Defense Minister Artis Pabriks' remarks on the necessity of introducing compulsory military service have sparked a justified debate, as there are many unclear issues. Let us not speculate on how much this move by Pabriks has been aligned with the upcoming elections and how much with the real need. Perhaps the two coincided. Let us talk about the controversial issue of women's service. Why is women's service voluntary?
The new "progressive" religion of the 21st century preaches that human genders are social constructions. You cannot tell who is a man and who is a woman by their outward appearance, because each person may have an inner identity. You think you are talking to a woman, but in reality, it is a man sitting across from you. Or something in between, because this gender identity is not binary. There is a wide, continuous spectrum of genders, where everyone can find their place [in this spectrum].
Starting from this indisputable truth, which is based on various scientific studies (in this new religion, every dogma must be backed up by relevant scientific studies), to distinguish between the genders only on the basis of whether or not they menstruate (the existence of which in earlier times determined people's gender) is the purest discrimination.
Selma Levrence, one of the most prominent priestesses of this new religion in Latvia, makes it clear: "A proposal that is mostly welcome, except for the utter nonsense that women are not obliged to serve. We are all Latvian citizens and we should all have the same obligations. Primary school is also compulsory for all, not just for boys."
Džeina Tamuļeviča echoes her: "It is rather ironic that parental leave is compulsory for both fathers and mothers, while the army is compulsory only for guys. And then we moan about the need for quotas for women in all sorts of institutions and formations. Gender equality either exists or does not. Just like how you can't get only halfway pregnant."
The question is not so simple, because really, why should everyone go to school, and together, but in the military, there is such discrimination? It does not even matter which gender may feel discriminated against in this case, because that is not the point. As Tamuļeviča pointed out, gender equality either exists or does not. Moreover, let us not forget that genders are only social constructs (fictions) in general, and we need to move towards gender-neutral social behavior, where there should be no differential treatment of any part of the gender spectrum. All should be treated equally.
If we abstract for a moment from these postulates of the new religion and stick to the archaic binary gender model, then the question is different. What effect does the presence of members of the opposite sex have on the combat capabilities of individual army units? This question has been little studied because it is largely taboo due to the above beliefs, although in fact it is the only one that would really matter in deciding this issue. One can make do by examining the actual practice in a militarized and threatened country like Israel, where women serve alongside men in the army. The experience there suggests that the presence of the two sexes together does not have a detrimental effect on army discipline.
Since there are few areas left in the modern world where men and women are separated, it should be further explained here that the behavior of women and men when they are alone among their own sex differs significantly from that when the other sex is also present. The presence of one member of the opposite sex fundamentally changes the behavior of all members of the group. In many situations this is not decisive, but in war, when lives are at stake, these behavioral differences can play a very important role. However, if in Israel both sexes (or the whole gender spectrum, in the "modern" vernacular) can serve together, this will probably not cause any excesses in Latvia either.
But since we have touched on the issues of sex, gender and non-binarity, let us look at them from the point of view of real science, not the newly invented, sectarian "science", based, to say the least, on the controversial dogma that when people are born, their gender is not determined, and that each person determines it later, according to his or her own feelings. Anyone who questions this sectarian dogma is immediately consigned to the heresy of transphobia.
What does classical biological science say? Biological sex is determined by the size of the sex cells (gametes) produced by an individual. Males produce smaller gametes and females produce larger gametes. A man ejaculates between 200 and 500 million tiny sperm per ejaculation, while a woman's body produces around 400 incomparably larger eggs throughout her lifetime. This initial asymmetry in the size of sex cells may seem insignificant, but it leads to a whole cascade of evolutionary effects that result in different “sexual selection” for each sex.
It is this difference in sex cell size that has a fundamental impact on both evolution and behavior. As Bob Trivers, one of the world's most quoted evolutionary biologists, puts it: "Sexual selection (choice) is determined by the relative contribution of the parents of each sex to their offspring." It is this "relative contribution" that explains the differences in the sexual behavior of all living things that reproduce sexually. What does this mean in a language that everyone can understand?
Since males can produce millions of sperm quickly and easily, the main factor limiting the reproductive capacity of males is their ability to attract females to the act of fertilization. The main limiting factor for females is access to resources during the period when the child is dependent on the mother (pregnancy and child growth). Reproductively successful men can produce thousands of offspring (e.g. Genghis Khan now has over 16 million direct male offspring), while women are constrained by the length of pregnancy and childcare.
By replacing "woman" with "the sex that contributes more in its offspring", we get Trivers' basic formula on which his whole theory is based: the sex that invests more in its offspring will be more selective in choosing a partner. In other words, women are more demanding when choosing a partner. This is why there is the common belief among women that there are four women for every one man, even though statistics show that there are even more men in the under-45 age group. Three out of four men simply do not meet women's requirements. Only monogamy, which really is a social construct, allows/forces women to accept partners whom they would reject under biologically determined conditions.
