Looks like GC better revise its position on females and leadership...if they want their "non-denominational-denomination" to survive. :lol:
They would be unbiblical to do so.
However, it's not as though any level or part or aspect of their leadership is biblical already: any part that even appears to be, at first, is twisted. Besides that, however, I found that in the DT's, despite the official positions on things, women had authority over men all the time. Besides that, women were also permitted to be leadership over women even officially--which is okay...if they're seasoned older women: these were not, so they just helped perpetuate immaturity, and sometimes a haughtiness--I know a certain one that told puff "you're following the devil" after he dared asked whether anything they (who built this site) had said was deceptive/lying, untrue, and she could not; then again, she may have just been repeating a line the higher-ups said of those who built this thing.
And although I understand your joking reasons for bringing this up I want to help put an old myth to rest. This is a very old myth, not grounded in science, but like many scientific "proclamations" keeps getting picked-up and re-cited. It's also outdated matter: the Y, despite its minute size, was the iron man of genes to sequence because it's recursive; the researchers who accomplished this described it (and much simpler than it really is) as looking at thousands of New York cities where the only difference were a couple of mail boxes in each. The Y, unlike other chromosomes, like a mirror-in-a-mirror, is able without a partnered chromosome to repair itself: so the coming demise of men is far over exaggerated.
Speaking of which, I actually considered in school writing a paper on a chicken-and-the-egg problem regarding sexes that, if evolution held, men would have to have been first: sure, Adam-and-Evecome to mind first for sure to anyone who'd encounter that paper, but on a genetic basis it would be quite serious if one has no pre-commitments to evolutionary philosophy into which to force the data to fit. It doesn't quite have to do with the Y, but that could be part of the reasoning too, if one really wanted to give extra detail.
