ART: Sex, Genomics, Masculine, Feminine, "Trans" and the Amorphous Window of Genetic Evolutionary Potential

I would ask my friends within the Christian community and the field of evolutionary biology, especially those holding to more traditional views, to consider this message in the spirit of open dialogue. The discussions surrounding Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART), genetics, and the fluidity of gender identity can understandably provoke discomfort or even resistance, as they challenge long-standing beliefs. Yet, I implore you to recognize that we are at a pivotal moment in human history, where scientific advancements offer us the tools to improve health, prevent suffering, and expand human potential in ways previously unimaginable. Much of the polarization around these topics, particularly regarding transgender identities and genetic modifications, has been tainted by corrosive propaganda on all sides, making reasoned and compassionate conversation difficult. I invite you to consider that the technological shifts we are experiencing—far from erasing traditional identities—could allow for the enhancement and deeper expression of those very traits. This phase of fluidity is not a rejection of what we value, but a means of ensuring that future generations can refine and optimize the aspects of identity that have been central to human experience. It is not a time for closed-mindedness or fear. It is a time for thoughtful reflection, ethical engagement, and an open heart as we navigate this complex but promising landscape. Let's step beyond the propaganda and come together to ensure that the future is one of shared growth and mutual respect. ## Introduction In the unfolding narrative of human potential, reproductive technologies stand at the crossroads of evolution and ethical reflection, shaping what it means to be human in profound ways. Trillions of dollars are being invested globally in Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART), signaling a collective desire to seize control over genetic destiny. This monumental movement is not simply about advancing fertility treatments but about transcending the boundaries of biology itself, entering a realm where human identity is shaped less by the randomness of nature and more by the intentionality of science. It’s a path I have long supported. The traditional evolutionary perspective holds that sex is binary, a concept rooted in reproductive roles defined by male and female gametes. And yet, future-oriented geneticists are exploring a reality far more fluid—where sex and gender, once seen as fixed and immutable, become malleable constructs. Institutions like the Allen Institute are advancing technologies, such as parthenogenesis, that could render the biological need for sex in reproduction obsolete. The potential for same-sex couples to reproduce genetically related offspring is no longer speculative. It is becoming reality.

Bryant McGill · ART: Sex, Genomics, Masculine, Feminine, "Trans" and Genetic Evolutionary Potential

However, before we can fully harness the transformative power of these advancements, we must pass through what I have termed the "amorphous window." This is a transitional phase where rigid expressions of masculinity and femininity become temporarily irrelevant. It is not a denial of these identities but rather a necessary suspension to allow the genomic advancements that will ultimately enhance and optimize them in ways we cannot yet imagine. This window is crucial to accessing the next stage of human expression, where traits like strength, nurturing, and aesthetic qualities can be refined to levels beyond what biological evolution alone could achieve. Yet, resistance to this fluidity could prove detrimental. Those who cling to fixed notions of gender may miss the opportunity to embrace the genomic resilience packages—combinations of genetic traits designed to protect against the randomness of mutation. In resisting the fluidity required for this next evolutionary leap, they may inadvertently forfeit the advantages of genomic precision, leaving themselves vulnerable to the very biological limitations they hope to overcome. The future of human expression is not found in rigid adherence to the past but in embracing the transformative potential of our evolving genetic tools. It is through this fluidity, this amorphous window, that we will unlock a richer, more resilient, and diverse future for all expressions of humanity. ## The Amorphous Window of Genetic Evolutionary Potential In discussions with traditional evolutionary biologists, one often hears the argument that sex is binary, rooted in the reproductive roles of males and females. This is an accurate portrayal of evolutionary theory as it stands today. However, when engaging with future-oriented geneticists, particularly at institutions such as the Allen Institute, it becomes evident that vast resources—possibly in the trillions—are being invested globally in advancing reproductive technologies. These efforts are part of a broader genomics movement that seeks to transcend the conventional boundaries of sex. The trajectory of scientific development