Is gender a social construct?

So, back to sexuality... there are scientific, biological factors, but what about spiritual factors? What is attraction? Does every man oogle every woman? No. There is that certain something, and it is attraction. And so in a spiritual sphere it isn't material biological factors but the spiritual nature that determine attraction. And who is anyone to say what you feel is wrong? So, people know that love is that way... and so it is accepted even though it don't make sense, and people say: 'to each his own'.

And what about mis-matched lovers? Where someone will say: 'I don't see what she sees in that guy'. I doesn't make sense to the senses, but still the attraction is there, and so there is a spiritual side to this. And if we look at it logically, you can come up with theories, but that's like coming up with a cure for love.


Metrist, I was wondering of if you could define how you understand spirituality? If I understood you correctly, you consider attraction to another person to be a manifestation of spirituality?

And have you had a chance to read any of the books recommended on the forum? If yes, which ones?

Based on what I've learned from the books recommended and assigned here, attraction is not really a spiritual concept, at least in most cases. And it's hard to talk about spiritually when referring to "mis-matched lovers".

Who we are attracted to is rather a result of childhood trauma and early programing. "Mis-matched lovers" is a perfect arrangement for generating lots of suffering for those lovers, their children and those around them too. Their offspring then goes on and repeats the cycle, passing it on to their own children - and so on, and on, and on.

Have you had a chance to read The Wave?

In Volume 8 titled Debugging the Universe you'll find a case study of a woman stuck in a relationship with someone who fits your concept of a "mis-matched lover". It would be useful for you to have a read through it too see how we are designed to be addicted to emotions generated by such relationships, simply because they generate food for 4D STS.

Here's just a small excerpt from the chapter that addresses the dynamics of mismatched relationships in a nutshell:

The Wave Chapter 70: You Take the High Road and I’ll Take the Low Road and I’ll Be in Scotland Afore Ye!

And, we also see an example of what I already described: an addiction to the whole reward system of fighting and making up. People are programmed to suffer because it feels so good when it’s over. It is almost a deliberate creation of risk so that the rush of dopamine can come when the danger has passed.

Now, the most interesting thing is that it was clearly not apparent to this woman that her very life and relationships had also programmed her children to the same behavior, i.e. manipulation and addiction.


There's also the problem of psychopathy and how this affects the quality of their or victims' emotional life. There's nothing spiritual about such relationships and they certainly fall under the category you referred to as "mis-matched lovers".

As far as further reading is concerned, you may be interested in this list:

Comprehensive Guide for the Serious Reader (non members)
You'll also find frequent references on the forum to the "Big Five" psychology books, which are extremely helpful tools towards acquiring a basic understanding of your own "machine". Should you decide to explore those books at some point in the future, Laura suggests that they be read in the following order: The Myth of Sanity by Martha Stout; The Narcissistic Family by Stephanie Donaldson-Pressman & Robert M. Pressman; Trapped in the Mirror by Elan Golomb; Unholy Hungers by Barbara Hort; and Character Disturbance by George K. Simon.


Followed by newer recommendations, such as those:

The Strange Order of Things, by Antonio Damasio
"The Dopaminergic Mind" by Fred Previc

This should give you a pretty good idea about the work we do here and why your take on attraction as a manifestation of the spiritual aspect may not be entirely correct.
 

Months after Twitter’s CEO Jack Dorsey said his platform didn’t take sides, his platform is not only taking sides but becoming more progressive and Orwellian than ever.
Despite its CEO telling Congress the contrary a few months ago, Twitter has amped up its pattern of politically one-sided application of its terms of service.

Last week, the social media giant permanently banned Meghan Murphy, a writer based in British Columbia, for critiquing transgender ideology online. The platform repeatedly suspended her account for this then ultimately banned her last week, saying such behavior “violated [its] rules against hateful conduct.” Here’s a sampling of tweets Twitter required Murphy to delete as “objectionable” before allowing her access back to her account:

0d2ac7718bfeafb5eab606327a3d01ae.png


At Feminist Current, Murphy writes about her ban:

What is insane to me, though, is that while Twitter knowingly permits graphic pornography and death threats on the platform (I have reported countless violent threats, the vast majority of which have gone unaddressed), they won’t allow me to state very basic facts, such as ‘men aren’t women.’ This is hardly an abhorrent thing to say, nor should it be considered ‘hateful’ to ask questions about the notion that people can change sex, or ask for explanations about transgender ideology. These are now, like it or not, public debates — debates that are impacting people’s lives, as legislation and policy are being imposed based on gender identity ideology…

On Twitter, Murphy regularly engaged in debates about sex, gender, and women’s studies. In fact, she holds a master’s degree in the field from Simon Fraser University. In other words: She isn’t stupid or a troll. She’s an educated, opinionated woman, seeking to use her Twitter platform to develop her understanding of the topics and to engage others in debate.

