That is nature. Genetic Engineering is looking nature/natural evolution in the eye and saying "Nah miss, we DEFINE 'evolution' now, God is dead and Human is now a God." You don't even need to see whether females choose X or Y. All what matters is what she will carry. If it is an fertilized ovulum with a proper set of genes (that MIIIIGHT define a person...MIGHT), who cares if males are competing for females or not?
You can as well reshape things so, dunno, male libido is lower so a greater preference for artificial development of new generations becomes more likely. Or make that females have higher chances (HIGHER CHANCES, possibility, that is what genetics will define) of prefering a certain type of male...anything is possible!
It is just bad for 'nature' types, but those people are in the way of progress.
That depends. Evolution's postulate is mainly about 'which genes get to be passed forward' as far as natural pressure goes (which...fails as humans control their enviroment...), for our redpill friend, the argument would be 'well, women prefer Alphas? Why don't you look into genetic engineering? What about crafting a new humanity where Alphas do not exist? I mean, at that point you are playing God, none is above that.'
My issue is, they never consider how many people want to reshape human DNA and create something new. All arguments above evolution. None consider the future possibility of artificial make ups.