The Gene - An intimate history - Swyer Syndrome and David Reimer

Very clear explanation FWRLurker. Thank you.

People who are intersex are not the problem. So gleaning information from them and applying it to trans people is pointless. But also, impossible. Trans people aren't intersex.

Thanks, FWRLurker, for all the great contributions.

The mechanism described above can actually strengthen the gender critical approach while pointing towards (for me) a potential compromise

Eh? What compromise? I understand the thread didn't quite go as you were clearly hoping, but I can't imagine what "compromise" to be made by women it has elicited in your thinking. It's about intersex not extremist transactivism.

Compromise? How? You either allow men into women’s protected spaces or you don’t.

The mechanism described above can actually strengthen the gender critical approach while pointing towards (for me) a potential compromise What sort of compromise are you thinking of? Honest question, not snarking, I promise

Thank you for an interesting thread LaPeste.

Can I just add that twin studies have shown a much higher rate of concordance between identical twins than fraternal twins which I doubt could be explained by the factors that FWRLurker outlined.

Studies of twins suggest that there are likely genetic causes of transsexuality, although the precise genes involved are not fully understood.[3][4] One study published in the International Journal of Transgenderism found that 33% of identical twin pairs were both trans, compared to only 2.6% of non-identical twins who were raised in the same family at the same time, but were not genetically identical

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality

Glad to be helpful!

I should note on Swyer syndrome, some individuals with it actually have a mutation in some gene other than SRY, that is also somewhere far up in the sex determination cascade. But everyone with a “broken” SRY gene and a Y chromosome is going to have swyer.

Another thanks to FWRLurker for helpful explanations.

FWRlurker thanks for very interesting input

Twin studies are tricky, in that one cannot ever fully account for the environment - even the best studies which are adoption twin studies. Despite what some would have you believe, a 0.28 heritability from a twin study does NOT mean that “28% is due to genes”. It means that there is a correlation of 28% remaining after “removing” the correlation between non relatives. Of course, you cannot ever completely remove shared environment.

Take a case like race and IQ. As a minority race, Your race is noticed by others and if nonwhite your environment will therefore be disadvantaged even if you have every other privilege because people will treat you more poorly on average. We would therefore fully expect to see genes involved in skin color to “cause” lower SES, lower “IQ” etc. but of course the actual cause is societal racism.

as another example, in the USA zip code has a heritability of about 0.15 because most people end up living near to where they are born.

0.28 could quite easily be caused by heritable things like more andrgenoys physical features, genes causing autism depression and other mental illnesses, personality traits like narcissism perhaps (though my view is transwomen become narcissistic because of the societal effects of trying to live a lie, not because they are naturally like that).

I'm not sure that follows from a scientific perspective. I think it were the case if we were talking about something like colour-blindness which is controlled by a single mutation, but we're not talking about that here.

This right here reads as "I want this theory to be true so badly that I'm going to assume it must be somehow".

Twin studies are a gold standard in research for a reason. Handwaving that away with oh well this is different though is a display of rather obvious bias.

Well, if and when he finds a "pathway" that actually explains gender identity, versus "here's something we don't understand so I assume it must mean the gender stuff is real", please feel free to report back in.

How people react to being properly identified as their sex by others is absolutely variable for everyone. That’s because since we live in a sexist society there’s more at stake than just the fact of our biology. We are all aware that by being female that means a whole lotta crap is coming our way. Being male, a different set of toxic garbage. Of course people are going to internalize this different ways. Some may even come to hate their sexed bodies because of how bad it is.

People with DSD simply have another layer of complexity than the rest of us. They may have to come to terms with something as confusing as being lied to for their whole lives, or finding out at puberty they can never have children. This is why it is current best practice to be open about the condition with kids so they don’t experience this dissonance.

Arnold

no problem! I cover a lot of this in my classes so happy to share. Some of it I only took the time to learn after being on this board though!

LaPeste

Sex (meaning the cluster of characteristics all of us recognize as male or female such as male or female genitals, etc) is determined in mammals by way of a “trigger” gene, called SRY. This gene is Y linked so those who inherit a Y will nearly always be male, no matter how many X chromosomes they have. This gene sets off a cascade of signals to turn on “male genes” or if not present, not to do so.

So in effect yes, in mammals the “default” is to develop as a female. In order to develop as a male one must have the SRY trigger, which is why Swyer syndrome is technically a disorder of male sex development.

Another point at which phenotypic female can result from a male karyotype is CAIS in which an individual cannot use testosterone. A lot of the male phenotype is set based on the use of testosterone. In this case SRY is properly signaling to produce testosterone but because the body can’t use it, the body remains phenotypically female.

Ultimately I don’t see how the biological mechanism has much to do with identity. Women are adult human females. Our Gender “identity” is determined by how others see us, IMO. If we appear female and are told as much that is how we see ourselves.

All of the intersex “transition” cases you discuss are ones wherein people realize later in life that they’ve been lied to about their sex or were mistaken due to abnormal development. It makes perfect sense in this context that they might “reidentify”. None of this supports gendered souls.

FWRLurker

Thank you for your explanations, particularly of Swyer Syndrome.

In amongst all the propaganda (not having a pop at the OP but generally) it had completely passed me by that this condition was down to a non-functional SRY gene. Now it makes clear sense in my head.

Meanwhile for the penile disgenesis they often have active testes and a testosterone fueled puberty so it becomes

Oops cut off.

It becomes obvious at some point to them or medical professionals that they are in fact male and therefore will be seen as male. Meanwhlle the ones that don’t desist likely have only partial or weak masculinization occur so are likely to continue to believe they are female. For some getting very little health care they may never even know there’s anything going on and will continue to believe they are female.

There are so many more convincing explanations for why a boy, brought up with the restrictive social rules applied to girls, might at puberty decide to cease the playacting and the conforming to a set of social rules designed for the opposite sex to him.

Why might a boy choose to exit the girl box ? We know why! Sexism makes performing those roles unbearable. If you can escape, and have the opportunity and will, you do.

Why might a boy stay in the girl box? The same reasons, with different outside pressures. "I'll never be accepted as a true man/I've learned to see myself as belonging with girls/ I'm a compliant personality"

I'd say the biggest factors are homophobia/sexism/pliable personalities/family support.

There was a point in history when the zeitgeist amongst doctors was 'inadequate penis? Might as well be a girl'. Medicine is not immune to sexism.

Even now, you see cases of DSDs where a biological male who will respond to testosterone from his testes at puberty is put in the girl box because of a small penis at birth.

Because the female box is just for defective men, isn't it?

We are pattern seeking animals. We are able to distinguish male from female and place ourselves accordingly by understanding the fundamental characteristics of each group.

But we are prone to faulty thinking. And some will observe superfluous characteristics and incorrectly designate them critical identifiers of a group.

I have a female body. I menstruate, get pregnant. I place myself in the group of people that I match because we share those bodies.
A man who places himself, incorrectly, in my group does so because he falsely decides that long hair/prettiness/fondness of pink sparkles is a designator of my group. He calls this gender identity.

But it's nothing more than faulty reasoning plus desire.