> parts of biology ARE destiny -- for example, death is
Substantial parts of HN think this is something that could be rectified technologically. And there are a few species that are "biologically immortal"; lobsters don't have telomere aging, for example.
>Substantial parts of HN think this is something that could be rectified technologically.
Well, until they manage to rectify that, it is. I will update the comment when that happens (assuming it's not so far in the future that me and those substantial parts of HN are all dead, in which case it wont matter).
>And there are a few species that are "biologically immortal"; lobsters don't have telomere aging, for example.
Good for them, but still not applicable to humans as of yet (or at any point in our past).
No, that's a modern fashionable idea IN gender studies.
Doesn't mean all gender studies should (or does) bow to this idea. And even when they do, it's far more nuanced than that, as there's an interplay between biology and social elements. (Paglia doesn't say biology is destiny itself -- but parts of biology ARE destiny -- for example, death is).