“In August, I was locked out of my Twitter account for the first time,” Murphy writes, explaining the timeline. “I was told that I had ‘violated [Twitter’s] rules against hateful conduct’ and that I had to delete four tweets in order to gain access to my account again. In this case, the tweets in question named Lisa Kreut, a trans-identified male.”

Her tweets called out Kreut for trying to boycott and defund Vancouver Rape Relief. Twitter didn’t care what the feud was about or that it was legitimate and fact-based. They only cared about the fact that Kreut was transgender and decided to define disputes about transgenderism as “hate speech.”

Twitter also recently banned “deadnaming”—the practice of referring to a trans person by his or her legal name, or birth name. This also likely played a role in Murphy’s suspensions and ultimate ban.


Murphy continues in the article:

I deleted the tweets in question, then publicly complained on Twitter, saying, ‘Hi @Twitter, I’m a journalist. Am I no longer permitted to report facts on your platform?’ I was promptly locked out of my account again, told I had to delete the tweet in question, and suspended for 12 hours. I appealed the suspension, as it seemed clear to me that my tweets were not ‘hateful,’ but simply stated the truth, but received no response from Twitter.

Murphy said her account was locked again on November 15. She was told she must delete tweets that read: “Women aren’t men,” and “How are transwomen not men? What is the difference between a man and a transwoman?” Murphy deleted the tweets to regain access to her account. However, at this point, she was angry and tweeted:

“This is f—— bull—, @twitter. I’m not allowed to say that men aren’t women or ask questions about the notion of transgenderism at all anymore? That a multi-billion dollar company is censoring basic facts and silencing people who ask questions about this dogma is insane.”

This tweet went viral, garnering at least 20,000 likes. ThenTwitter locked her account again and demanded she conform—I mean, delete it. Following these suspensions, Murphy was then permanently banned. Her fans were disappointed, to say the least.


It appears Murphy was banned solely due to repeatedly pointing out that men cannot be transformed into women simply because they want to call themselves women. This is a fact at best, and Murphy’s opinion at worst. Murphy refused to bend to the progressive view that the transgender issue is now nearly as sacrosanct as abortion. She was not banned for hateful conduct or speech but for failing to fall in line with the progressive agenda Twitter embraces.

Of course, Twitter is a private company and can do whatever it likes. But they have billed themselves as an open platform, one that welcomes debate, ideas, and sharing. In an April article about how Twitter turned toxic, Fast Company reported that Alex Macgillivray, Twitter’s first general counsel, used to say, “Let the tweets flow.” Yet, Murphy writes, the platform has so persistently done the opposite in its treatment of her and other trans-critical feminists that she has started to think about the political right’s positions and be willing to dialogue with them:

I no longer believe leftist positions are necessarily most right or most ethical. I no longer believe everyone on the right is wrong about everything. I do not believe all those on the right necessarily have ill intentions, and suspect that many, like those on the left, believe they are working towards a better world.

After people started to get crude, abusive, and angry on the platform, in December 2015 Twitter introduced its policy on “Hateful Conduct and Abuse.” It was vague and overbroad. It has also been used as a political cudgel while allowing people to post actually hateful, threatening, and outright evil content. Even Amnesty International voiced real disgust with Twitter’s lack of policing actually awful tweets: “Twitter’s inconsistency and inaction on its own rules not only creates a level of mistrust and lack of confidence in the company’s reporting process, it also sends the message that Twitter does not take violence and abuse against women seriously – a failure which is likely to deter women from reporting in the future.”

Yet instead of clamping down on things like pornography, unwanted sexual advances, threats, and crude imagery, Twitter started suppressing accounts of people who didn’t embrace its preferred version of progressive ideology. In August, Dorsey admitted to CNN that social media in general has a “left-leaning” bias. A month later he told Congress that “political ideology” didn’t drive the company’s policies. Yet in an interview just days later, Dorsey said he was aware that in his company conservative employees “don’t feel safe to express their opinion.”