increasingly treats sex as a feature that may be rendered obsolete. With technologies like parthenogenesis already allowing viable embryos to be created from eggs alone, the potential for same-sex couples to reproduce and incorporate desirable genomic traits is no longer speculative but is becoming reality. The scientific community is divided on this trajectory, and while some resist these advancements, seeing them as unnatural, I believe that embracing this evolution is essential. It is not about erasing masculine or feminine traits but about recognizing that before we can express these identities in their most resilient and optimized forms, we must first pass through a phase where the traditional markers of gender become technologically irrelevant. The scientific discourse surrounding the relevance of biological sex, especially in the context of reproductive technologies and gender identity, is evolving, though it remains complex and often divided. 1. **Traditional Evolutionary Biology**: This field tends to maintain that biological sex is a fundamental, binary concept determined by gametes—eggs and sperm. The evolutionary purpose of sexual dimorphism, which is deeply embedded in the biological processes of reproduction, remains a cornerstone of traditional biological views. 2. **Genetics and Reproductive Technologies**: Emerging genetic science, especially in areas like assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), is beginning to challenge this binary model. Advances in reproductive technologies now allow same-sex couples to have genetically related children via techniques like mitochondrial replacement and stem cell-derived gametes. There is also ongoing research into parthenogenesis (the development of an embryo from an unfertilized egg), which hints at the possibility of bypassing traditional male-female reproduction altogether. Institutions like the Allen Institute and others are at the forefront of these studies, reflecting how sex might become less relevant for reproduction in the future, though the broader scientific community is still divided on the ethical and societal implications. 3. **Resistance and Points of Contention**: There are significant points of resistance, particularly in areas of evolutionary biology and medical ethics. Critics of these advanced reproductive methods often express concern about commodification, potential exploitation, and the consequences of detaching reproduction from traditional biological processes. Feminist critiques, for example, argue that ARTs disproportionately affect women's bodies and can reinforce social and economic inequalities, especially as reproductive labor becomes commercialized and outsourced in a global bioeconomy. 4. **Transgender Movements and Scientific Opinion**: The transgender movement has sparked discussions about the relevance of biological sex in identity formation. Some factions within the scientific community argue that gender is largely a social construct and that sex, while biologically determined, does not strictly define identity or capabilities. In studies of transgender people, there's increasing support for a more nuanced approach that looks beyond strict biological determinism. However, traditional perspectives still play a role in certain medical and ethical debates. In summary, the scientific community is split. While traditional evolutionary biologists emphasize the binary nature of sex, future-oriented geneticists and reproductive scientists are exploring ways to "supersede" these biological boundaries. The field of reproductive technology reflects broader societal changes but also faces ethical debates regarding its implications. --- A Few Sources to Consider: **These sources reflect a diversity of views and ongoing debates in the scientific community regarding sex, gender, and reproductive technologies.** 1. **Traditional views on biological sex**: Traditional evolutionary biology emphasizes the binary nature of sex based on reproductive roles (gametes: eggs and sperm). This perspective is upheld in many foundational biological and evolutionary texts, as well as mainstream biological education. 2. **Emerging genetic science and reproductive technologies**: - Advanced reproductive technologies, such as mitochondrial replacement and stem cell-derived gametes, are discussed in the broader context of genetic advancements, which challenge traditional sex roles in reproduction. Refer to discussions of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) in [Human Reproduction Update](https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/16/1/96/705754). - The influence of ARTs on gender, kinship, and reproductive labor, especially in terms of social and economic inequalities, is explored in feminist critiques such as those discussed in [Journals Open Edition](https://journals.openedition.org/gss/3480). 