 18s in most of the world outside Africa, the Middle East and parts of Central Asia. Despite rapid declines in fertility, we have never had so many human beings. Yet the world today’s youngsters will inherit will be one of demographic decline with dwindling opportunities for all but the most talented, which will only boost demand for genetic enhancement among the rich and discourage natural procreation among the growing welfare classes. Let us make no mistake, gender recognition legislation has nothing to do with helping vulnerable individuals struggling with their feelings about their assigned anatomy. It is about redefining one of the most fundamental aspects of natural humanity to facilitate a transition to transhumanism that will inevitably place our future in the hands of a clique of bioengineers.

The Abolition of Womanhood

The whole concept of women’s rights only makes sense if we can define what a woman is. Many woke politicians now struggle with this task. If we reduce womanhood to a set of personality and behavioural traits on a subjective spectrum with masculinity, anyone can claim gender-based privileges, which evolved over millennia to accommodate the distinctive roles we play in reproduction. The redefinition of womanhood, as appeared recently in the Cambridge Dictionary as a new entry under woman, is a semantic assault not only on biological females, but on the once untouchable institution of motherhood. The new definition of gender as a neurological concept with over a hundred subcategories warranting special labels and pronouns builds on the equally vague concept of neurodiversity. The well-funded transgender rights movement with its myriad charities and NGOs is really an outgrowth of the wider mental health industrial complex. Until recently, psychiatrists considered gender dysphoria a mental disorder often comorbid with other personality syndromes, not least with the ill-defined autistic spectrum. Prof. Simon Baron Cohen popularised the notion of the extreme male brain on one end of a spectrum from masculine systemisers to female empathisers. Yet this is a gross oversimplification of the differences between male and female brains. Human brains are incredibly versatile and responsive to environmental stimuli. Sex-based specialisation evolved to help us survive. Women need greater awareness of social dynamics, something we now call emotional intelligence, both to choose reliable partners and to raise the next generation. By contrast men can often succeed better in life by pursuing practical tasks or technical endeavours at which they can excel and more important contribute better to the survival of their extended family. While we may associate some behaviours more with masculinity or femininity, there are many ways to be a man or a woman. Some men thrive on social interaction and enjoy flaunting their sportsmanship or physical prowess. Others are more reserved and cerebral. If we used the simplistic empathising-systemising spectrum, many successful alpha males would fall more on the empathising side, while many shy conscientious young women, juggling the onerous duties of motherhood and an intellectually demanding career, might tend more towards the systemising end. It is hard to discern any strict correlation between multifaceted personality profiles and culturally sensitive sexual roles, except when it comes to the heterosexual dating game that favours socially confident individuals attractive to the opposite sex. Numerous studies have shown heterosexual women still prefer manly men and their male suitors still appreciate female beauty and tenderness. Unsurprisingly people seek complementary partners who can make up for their weaknesses. These instinctive attitudes are likely to change in a world without natural procreation where sex is demoted to drug-fuelled erotic exchanges enhanced by cosmetic surgery. Genitalia may become expendable accessories rather than gifts of mother nature. Alternatively, haptic feedback devices could simulate erotic feelings in atomised individuals and thereby do away with the need for more expensive sex robots. Biological sex would be a mere detail assigned at birth, but one’s sexuality and gender identity would be infinitely malleable.

The coming battle is not just over intellectual freedom and bodily autonomy, but the future of humanity itself.