While Murphy is outspoken, her tweets were far from hateful. It’s not just disappointing to see Twitter ban the social media account of a woman who was simply calling a spade a spade, but a clear example of Twitter saying one thing and effectively doing another. Instead of the “Thought Police” and “Big Brother,” now we have Jack Dorsey and Twitter.

Nicole Russell is a senior contributor to The Federalist. She lives in northern Virginia with her four kids. Follow her on Twitter @russell_nm.
 
Of course, Twitter is a private company and can do whatever it likes. But they have billed themselves as an open platform, one that welcomes debate, ideas, and sharing.
None of these Big Time Firms are "open platforms" implying Freedom of Speech. They are only as "open" as long as it is congruent with the prevailing Ruling Class Agenda. The moment they get out of line or give that impression they most likely are given "the signal" that they are crossing the line and make necessary corrections. If they don't get the message SEC or IRS will straighten them out. But from my observation of the Circus for 30 yrs. I get the impression that they are all very well "tuned in" (probable from the frequent meeting in Davos and elsewhere).
 
So, gender identity is more of a political construct that empowers gay people, and with the favor comes an obligation to fullfill a political obligation.
What do you mean when you say that gender identity is a political construct designed to empower gay people?
Unless I'm mistaken, gender identity is the personal sense of one's own gender(stemming from biological and psychological roots). As in man vs woman vs etc., gay man/woman is a sexual orientation, I think (though now aday it's hard to tell if that's become a gender). This has been used politically to give power to the postmodernists and for other nefarious purposes, but it's not to empower gay people exclusively. And to say it's a favor... Seems more like an ideological trap that possesses you.

But people are remarkably tolerant in the internet age, and more honest.
I agree with Pierre on this one. From my perspective people are not more honest and tolerant online since there is no accountability for their online words. No consequences for being an a**hole. And let's not forget how little people know of themselves, hard to be honest when you live in a world of lies. Honest people tend to get targeted because they look like liars in this type of environment.

And the attempts of playing us against one another meet with unexpected results. Because love is revered, and no longer does the mass media set the tone of our attitude. Nor does organized religion. ... all is in the open now and people aren't afraid to stand up for what comes easy to us: to live and let live.

Unless you have the right connections/influences, you have to dig through much garbage (both outside and inside your mind) to find out what's actually going on. And yes, most people will do what comes easy to them, and that is usually what they are programmed to do(from whatever source, even organized religion). If they are programmed to merely exist instead of live then they will simply exist. Which is why the mass media is indeed having an affect on the tone of many people's attitudes.

My 2 cents.
 
Maybe there is a medical angle to transgenderism.

When gay marriage became a news issue, I wondered if it was accepted for the opportunities this lifestyle would open up for traditional professions.

Like marriage licences, divorces, all the things traditional marriages have to do would double the potential that bureaucracies and legal professionals can draw from.

So, transgenderism may have a medical interest in that it would generate income from sex change therapies, psychological screening, ect. And we all know how lucrative the medical profession is.

And the bathroom issue... those plumbers need income too! :-)
 
(...) all is in the open now and people aren't afraid to stand up for what comes easy to us: to live and let live.


From what I can see the transgender crowd is failing at this approach. Or at the very least they fail to consider the quality of life they are offering to the future generation. They mess with little children's heads just to push their own minority agenda onto the mainstream public. They go after easy prey: children. By convincing them (against logic and biology) that gender is a social concept and they get to choose their gender they effectively scar them for life, forcing them to operate against common sense and the evolutionary design.

Just becuase they have issues doesn't mean they have any moral right to push those issues on others. It's like saying: just becuase I'm depressed, everyone else should be. Or just because I'm autistic, autism is a natural state of the human mind. Come on now. :umm:

I personally find this absolutely disgusting.
 
And the bathroom issue... those plumbers need income too! :-)
yes they need more income to pay the taxes that fund the state-sponsored "sex-change" surgery, the "identity" politics movements, the "gender studies", the development of "inclusive" school programs, the medically assisted procreation, etc.
 
From what I can see the transgender crowd is failing at this approach. Or at the very least they fail to consider the quality of life they are offering to the future generation. They mess with little children's heads just to push their own minority agenda onto the mainstream public. They go after easy prey: children. By convincing them (against logic and biology) that gender is a social concept and they get to choose their gender they effectively scar them for life, forcing them to operate against common sense and the evolutionary design.

Just becuase they have issues doesn't mean they have any moral right to push those issues on others. It's like saying: just becuase I'm depressed, everyone else should be. Or just because I'm autistic, autism is a natural state of the human mind. Come on now. :umm:

I personally find this absolutely disgusting.