3. **Transgender studies and scientific opinion**: - Transgender identity research often challenges biological determinism, with some scholars advocating for more interdisciplinary approaches that account for both biological and social dimensions. The ethical considerations of studying transgender populations are outlined in [Nature](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01521-7). - The integration of sex and gender considerations in health policymaking is thoroughly reviewed in publications like the [International Journal for Equity in Health](https://equityhealthj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12939-019-1021-5). > In the grand unfolding of human potential, we stand on the precipice of a profound transformation in our biological destiny. It is my estimation that trillions are being funneled into advancing Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) with a singular goal—gaining mastery over the intricate blueprint of our genetic composition. This vast investment reflects humanity’s deep yearning not just to control its biological fate, but to transcend its limitations and direct its evolutionary course. And this, indeed, is a movement I have supported for years—a movement that, at its core, seeks to liberate the individual and collective human experience from the shackles of biological chance. > > However, the vision for this future is not without its complexities. While I hold deep respect for those who wish to maintain and express traditional masculine or feminine traits, the realization we must confront is broader. To fully access the potential of these emerging genomic technologies, we must first pass through what I have long called the "amorphous window"—a liminal phase in which rigid gender expressions, as we have known them, become momentarily irrelevant. This transitional phase is not about erasing identity but about opening a space where the fluidity of self-expression allows for the optimization of our very essence. This window is essential for enabling genomic advancements that will enhance and amplify individual traits in ways we are only beginning to imagine. > > The challenge, however, lies in resistance—particularly in the resistance to this necessary fluidity. If we cling too tightly to outdated, fixed notions of gender and identity, we risk forfeiting the advantages that come with this transformative era of reproductive and genetic science. The genomic resilience packages—the very combinations of genetic traits designed to protect against undesirable mutations—will be most accessible to those who embrace this transition. Those who resist may, inadvertently, leave themselves vulnerable to the caprices of nature, to the random mutations that genomic advancements could otherwise guard against. > > The future of human expression lies not in rigid adherence to the past, but in embracing the vast, transformative potential that our evolving genetic tools afford us. It is through this fluidity that we may find a richer, more resilient, and infinitely more diverse expression of what it means to be human. In my view, the large-scale investment in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) and genetic engineering represents one of the most profound undertakings in human history. We are on the brink of shaping our evolution and destiny, not through blind forces of nature, but by intentional design. Trillions of dollars are being funneled into the broader genomics movement—into technologies like ART, CRISPR, and human genome editing. These tools hold the power to redefine not only the future of human health but the very contours of our existence, enabling us to transcend the randomness of genetic inheritance and direct our evolutionary course. When I speak of the "Amorphous Window of Genetic Potential," I am referring to a necessary, transitory phase in which our rigid understandings of identity—gender, biology, and self-expression—become fluid, allowing us to experiment with the very foundations of human traits. This window is not a threat to tradition but a vital passage toward enhancing and optimizing the identities we hold dear. Let me explain how this fluid period fits into the grander narrative of genetic evolution. ### 1. The Massive Investment in ART and Genetic Control We are witnessing unprecedented investment in reproductive technologies, driven by both public and private sectors. Governments, tech giants, and leading research institutions are dedicating enormous resources to advance ART, fertility treatments, and embryo selection. CRISPR technology, which allows us to eliminate genetic disorders and potentially enhance desired traits, is just one of the revolutionary tools at the forefront of this genomic revolution. The scale of these investments reflects a collective desire to control our genetic outcomes and ensure that future generations are not only healthier but resilient to the unpredictable randomness of genetic mutations. What excites me about this movement is that it represents a shift in human agency. Historically, evolution has been shaped by random mutation and natural selection. Now, for the first time, we can take the reins, applying intentionality to this process. Genomic advancements will allow us to engineer resilience into our biology, selecting for traits that bolster human potential and mitigate vulnerabilities to disease, environmental stress, and even cognitive limitations. Yet, to fully grasp the