I want to talk about something of the utmost scientific importance.  It's a question the CDC, NIH, NASA, and even Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson are woefully unqualified to answer.  I suspect the advertising executives at Anheuser-Busch think they know the answer, but they also came up with the "what could go wrong?" Dylan Mulvaney marketing strategy — so keep that in mind.

Here's the big question: which came first, the chicken or the egg?  It isn't just a riddle.  I actually have an answer, and an important point — which I'll get to in my meandering, "overly complicated as only an engineer can make things" kind of way.

Before we can arrive at an answer, we need to make one assumption.  Should we assume divine creation or evolution?  Is our presence explained by faith or science?

Divine creation would say the chicken came first.  The Bible says that on the sixth day, God populated the earth with the animals of the land.  Before the sunset of that day, some chickens and roosters got together and began the business of making more chickens and provisioning breakfast.  A chicken spontaneously created by God laid the first egg.  Hence, the chicken came first.

I'm guessing the left isn't too keen on that explanation, so let's examine the alternative.  Let's take a look at evolution — the non-faith-based explanation for how we all came to be.

Evolution would say that the egg came first.  According to Charles Darwin, at some point in history, a non-chicken animal laid an egg with a mutation.  That egg, which was genetically divergent from its mom and pop, eventually hatched into a chicken.  The chicken DNA started as a mutation in the egg.  Hence the first manifestation of chickenness occurred in a shell.  The egg came first.

Which theory do you suppose the folks dedicated to saving the planet from the weather would subscribe to?  Would the left accept that some animal gradually mutated over millions of years to become a chicken?  Or would they prefer to believe that God snapped his fingers, and the animal kingdom magically appeared?

I suspect that the self-proclaimed followers of consensus science would prefer the evolution explanation.  Accepting the notion of an all-powerful living God would have to scare the crap out of them.  It would mean there is nothing relative about good and evil, and their perpetual state of flirtation with evil might be a bit problematic in the afterlife.  Being sensitive to every leftist's delicate worldview, I'll proceed with my argument on the assumption that there is no God, and there will be no afterlife in which they'll need to do some serious explaining — wink, wink.

For purposes of this article, I'll assume that evolution is how we all got here, and the answer to the all-important question is that the egg came first.  Of course, that conclusion also means that what we are is defined by our genetics.  According to the theory of evolution, slowly mutating genes are what allowed cute furry critters to eventually evolve into obnoxious leftist know-it-alls.

But if we're going to accept the science of genetics, we don't get to ignore the "X" and "Y" chromosomes, just because they're inconvenient to useful idiots with gender confusion.  Those chromosomes are not imaginary.  They really exist — in every human cell.

If a person has an "X" and a "Y" chromosome, that person is a male.  He can't combine chromosomes to create little humans, regardless of how he presents himself to society, or how hard he wishes he could.  However, he can fertilize a person with two "X" chromosomes (customarily known as a female) so that she may do the necessary genetic splicing to give birth to another unique person — assuming she doesn't exercise her "right to choose."  That's the role nature has given males and females in human reproduction.  It's a science thing I picked up in sixth-grade sex ed class.  Justice Brown must have played hooky that day.

A person with those little "X" and "Y" thingies in his cells can make believe he's a she, a them, a fairy princess, or an assistant secretary of health.  But his beliefs don't make him anything other than a male.  (Note: I haven't called him a man.  That implies a level of maturity and self-awareness not evident in those who participate in gender fantasy cosplay.)

I tend to be quite libertarian in my outlook on life.  I don't care much what people do with their lives, as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.  Having said that, if Mr. "XY" wants to get implants, mutilate his privates, shop at Victoria's Secret, and make believe he's suffering from menstrual cramps, I still won't be bullied into taking him seriously.  Regardless of Mr. "XY's" mental peculiarities, he is not actually Mrs. "XX."

If he chooses to groom children, compete in women's sports, shower with young girls, or twerk for the kiddies at the library, he is violating the rights of others, and his fantasy has become anti-social and offensive.  Further, if he insists that I conduct myself as if I believed his fantasy, he's violating my right of free expression.  That's also a bridge too far.  If "he" can express himself as a "she," I can express myself as incredulous.

I have a message for the "T" contingent of the LGBT crowd.  Play your fantasy game, but respect our rights and leave us out of your make-believe world.  Do that, and I'll try not to ridicule you — at least not too much.  But if you continue insisting that your perceived reality is my actual reality, it's game on.

John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho.  He has written for American Thinker and American Free News Network.  He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.

Image: Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.