Yep, the proof is in the pudding!

Transgender Australia - Twitter Search

TTA - Transgender Team Austria (@transgenderteam) | Twitter

Transgender Israel - Twitter Search

News about Transgender usa on Twitter

Transgender Europe (@TGEUorg) | Twitter

Following Following, current page. 1,002
Login on Twitter
 
Ok, think about this...

Our economy in America is shifting to services - all the manufacturing is going to Asia. So, we don't make much anymore, and everything is shifting to services.

And so who gets the favored treatment in our service based economy? People who use services. And so transgenderism is a marketing strategy to increase the sales of all the things that were once exclusive to women. But not just products for women, but medical treatments as well, ect.

So, health and beauty products, medical treatments, face lifts, fashion clothing - think of all the items that transgenders will buy that normally are for women, and since men have to try harder to look attractive, they would spend more money than women for women products.

So, lgbt have a degree of prestige for their spending habits, and personal maintinence. So industry, and society have to cater to their needs, and give them a slot in society, and make them feel good about their lifestyle spendings. And it is much more than if they just lived as regular men. Some probably have split lifestyles and so have both male and female products, and that boosts sales even more.

And I think transgenderism is tied to the sex trade, and so not only is their earnings going into their lifestyle products, but legal issues that arise from it. So, they have to pay doctor bills for being beaten up, or pay the courts for crimes they commit... they are trans-consumerists.
 
Hi Metrist, you say:
Because love is revered, and no longer does the mass media set the tone of our attitude.
But then you suggest:
And so transgenderism is a marketing strategy to increase the sales of all the things that were once exclusive to women. But not just products for women, but medical treatments as well, ect.
I don't see a difference. You're still saying people are governed by outside forces setting the tone - whether be it mass media or market strategists. In any case, love is neither revered.
And I don't think people are really that zealous about their ideological outlook, but because the mass media serves up ideological ideas 24/7, they will comment on what is being broadcast to them, but they live in the real world and are human, and ideologies are identified with, but in a loose fashion - accounting for real world practicality.
If people are are commenting on mass-media broadcasts, then its circulating within mass consciousness and "effects" - helping managing tone-setting thus further justifying ridiculous laws passed like Canada's Bill C-16. This then changes actual "real world practicality".
One hand dirties the other, both hands dirty the face.
 

Six-year-old James is caught in a gender identity nightmare. Under his mom’s care in Dallas, Texas, James obediently lives as a trans girl named “Luna.” But given the choice when he’s with dad, he’s all boy — his sex at birth.

In their divorce proceedings, the mother has charged the father with child abuse for not affirming James as transgender, has sought restraining orders against him, and is seeking to terminate his parental rights. She is also seeking to require him to pay for the child’s visits to a transgender-affirming therapist and transgender medical alterations, which may include hormonal sterilization starting at age eight.

I learned of James’ plight on a recent visit to Plano, Texas, where I spoke to teenagers about my own transgender story. I lived through a similar scenario when I was his age. I was cross-dressed for two-and-a-half years by my grandmother, who made a purple chiffon dress for me. Somewhat like James, my cross-dressing occurred under one adult’s care, but away from grandma’s I was all boy with my mom and dad. Also, just like James, I found my way into the office of a gender therapist, who quickly started me toward transition.

When his mother, a pediatrician, took James for counseling, she chose a gender transition therapist who diagnosed him with gender dysphoria, a mental conflict between physical sex and perceived gender. James’ precious young life hinges purely on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria by a therapist who wraps herself in rainbow colors, affirms the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and dismisses evidence to the contrary. Remove the “rainbow” from James’ diagnosis, and it crumbles under the weight of the criteria for the diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

The diagnosis is critical, because labeling a child with gender dysphoria can trigger a series of physical and mental consequences for the child and has legal ramifications in the ongoing custody case. Get it wrong and young James’s life is irrevocably harmed.

James Does Not Fit the Gender Dysphoria Criteria

The criteria for a diagnosis of childhood gender dysphoria are that a child be persistent, consistent, and insistent about being the opposite sex. James’s mom is “all in” on the diagnosis of gender dysphoria and assisting with social transition. She used the name Luna to enroll him as a girl in first grade, and provides only female clothes.

Meanwhile, Dad isn’t seeing signs of gender dysphoria. In the father’s home, James appears to be a normal boy and doesn’t identify as a girl. He has a choice of boy’s or girl’s clothes there, and he chooses to dress as a boy. The fact that James changes gender identity depending on which parent is present makes the diagnosis of gender dysphoria both dubious and harmful.