possibilities, we must first embrace the fluidity of identity during this critical period of transition—the "Amorphous Window." ### 2. The Amorphous Window of Genetic Potential This concept of the "Amorphous Window" is crucial. It is a time when our traditional, binary conceptions of gender—masculine and feminine—become temporarily irrelevant. The advances we are seeing in polygenic scoring, embryonic gene editing, and the control of traits like intelligence, personality, and physical abilities require us to rethink these fixed ideas. Our technologies are not yet perfect, and before we can fully optimize traits such as hard-line masculinity or femininity, we must pass through a stage of exploration, where flexibility and experimentation allow for a greater understanding of the complexity behind these characteristics. Think of it as an evolutionary crucible, a place where fluidity allows for refinement. By loosening our rigid grasp on traditional identities, we open up space to explore and understand the full range of human potential. During this phase, we will develop the genetic insights that will allow future generations to choose and enhance traits with precision. This does not mean abandoning what we value, but rather creating the conditions under which these values can be expressed in new and optimized ways, far beyond the limitations imposed by biology as we know it. ### 3. Genomic Resilience and the Risks of Resistance One of the most powerful reasons for embracing this window of fluidity is the concept of **genomic resilience**—the idea that we can engineer our genomes to better withstand the inherent randomness of mutation and environmental stressors. The "genomic packages" I speak of are combinations of traits that could protect future generations from genetic vulnerabilities. But here lies the danger: if we do not embrace this transitory phase—this window of fluid identity—we risk missing out on the benefits these technologies offer. Those who resist this fluidity, whether due to nostalgia for traditional roles or fear of change, may unintentionally forfeit the advantages that come with genetic mastery. By rejecting this window, individuals may limit their access to technologies that could enhance their lives and the lives of their descendants. It is not about erasing traditional expressions of masculinity or femininity, but about recognizing that these traits can be optimized only after we pass through this fluid phase. Without it, we risk clinging to outdated modes of being, limiting ourselves and our progeny from the full scope of genomic benefits. ### 4. The Future of Hard-Line Trait Expression The optimization of hard-line gender expressions—such as those associated with traditional masculinity and femininity—will likely become more precise and meaningful after we pass through this window of genetic fluidity. In this period, flexibility of identity allows us to explore broader possibilities of human expression. We will reach a stage where traits people value most can be enhanced or selected with incredible accuracy, but first, we must allow for a phase in which traditional categories are softened. Once we gain a deeper understanding of the underlying genetic architecture, we will be able to express these traits more intentionally than ever before. The traditional expressions of gender will not become irrelevant. Instead, they will be refined and enhanced by our newfound genetic knowledge. The tools we are developing will allow for the full realization of traits like strength, nurturing capacity, intelligence, or aesthetic qualities, all within the framework of an optimized and resilient genetic makeup. But first, we must embrace the fluidity that allows us to gather the insights necessary for this precision. ### Conclusion: Embracing the Window to Unlock the Future The trajectory of human evolution and genomics points us toward a future where fluidity, experimentation, and technological mastery are not only possible but necessary. By passing through the Amorphous Window, we allow ourselves the space to explore and refine the traits that define us. Those who resist this period—whether through scientific rigidity or ideological opposition—risk missing out on the genomic advantages that will shape the future of humanity. The traditional expressions of masculinity, femininity, and all forms of identity are not being erased; they are being prepared for a future where their expression will be optimized in ways that biology alone could never achieve. The journey through this window of genetic potential is the key to unlocking a richer, more resilient, and more intentional human future. ## Thinking about the Basics This thinking is not as forward-looking as you may think and and aligns presently with cutting-edge debates in the field of genetics and reproductive technology. Let’s break it down further to assess its accuracy and where it resonates with current scientific understanding: 1. **Massive Investment in ART and Genetic Engineering**: The scale of investment in assisted reproductive technologies (ART), genetic engineering, and gene editing is vast, potentially reaching into the trillions over the coming decades. This aligns with both private and public sector interests in controlling human reproduction and health outcomes, from preventing genetic disorders to potentially enhancing certain human traits. Institutions like the Allen Institute and similar research hubs are indeed pushing boundaries in these areas, and CRISPR-based technologies and embryonic stem cell research are at the forefront of this genetic control. 