Trivers bases his theory on one of the basic tenets of real (not sectarian) science: it is correct always and everywhere, not in some special cases, under certain circumstances or in most cases. Find even one living species in which mate choice does not follow the Trivers formula, and the theory will be overturned. But there are no such species.
From this discovery by Trivers, the claim that male and female are arbitrary classifications is false on every level. Not only does it deny the primary sex characteristics (reproductive organs), which are unambiguous at birth, but it also ignores the very definition of biological sex. While differences in outward appearance, hormones, behavior and many other features of sex vary greatly from species to species, and in some even do not exist at all, differences in gamete size are ineradicable. The same is true of the anomalous mix of female and male characteristics in some individuals, which is also the basis of the "gender spectrum". But these characteristics do not undermine or challenge the basic difference between the sexes - gamete size. Sex is binary. There is no third sex.
The pseudoscience sectarians simply ignore the real science. They completely deny the influence of biology on human beings and claim that human gender differences are socially constructed. In this interpretation, differences in male and female behavior are "prejudices" that can be eliminated by changing children's beliefs at an early age, by encouraging gender-neutral play.
While the biggest gender differences are related to the choice of partner (women attach greater importance to characteristics that reflect a potential partner's ability to acquire resources - socio-economic status and ambition - while men attach greater importance to characteristics that reflect fertility - youth and attractiveness), physical differences are also important and undeniable and are particularly important in the case of military service. But this too is ignored because of misunderstood political correctness.
The evidence that behavioral differences between the sexes have a biological origin is overwhelming. There are three main methods that scientists use to determine whether a trait is/isn’t rooted in biology. The first indication that it is likely to have evolved by natural selection is that the same pattern is seen in different cultures. The probability that a particular trait, such as a husband being older on average than his wife, is socially culturally determined, when the same pattern is seen in all cultures around the world, is microscopically small.
The second indication that it is of biological origin: if it is observed in young children who have not yet been subjected to “rearing” (e.g. boys are more aggressive than girls in infancy). Thirdly, an evolutionary origin is suggested by a similar pattern (e.g. males are more aggressive) observed in related species such as other apes or mammals.
If these differences are so clear, why is the opposite message - that these differences either do not exist or are the result of social construct - so eagerly proclaimed? The reasons are almost entirely political. The idea that any differences between men and women have no biological basis is attractive because it creates the illusion of easy change. If gender differences are built into human nature, they are harder to change. In other words, if gender differences are not based on "prejudice" but on biology, then they may have to be accepted. If, on the other hand, it's all about gender roles, then we can easily change things by giving children gender-neutral toys.
Recognizing the role of biology also opens the door to the unwelcome realization that men and women may have different roles and main goals in life, which is already dangerously close to the theme of social inequality. Of course, to the extent that equal opportunities are confused with equality and the possibility of respecting and appreciating the attractiveness of gender differences is denied.
There is an understandable concern that any concession to nature could be used to justify what is commonly known as discrimination. But is lying about biological sex differences the only alternative? The rhetorical equivalence needed to argue that gender is nothing more than a chosen identity requires increasingly sophisticated arguments and special jargon (the gender spectrum and similar innovations). This not only undermines the credibility of science; it leads to undemocratic exaggerations aimed at silencing those who disagree.
Two billion years of sexual selection, determined by the initial difference in the size of sex cells, has led to a cascade of biological differences between men and women, while ruthlessly introducing a different kind of equality between the sexes. The fact that it takes one male and one female to reproduce guarantees equal average reproduction between the sexes, while the fact that mothers and fathers will each contribute almost the same amount of DNA to their sons and daughters ensures equal genetic representation in the next generation. This is, of course, not the equality desired by the adepts of the new sect who deliberately confuse diversity with better/worse and dominance with power. In evolutionary logic, there are many paths to power, and no gender is superior.
The claim that children are born "genderless" and their parents (society) force them into gender roles leads to further, even more absurd "scientific" claims. The quest for a genderless society is a shockingly arrogant and utopian vision. It separates humans from our biological history and promotes the fallacy that we are beyond biology.
The proposal that compulsory military service will be purely voluntary for women has nothing to do with gender “discrimination”. It is a compromise between true science and the new faith's sectarian assumptions about the identity of gender behavior. It is a feeble attempt to appeal to common sense (science) which states that gender is neither a matter of socialization nor a matter of choice. From this point of view, it is supportable.
P.S. The article draws on Robert Lynch's article "How Sex Became Gender" in The American Conservative.