The transition therapist has observed that James is not consistent, insistent, or persistent in the desire to become “Luna.” For example, a dossier filed with the Dallas court says that, under the skilled eyes of the therapist, the child was presented two pieces of paper, one with the word “James” and one with the word “Luna,” and asked to pick the name he preferred. When the appointment only included his mother, James selected Luna, the name and gender he uses at his mother’s home and in his first-grade classroom. When the appointment was only with his father, however, James pointed to the boy name James, not the girl name.

The glaring disparity between a child’s preferred identity when in the presence of one parent versus the other should cause a therapist to reassess, perhaps nullify the diagnosis of gender dysphoria, and terminate any steps toward transition. But in the case of James, this hasn’t happened.

Using a Little Boy as a Weapon of War

When James is away from his mother, he consistently rejects the idea that he is “Luna girl” or that he wants to be a girl. Because the court prohibits dad from dressing James as a boy or from teaching him that he is a boy by sharing religious or science-based teachings on sexuality, dad presents James with male and female clothing options and James always chooses, even insists on, his boy clothes. Dad told me, “James violently refuses to wear girl’s clothes at my home.” This is not a sign of gender dysphoria.

Eyewitness accounts from friends corroborate dad’s observations of James preferring to be a boy. Bill Lovell, the senior pastor of Christ Church Carrollton, wrote: “Based on the three occasions I’ve spent time with him, I’d say he acts and looks unmistakably like a healthy six-year-old boy. … I am praying for James, an average six-year-old boy, a sweet-natured, intelligent, lovable and at this point particularly vulnerable young man, caught up in a titanic clash of worldviews.”

Ellen Grigsby shared in an email her observations after meeting James and his fraternal twin brother for the first time: “They were both ‘all boy’ and were having a great time. Both boys were absolutely dressed as boys and behaving as boys.”

Sarah Scott is a family friend and mother of three boys who frequently play with James and his brother. She and her husband are sensitive to allowing James to lead the way in gender choices such as names, pronouns, and clothing. I asked her the obvious question: “How do you know James does not want to be a girl?” Sarah responded in an email with several examples she’s seen of James’ desire to remain a boy:
Friday, Sept. 21: We had the boys over. The boys took turns telling stories and James made up a story about five little boys (himself, his brother and my three sons) who were such good friends that they magically turned into pumpkins, so they could stay in the pumpkin patch together forever. He didn’t say kids. He specifically and happily referred to himself as a boy.
Saturday, Oct. 20: We all went on a walk to the park. We had such fun! It had rained the night before. On the walk, James slipped and got his clothes dirty. He asked if he could borrow some of my boys’ shorts and if I could wash his clothes. I said sure! — and went to grab something he could wear. While I was looking, he said, ‘Guess what Mrs. Sarah? You don’t need to find a shirt because boys don’t have to wear them if you’re hot!’ I laughed and told him I guess that’s a good thing about being a boy! He said, ‘Yes, it is!’
Saturday, Nov. 3: His mother came to pick up the boys to take them to [his brother’s] soccer game. James hugged his dad and said, ‘Love you.’ He refused to go to the soccer game as a girl with mom and stayed with dad. That evening they came to our house.​
James exhibits no desire to be “Luna” the girl except when he is with his mother. The boy’s behavior offers a stinging rebuke of the diagnosis of gender dysphoria. This by all accounts is not a true or clinically correct diagnosis of gender dysphoria. Yet the therapist stands by her diagnosis and continues to keep “Luna” on track to gender transition.

Is This Therapy or Manipulation?

Unlike James, I was an adult at the time of my diagnosis. Grandma was gone by then, but the therapist, like so many today, affirmed my cross-gender identity and guided me through gender transition. He provided access to hormones and surgery and I soon had the full gender-affirming surgery and identified as “Laura.” I felt that my gender identity and biological sex were at odds, but what the therapist failed to consider were the other factors driving my desire to change gender, which needed to be addressed first.

What this mom is doing to James looks very much like what my grandmother did to me by affirming me in the purple dress. My grandmother didn’t intend to harm me, but her actions destroyed my childhood and my family and consumed nearly 50 years of my life.
James has no idea what he is in for or how his gender journey will play out, but with an incorrect diagnosis it will be ugly. I became very concerned about James because he is not exhibiting the diagnostic attributes of gender dysphoria. His gender preferences are not consistent or insistent, but flip back and forth, according to which parent is present.