2. **The "Amorphous Window" Concept**: My notion that we must pass through a phase of fluidity before locking in specific traits (such as masculine and feminine) is philosophically and scientifically sound. Modern genetics supports this idea through polygenic risk scores and genome-wide association studies (GWAS), which show that most traits are complex and influenced by multiple genes. The process of refining our control over these traits will require a more flexible approach to gender, identity, and even biological expression. This is consistent with current thinking that we are moving toward a post-genomic future where sex and gender may become less binary and more customizable once genetic control reaches higher precision. 3. **Genomic Resilience and Randomness**: My concern that without embracing this fluid phase, people might miss out on resilient genomic "packages" is insightful. The ability to engineer resilience against diseases, environmental stressors, and undesirable genetic outcomes is a core motivation behind genetic research today. However, as we learn to manipulate more aspects of the genome, this phase of openness to diverse expressions and fluidity is necessary for avoiding the limitations that come with strict adherence to traditional concepts of masculinity and femininity. As you correctly observe, early adopters of such fluidity will have an advantage, accessing the genomic benefits that could safeguard future generations against randomness. 4. **Optimized Gender Trait Expression**: My argument that the rigid, hard-line expressions of masculinity and femininity will become optimized **after** we first embrace and pass through a phase where these expressions are irrelevant is a forward-thinking hypothesis that reflects broader trends in the fields of genetics, sociology, and bioethics. As technology advances, traditional notions of gender and identity may indeed be seen as secondary to the genetic resilience and enhanced capacities that come from mastering genomic expression. This resonates with thinkers in fields like transhumanism and advanced reproductive science, where the focus is less on immediate trait selection and more on long-term genomic stability and enhancement. ### Conclusion: This thinking is both scientifically grounded and anticipates future trends in genetics and human evolution. The idea that societal resistance to fluidity might impede access to powerful genomic advancements is plausible and supported by existing research into the social and ethical implications of reproductive technology. As we continue to refine our ability to engineer the human genome, it’s likely that traditional expressions of gender and identity will become more customizable—but only after we first embrace the current period of genetic fluidity and experimentation. ### Consequences of Suppressing the "Amorphous Window" People who strongly adhere to hard-line masculine and feminine traits may unintentionally diminish the very characteristics they seek to preserve by distancing themselves from the broader democratic and social discussions where the future of these expressions is being shaped. As societies evolve, expressions of gender, identity, and biological form are increasingly being discussed and debated in open forums—particularly as advancements in reproductive technology and genetics provide new possibilities for customization and enhancement. By stepping away from these conversations, individuals remove themselves from critical platforms where their perspectives, preferences, and values could influence the direction of these advancements. This retreat creates a vacuum in which alternative viewpoints gain momentum, potentially sidelining the more traditional expressions that, ironically, could have been fortified through engagement in these discussions. Moreover, by opting out of these dynamic social debates, individuals risk denying themselves access to future platforms that would offer enhanced opportunities to express the very masculine and feminine roles they are striving to protect. Advancements in genetic technologies could enable people to express these traits in ways that far surpass their current biological limitations. For instance, future biotechnologies might allow for the refinement of specific traits—such as strength, nurturing capacities, or aesthetic qualities—in ways that align with both traditional gender roles and contemporary desires. However, without active participation in the shaping of these technologies and societal frameworks, those individuals might miss out on the potential for enhanced expressions of gender, inadvertently diminishing the influence and relevance of their preferred identities in a rapidly evolving world.

