by Selwyn Duke
I look back on my boyhood with fondness; it was a time of innocence, a time when I didn't know about evil political or social agendas and my only agenda involved earning enough money to buy the toy I pined after. There were a few responsibilities though, for, most anyone who has ever been a boy knows about the inescapable rubric of masculine dictates I'll call the "boy code." At stake was the very preservation of your masculine image itself, because violation of this code meant a tarnished reputation and possible demotion to "sissy" status [at least for as long as the memories of little boys last]. First and foremost among the code's commandments was "Thou shalt not like a girl." Why, when we were ten even the mere suspicion that we were smitten with a girl was enough to visit ostracism upon us. Yes, there was precious little room in the boy world for the fairer sex; it was "no girls allowed." And boys who fell from masculine grace and acted like girls weren't held in high esteem either. This is why perhaps the most effective insult we could hurl at a buddy who had earned our disfavor was "you're a girl!" Thems was definitely fightin' words.
Now though, modern science tells us something that would have shaken the very sinews of the boy world -- it tells us that all babies start out being female. What "they" [that is, the proverbial "they"] tell us is that six weeks after conception a child with an XY chromosome configuration receives an enormous dose of testosterone that causes the testes to develop, masculinizes the brain and just plain ensures that boys will be boys. Without this all-important dose of "vitamin T," as a female doctor who is close to my heart once put it, the baby will develop into a female. It is something that must please feminists to no end, this idea that men are made out of women and not the other way around like the Bible tells us -- this idea that female is the "default mode," as some have put it. You will hear this notion everywhere nowadays, but there is one little problem: the scientific establishment is wrong.
Who am I to say the scientific establishment is wrong and I am right, you ask? Well, lest you scoff at that claim I hasten to remind you that science has often been wrong -- in fact, it wasn't that long ago that science was telling us that the sexes were identical period [except for the superficial physical differences] -- not just until they were six weeks old. But what this really boils down to is how you define male and female; it is about what makes one male or female -- that is the question being asked. Let's analyze it logically.
Without that sixth week deluge of testosterone, the child will not in fact develop male primary sexual characteristics [male genitalia], and without those he will not later in life develop male secondary sexual characteristics, such as facial and chest hair and a deeper voice. But are these what make someone male? Well, if this were so then "castrati" would not have been male. Castrati first appeared in the 16th century, and were boys who had the blessing and the curse of having such good singing voices prior to puberty that . . . well . . . you guessed it, they were castrated for the purposes of preserving those beautiful soprano tones. Consequently, these boys no longer had male genitalia and grew into adulthood without developing any secondary male sexual characteristics. But would you say that their having been mutilated caused them to suddenly become female, or transformed them into a being who occupied a realm in-between those of the two sexes? Of course not -- they were simply males who had been mutilated in a manner that stunted their development. It's just common sense: if you're a boy who loses your testes in an accident at the age of nine and you're not given hormone replacement therapy, you don't suddenly become a girl who'll grow up to be a woman -- you become a boy who'll grow up to be Michael Jackson.
On a more basic level, you have to ask what causes some babies to generate that sixth week burst of testosterone and others to not do so. We know of course that the answer is genetics -- those with XY, or male, chromosome configurations produce that hormone and those with XX, or female, chromosome configurations do not. But it is very easy to get bogged down in scientific terminology and not see the forest from the trees, so what would be a layman's way of describing the quality, or state of being that causes that body altering surge of testosterone? You can describe it in one word: maleness. If there were no difference between male and female one-week-old babies not only would we not be able to call them "male" and "female," but they wouldn't develop differently at all. So, it is not that surge of vitamin T that causes a child to become male -- it is the very fact that he is male that causes him to have that surge in the first place.
Another thing I would have to ask is, if it is true that a one-week-old child with a Y chromosome is female because he hasn't developed ANY physical male characteristics, couldn't it then be said that a boy is less male than a full-grown man because he hasn't developed as MANY male physical characteristics? If a one-week-old with a Y chromosome is female because the sexes are physically identical at that age, then couldn't one say that a seven-year-old with a Y chromosome is more female than a man because the sexes are more similar at that age than they are as adults? Of course, this is not the case; a boy doesn't become progressively more male as he moves toward maturity -- he simply becomes more manly as he moves toward maturity. His first period of exposure to testosterone in the womb causes him to develop his main male sexual characteristics, and then another, longer period of exposure to it during adolescence causes him to develop the remainder of them. A boy moves toward manhood -- he doesn't move toward maleness. You can't be half male any more than you can be half pregnant.
Now, I would be remiss if I didn't address the issue of hermaphrodites, who are people who are born with the fully or partially developed sex organs of one sex and the partially developed sex organs of the other. These people are also not male/female combinations, rather, they are people of one sex or the other who experienced abnormal prenatal development. In these cases the true sex of the person should be determined and the necessary actions should be taken to enable him to live a normal life as a member of that sex.
Really though, the question of what makes a person male or female is more than a scientific question, it is also a philosophical one. Believing Catholics like myself hold that "God created man male and female," and for this reason we believe that a person's sex transcends the physical, for it is imprinted on his soul itself. Of course, I realize that theology doesn't appeal to scientific minds that limit themselves to what can be proven. So, okay, let's then stay within the scientific realm. If we are going to say that a person's sex is determined solely by what we can ascertain scientifically, then why would we give greater weight to the physical body determined by the genetics than to the genetics themselves? From the moment of conception a boy has an XY chromosome configuration, and THAT is what sets his male development into motion -- the surge of testosterone is simply the first step in that development.
I realize that at this juncture you may be wondering why I'd devote a whole essay to the refutation of what some would deem to be a minor misconception. The reason is that minor misconceptions can have major consequences, and this one is a prime example. Think about it: what does the idea that all humans begin life as females imply? Well, for one thing, if males were at one time females it means that females can become males, and this means that one's sex is not an immutable characteristic but rather a quality that can be altered. This idea lends credence to the notion that it is legitimate to have a sex-change operation [which I believe is a misnomer, because you cannot change your sex -- only your sexual characteristics] if you suffer from what the psycho-babblers have termed "gender dysphoria." This is the feeling that you are really, deep down, a person of the opposite sex -- that you are a woman trapped in a man's body or vice versa. If such people understood that their sex was something inherent, they would understand that the problem lies not with their physical constitution but their psychological constitution. They would understand that it isn't their body that needs to be changed, but their thinking. Misconceptions lead to incorrect diagnoses, which in turn lead to unhealthy prescriptions.
Lastly, this misconception serves to legitimize homosexuality. After all, if I'm a man who experiences same-sex attractions maybe it's because I'm female at heart; besides, if something as basic as my sex can be altered at my choosing, why can't my sexual behavior be? Science has given us many great things and maybe in 10,000 years it will get everything just right. But it has a history of sometimes losing its way and when it does it leads those who blindly follow it astray. Listen to what it has to say -- but view it with a skeptical eye. Don't let science be your pied piper.