When James is permitted to relax around friends away from his mom, he seems natural and happy being a boy. If James truly had gender dysphoria, he would demand the proper pronouns, always dress as a girl and insistently, persistently, and consistently claim to be a girl in all situations, not just with mom. Instead, friends say he has done the opposite — he has insisted on being a boy. It is time to consider that the boy is not transgender.

Misdiagnosing People Has Horrific Consequences

Misdiagnosis of gender dysphoria happens around the world, and people’s lives are harmed when it does. I wanted people to see what I see, that people of all ages have been incorrectly diagnosed with gender dysphoria, so I wrote a book, “Trans Life Survivors,” that shares many first-hand stories of misdiagnosis of gender dysphoria and the heart-breaking results.

Therapists are taking notice, too, of the increasing prevalence of people detransitioning and going back their birth sex, and suggesting a need for comprehensive psychological assessments, rather than fast-tracking children to transition. An article in The Atlantic shares interviews with Scott Leibowitz, a psychiatrist who treats children and adolescents in Columbus, Ohio, and Laura Edwards-Leeper, a psychologist at Pacific University and Oregon’s Transgender Clinic. Both believe as Edwards-Leeper shares, “that comprehensive assessments are crucial to achieving good outcomes for TGNC [transgender and gender non-conforming] young people, especially those seeking physical interventions, in part because some kids who think they are trans at one point in time will not feel that way later on.”
Pediatrician Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, describes the pediatric community’s encouragement of sex change and hormonal treatments for children as “institutionalized child abuse.”

If we do not save James from a misdiagnosis, his next step is chemical castration at age eight, only two years away. James needs a more comprehensive psychological assessment to explore why he identifies as a girl with mom and as a boy with dad. I want to do what I can to “Save James” from his gender nightmare, and to raise awareness about how easily children can be misdiagnosed and labeled as gender dysphoric and the extensive damage that can cause in their young lives.

A questionable diagnosis locks a vulnerable child into an alternate gender identity long before they can understand what is happening or where it might lead. It’s up to the adults to observe the child carefully, consider and question the grey areas, and ultimately guard innocent children against hasty diagnoses and conclusions about something so fundamental as their gender identity.


Walt Heyer is an accomplished author and public speaker with a passion for mentoring individuals whose lives have been torn apart by unnecessary gender-change surgery.
 
Why is the mother not given psychiatric examinations, maybe she wanted a daughter and she rejects her problem on the child? Like many other mothers and grandmothers!
Yet this problem is well known to psychiatrists.
What are they thinking about? Do they have softened brains?
 
Six-year-old James is caught in a gender identity nightmare. Under his mom’s care in Dallas, Texas, James obediently lives as a trans girl named “Luna.” But given the choice when he’s with dad, he’s all boy — his sex at birth.
Just reading this makes me feel uncomfortable. Institutionally sanctioned insanity !!!!

But bare in mind that all this is happening in parallel with this,

From The Telegraph, Sep.27, 2001, “Boy’s DNA implanted in rabbit eggs,” written by Roger Highfield:

“Scientists in China have inserted a boy’s DNA into empty rabbit eggs and grown hybrid embryos, it is reported today. A team at the Sun Yat-Sen University of Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, are trying to overcome a practical limitation…In some of the 100 or so successful transfers to a rabbit egg stripped of chromosomes, an embryo developed to the morula stage, [which is] the compact ball of cells that forms after about three days of development. For stem cells to be isolated, the embryos must be coaxed into developing further.”

Also in 2001, there was another, far more ambitious experiment:

BBC Online (May 4, 2001): “Scientists have confirmed that the first genetically altered humans have been born and are healthy.”

“Up to 30 such children have been born, 15 of them as a result of one experimental programme at a US laboratory [the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey]…”

“Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year-old children confirm that they contain a small quantity of additional genes not inherited from either parent.”

“The additional genes were taken from a healthy donor and used to overcome their mother’s infertility problems.”

“…The additional genes that the children carry have altered their ‘germline’, or their collection of genes that they will pass on to their offspring…[Note: This means the new abnormal configuration of genes will spread out into the general population, over time, with unknown effects.]

“Writing in the journal Human Reproduction, the researchers say that this ‘is the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children.’”

The superhighway into a genetically designed future isn’t just a science-fiction fantasy. Stones on that highway have already been laid down.

"We manipulate genes for Betterment of Man"
 
Back
Top Bottom