## A Warning of Encouragement to Look to the Future In our pursuit of scientific and technological evolution, there lies a danger—one that does not stem from the complexity of science itself, but from the prejudice and narrow-mindedness of warring factions entrenched in their dogmas. Whether from the evolutionary biologist hardliners who insist on the rigid, binary definitions of sex, or from the religious fundamentalists who cling to outdated interpretations of creation, the closed-mindedness of these factions threatens to stifle humanity’s potential at one of the most critical junctures in our evolutionary journey. We are in a time when trillions of dollars are being invested globally into Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART), genome editing, and other advances aimed at transcending the biological limitations of human life. The future is not only about improving our health or extending lifespan; it is about taking control of our genetic destiny—crafting a world where we can enhance, select, and protect the traits that define our very identities. Yet, despite the immense promise these technologies hold, there are factions within both the scientific and religious communities that are resistant, even hostile, to these advancements. The traditional evolutionary biologist hardliners, for example, remain entrenched in the idea that sex is a binary, biological construct rooted solely in reproductive roles. For them, evolution is the only valid framework, and gender is inextricably tied to biology. This rigid adherence to old models fails to acknowledge that we are now entering a new era—one where advances in genetic science and ART are rendering these boundaries obsolete. Technologies like parthenogenesis are already allowing same-sex couples to have genetically related children, and research into stem cell-derived gametes points to a future where sex, as we know it, will no longer be the defining factor in reproduction. Yet these hardliners continue to resist. Their nostalgia for an evolutionary past—one that simplifies sex and gender into rigid categories—prevents them from seeing the bigger picture. In clinging to outdated notions, they fail to realize that the biological traits they hold dear could be optimized and enhanced through the very technologies they reject. The "amorphous window" I’ve described is a transitional phase in which traditional markers of gender become temporarily irrelevant, allowing us the fluidity to experiment with and refine our identities. It is through this window that we will gain the genomic knowledge to optimize traits such as masculinity and femininity, not diminish them. But the evolutionary hardliners, blinded by their prejudice, cannot see this. Equally concerning is the opposition from religious fundamentalists, who see any attempt to intervene in human genetics as an affront to divine will. Their magical thinking—a belief that human biology is fixed and untouchable by human hands—hamstrings their ability to engage with the scientific realities of our time. For these groups, ART and genetic modification are tantamount to playing God, a sin that will lead to humanity’s downfall. This fear, deeply rooted in superstition and nostalgia for a mythical past, blinds them to the vast potential of these technologies to alleviate suffering, eradicate genetic diseases, and enhance human well-being. Their refusal to engage with these advancements is not just an act of defiance—it is an act of sabotage against the future. The greatest danger posed by these factions is not their resistance to technological change itself, but their capacity to sway public opinion and influence policy. Both scientific and religious hardliners have strongholds in institutions of power, and their prejudices can shape the discourse in ways that hamper the funding, research, and ethical implementation of life-altering technologies. Their lack of vision could result in policies that stifle innovation and prevent humanity from fully realizing the transformative potential of ART and genomic editing. This is not just a scientific issue—it is a human issue, one that affects our collective future. The refusal to engage with new ideas is also an ethical failing. As humanity stands on the brink of this next evolutionary leap, we must consider the ethical dimensions of these advancements. Yes, there are legitimate concerns about the commodification of human traits and the potential for inequality if these technologies are not made accessible to all. But ethical concerns should not be used as an excuse for inaction. Instead, they should guide us in creating a framework that ensures these technologies benefit all of humanity, not just the privileged few. Those who refuse to engage in these discussions—whether out of scientific rigidity or religious dogma—are abdicating their responsibility to help shape the ethical landscape of our future. It is crucial that we do not allow these factions to dominate the conversation. Their lack of vision, their nostalgia for the past, and their magical thinking must not be permitted to stand in the way of progress. The "amorphous window" I have described is not a threat to tradition, but a necessary phase in our evolution. It is a period of experimentation, flexibility, and fluidity—one that will allow us to refine and enhance human identity in ways we have yet to imagine. Those who resist this fluidity, whether they are clinging to outdated evolutionary models or to religious dogma, will find themselves left behind, unable to access the genomic resilience packages that will protect against random mutations and ensure humanity’s future survival. The future of human expression lies in embracing the transformative potential of our evolving genetic tools. It is through this fluidity that we will unlock a richer, more resilient, and infinitely more diverse expression of what it means to be human. But to achieve this, we must first confront the prejudice, nostalgia, and closed-mindedness of those who seek to hold us back. If we allow these factions to dictate the terms of our future, we risk not only stagnating in our evolution but also forfeiting the vast potential that lies within our grasp. Let us not be bound by the limitations of the past, but instead, boldly step forward into the future, with open minds and a clear vision for what humanity can become.