In the course of a discussion about an article by a feminist attacking transgendered folks like “Caitlyn” Jenner, saying that these men can never know what it is to be a woman, Andrew Klavan makes the point that evolution and feminism are incompatible. Which made me realize that evolution is incompatible with lots of other ideas of the liberals who believe in it.
UPDATE: I do not intend to confuse “what is” with “what should be” or to try to deduce from evolution any moral conclusions. I do see the problem with that, but let me frame this differently. If behaviors limit reproduction, aren’t those less likely to contribute to natural selection? Wouldn’t there be natural selection against them? Wouldn’t ideologies and policies that result in individuals not reproducing be an evolutionary deadend? I am not asking whether this would be good or bad, and am quite willing to be instructed on the matter.
The original post was not so much about evolution but about liberalism, so perhaps we could ask this: Isn’t it true that “traditional family values”–that is, beliefs and practices that result in more children being born and cared for–have an evolutionary advantage over “progressive values” such as those supporting feminism and non-reproductive sex? Not as a moral position but as a “what is” description?