Bioethicist: “Queer the Genome” Through Same-Sex Reproduction

The mainstream bioethics movement aims to destroy human exceptionalism and Judeo-Christian morality as the philosophical foundations of society. Toward that end, the academic discourse repeatedly revels in the transgressive as bioethicists take to the most influential journals to advocate destroying “natural limits” and maximizing concepts of personal autonomy that are destructive of social cohesion.

Latest example: An article published in Oxford’s Journal of Medical Ethics argues in favor of biotechnologically altering ova to permit lesbians to engage in same-sex biological reproduction. Bioethicist Adrian Villalba writes in “Queering the Genome“:

The potential alteration of genomic imprinting opens the door for an oocyte [egg] to exhibit characteristics similar to a sperm, allowing it to fertilise another egg. This can be achieved by inducing the expression of genes typically found in sperm but silenced in eggs, or conversely, by silencing genes imprinted in sperm and expressed in eggs.

According to the article, this has been successfully done in mice, resulting in the birth of “bi-maternal” female pups.

Just because an experiment worked in mice, that doesn’t mean it would be safe to attempt in humans. Villalba understands that and so calls for further animal experimentation. Even if these experiments succeeded, however, that would not mean it could be done in humans without adverse health consequences. Indeed, to be sure that it was “safe,” it seems to me there would have to be repeated experiments creating such modified human embryos, testing their development into the fetal stage. That would have significant adverse moral implications.

It is also important to note that none of this would be for the benefit of the future child, an issue Villalba never addresses. Rather, it’s all about the desires of the two mothers; he merely asserts that the children created through this experimental technology would not be harmed:

In order to address the bioethical considerations arising from the utilisation of epigenome editing in same-sex reproduction, a pivotal question emerges: is anyone wronged in this process? When viewed from the perspective of the children conceived through this method, it becomes challenging to argue that they are subjected to any harm. Indeed, it seems implausible that an individual could be wronged merely by virtue of the gametes contributing to the creation of the initial embryo. If the person develops from an embryo that undergoes a pregnancy similar to a conventional embryo formed from an egg and sperm, what significant distinction can be drawn?…

From the current study, it can be claimed that an edited egg would mimic the behaviour of sperm, and from the moment of fertilisation onward, the resulting embryo seems to function no differently than a traditional one.

Well, not having a biological father would seem to be a significant detriment, having unknown psychological consequences for the child and potentially destructive social ramifications for family formation, which is part of the point (see below).

All the offspring made through this manufacture would be female. Is this a problem of invidious discrimination? Not according to “queer theories”:

When innovative methods exist that can guarantee this continuity even in the absence of the male sex, does it still make sense to be concerned about it? This argument gains strength if we acknowledge that reproduction is not a primary right, and thus, preserving the sex ratio should not necessarily be a global societal concern. Moreover, it is important to recognise that various queer theories emphasise the importance of gender of self-identification over biological sex. From the standpoint of these philosophical theories, the balance of biological sexes may be deemed entirely irrelevant to our society.

Worse, the approach would lead to the redefinition of our understanding of biological sex and the meaning of family:

The advent of same-sex reproduction challenges conventional concepts of reproduction itself, prompting a need for redefining our understanding of the human embryo to encompass a wider range of biological entities capable of developing into newborns. The discussion on epigenome editing for same-sex reproduction transcends bioethics and delves into the realms of gender self-identification, the fluidity of reproductive roles, and the very essence of what it means to create a family.

That is precisely the problem. Gender ideology is not only destructive of rationality, but its solipsistic radicalism aims at shattering the very concept of “normal.” It needs to be resisted wherever and whenever it is promoted.

One last note: I want to emphasize that, though you might think this is just academic nonsense, these journal articles matter. They are the means by which philosophical consensus is created toward eventual implementation. For example, about 15 years ago I began warning that bioethicists were advocating that gender-dysphoric children be given puberty blockers. And so it came to pass.