Men Are Men. Women Are Women.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? But not everyone accepts this formulation. It's the current view that people are what they consider themselves – what they think they are or what they want to be. DNA is not what they view as the deciding factor in the mix.

That's the mood of our society – actually of many societies. The watchword of the day is choice, and people are less inclined to be bound by existing scientific concepts or conventions that many associate with the past. It's not all bad but it raises some problems.

Evolution. We're divided into species, which are defined as groups that cannot fruitfully crossbreed. Perhaps they can produce offspring for a single generation, but not beyond. Survival and continuity of the species are important goals. Males and females of particular species are designed to procreate, though the offspring may have individual traits that vary from the “norm.” Homosexuality may occasionally occur but it is not ordinarily the “norm.” Most species are controlled by instinct and not by conscious choice. They don't make decisions based on intellect – not because they have none, but because the issue of sexual identity is not a part of their choice system as are meat and vegetables and territory, and safety.

We're human. We have a kind of intelligence that allows decision-making about a variety of things. And we can think about a lot, including who we “are.” “Who we 'are'” means that we can ponder our sexual identity as well as every other feature. And we can make decisions about that identity – decisions that we expect others to accept and, in recent years, decisions that we expect others to endorse. We no longer feel bound by the definitions and the expectations of the past. We now have LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual, and queer people), and transgender as well, so identifying themselves and demanding support and understanding from all around them. And they maintain that theirs is not actually a life-style choice or a disease. They are born with the disposition to their sexual orientation. It's normal, and those who oppose it are bigots.

But “lower” species really show us the way. And the way is about survival of the species. In most instances the male has the responsibility for the survival of the present – protecting his family – while the female, by bearing children, provides for survival of the species into the future. In those animals we see pair-ups in male/female matings, and things seem to work out. “Boy-girl” relationships are usually dominant.

Only human beings, at least some of them, seem to question that course of action, and they are supported by those in society, the public opinion of their supporters, who promote free choice for all on all subjects. In their view everyone should be able to make whatever choices he/she/it wants. If someone deviates from what was the pattern until recently – that of humans as well as other species – it's our obligation to praise such action, not to criticize it. “Right” and “wrong” are better taught by the media than by parents and clergy. Any production or publication that does not feature, that and does not promote homosexuality and transgender identification, is viewed as sexist (much as a production that does not feature a mixed-race couple is racist).

I wonder if that “normal” condition existed in prehistoric times. If, as they say, it's a normal condition for them and they were born with it, we must assume that it's genetic and has been passed down for eons – millions of years, six thousand, or somewhere in between depending on your frame of reference.

And if it's genetic, if it derives from DNA, the response should be obvious: those who favor same-sex marriage should encourage it, but if you oppose same-sex marriage you should also encourage it. What better way to be sure that the responsible DNA doesn't get passed on to the next generation.

Win-win. They get what they want and those who don't favor that life-style choice – and it is a choice if we agree that when and where it was considered taboo there were fewer manifestations of that life-style – are likely to see the numbers going down. It may take a long time, but it may ultimately change societal fads and fashions.

Isolation, Contagion, And Darwin

I'm for me first. With only a few exceptions, that's the basic strategy of natural selection. Defend yourself and your species. (Usually, but not always, the former is the first consideration. Still there are those who consider fighting, whatever the provocation, all they consider to be immoral.) Whether by fighting off attackers or marking one's territory, the individual defends his rights and his domain. And by bringing home nectar, by warring, or by warning others of danger, he acts on behalf of his species and his community. He and his like come first. No matter what.

People are no different. We fight staunchly to survive and to ensure the survival of our community. (That's a problem, as I'll note below.) Defining our community, however, is complex, since we're all part of many different groupings. For example, notwithstanding other views, we are men or women, and obligatory members of other groups. In some respects our needs and wishes are different from those of others because of those realities. We differ by religion, place of birth, and political affiliation, as well as many other features. And we differ by nationality.

Nationality. That's a fighting issue – perhaps the only one (at least the only one most of us consider acceptable – undesirable as it may be.). Religion used to be worth battling over but that is not so much the case any more. Religious combat is viewed as wrong nowadays, although that doesn't stop many groups from participating. But that is simply an example of the individual fighting on behalf of his (or her) community. In regard to defending one's own country, that is usually a duty imposed by a nation's government. The criteria for such involvement vary from time to time – becoming looser or more restrictive depending on a wide variety of circumstances. The United States, for instance, has been through periods when we were eager to do battle, and periods when isolationism was our national policy – even if not so expressed. We tried to isolate ourselves from the world's problems. Most important for us, however is consideration of our own “interests,” as Lord Palmerston put it. The needs of friends and allies are only significant to the extent that they affect us. If we're not involved, let people kill each other. It's none of our business or concern. But when our country demands, we march into battle. Better, when our community demands, we do so.

A million men marched on Washington in 1995. (The National Park Service estimated that only 400,000 showed up, but that's still a lot.) In this case the community was that of African-Americans and their supporters, and there have been subsequent similar marches, as well as marches in Ferguson, Missouri, and other places where black men have been killed by the police. The battle cry is that “Black Lives Matter,” and the Black community is protesting the killing of blacks by the police.

It's certainly an appealing motto, one that stirs up sympathy, and there is no denying that there have been instances of unwarranted violence by the police, but the protest is really about a wider range of injustices, and the shootings only serve as a rallying point that will attract public attention. And accuracy is irrelevant. As noted in a column by Heather Mac Donald in the Wall Street Journal on Lincoln's birthday,

“ … According to the [Washington] Post database, in 2015 [police] officers killed 662 whites and Hispanics, and 258 blacks. … ”

Those are absolute numbers. In terms of overall numbers of homicide deaths and police shootings,

“ … white and Hispanic victims of police shootings would make up 12% of all white and Hispanic homicide deaths. That is three times the proportion of black deaths that result from police shootings.”

moreover, most protesters, implying a conspiracy by police against them, fail to note that

“Over the past decade, according to FBI data, 40% of cop killers have been black. Officers are killed by blacks at a rate 2.5 times higher than the rate at which blacks are killed by police.”

There is, of course, no excuse for any killing – especially an avoidable killing by a police officer. But the rage and the protests by the black community over shootings of their members is striking compared to actions by their members and to their silence when others –more than they – are killed. It illustrates the idea that community members are most interested in defending themselves as a part of “groupthink” and the survival strategy which is built into all of us.

Let me give some additional examples:

Much is made, especially during political campaigns, of the fact that a woman's salary is, on average, only 79 cents for each dollar a man earns. That's an important piece of information as far as it goes, but the reasons for the disparity get less attention: number of years of experience, number of hours worked, and accomplishments in the position could account for differences, even for the same job. That men and women often choose different types of jobs requiring different amounts of skill and different physical attributes (like strength) – jobs that pay different salaries – may also play a part. But in the meantime, women's groups lobby hard for what they view as pay equity because, whether there is actually a difference when all factors are considered, more money will benefit the entire group.

And when, in the early 1980, AIDS (at that time it was a previously unknown “immunodeficiency disease”) and its variants were identified, there was a loud call by homosexuals (who were disproportionally affected) and by those sympathetic to them, for a “war” on the affliction. Political action, protests, and public relations were among the tools used to pressure the “establishment” to eliminate the disease rapidly. (No similar efforts were made to find a quick solution to the ebola crisis, and there is little concern about malaria, and measles, and dengue fever because they involve others, not “us.” Even Zika was of little concern here until cases and spread started being reported in the United States. Now, hearing about it more frequently, there are greater interest and concern, and a call to find a vaccine.) Although drug addicts were also greatly affected, and heterosexual and intrauterine spread are now known to be responsible for more cases than among homosexuals, the existing, and increasingly powerful politically, homosexual community forced action, some of which turned out to be misguided (AZT, for example, only slows the virus and, as it turns out, may be a carcinogen), but was in response to the fears of that specific community. The development of strategies for the treatment of AIDS is of benefit to all, but we shall never know what would have happened if the homosexual community, to protect their own, had not risen in protest – how quickly therapies would have been developed. Nor shall we know what the benefits to our people and to our species might have been if funds had not been not diverted to this war.

It's not surprising that individuals and groups are most sensitive to what affects them negatively, and are most supportive of whatever helps them. Truth and accuracy are not particularly significant issues. More important is the question of what will be most likely to help “me,” and those like me, to have an advantage in the fight for survival. But now we come back to the problem. People perceive themselves as members of a group – a community – not a species. That's an inevitable result of a complex thought process humans have, but which, we believe, is lacking in other species. People see any threat to their group as a threat to themselves, and that's what counts, irrespective of the reality of that position. All threats are perceived as personal. So remedies are sought to ensure the elimination of threats to individual group members and to the group as a whole. But we do care about the group. We want the weak to benefit along with us.

That's different from natural selection. An animal fighting for his life is fighting only for his life, but the species benefits if the strongest win and the weakest lose, and are eliminated from the gene pool. From a Darwinian perspective, curing the sick – which, in effect, is aiding the weak – is counterproductive. From a moral perspective, however, the oppressed, the sick, the poor, and those disadvantaged in any other way, are deserving of our help, and they should not require political pressure to get it.

Looking simply at survival of the fittest, only war, (as opposed to curing disease and helping the powerless) in which the strong – physically, intellectually, and economically – will usually defeat and eliminate the weak, seems to make evolutionary sense. But even wars contradict Darwinism. They are denials of the importance of species, placing nationalism above concern for human life. Though patriotism and diversity are on the march, our concern should be on the protection not only of our own community, but of all of our species.

In the meantime, I'm for me first.