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

[LaPeste]

I am currently reading a book called "The Gene - An Intimate History" by Siddhartha Mukherjee. In the book, he has a short section on the genetics of sex and gender identity, and I wanted to share what he says to hear your thoughts.

First, he presents the cases of Swyer Syndrome, where people have XY chromosomes, but present and almost always report a female gender identity. He also presents the famous case of David Reimer, who was brought up as a girl after a botched surgery, realised he was male, changed gender, and eventually killed himself.

He brings these cases to make the point that gender identity in both cases does seem to be some fixed characteristic, that it is not necessarily aligned with our genetics or with how we are externally treated. I certainly know in the Reimer case that there were a great many other compounding factors that affected the poor man, and contributed to his suicide.

He then goes on to make the point that despite the binary nature of sex (XY/XX), or more accurately, the gene(s) in a particular region of the X chromosome (SRY gene region), that there is a mechanism for trans people. What he argues is that while there may be a master gene that turns male sex and female sex on and off, there can be a cascade of genes that create what we are debating as gender identity. I'm explaining it poorly, but as a gender critical person, it does give some pause.

Quoting from an article

"Mukherjee compares the master regulator to an army commander. At top of the hierarchy is gender anatomy; countless variations exist downstream in the composition of the army, each with slightly different components. You might have male identity with differing sexual attractions, or you might have differing aspects of male identity. He continues, The way that these genes—this genetic information percolates down into the individual, the way this hierarchy percolates down into an individual might be very different from one person to another and therefore create the kind of infinite ripples or variations in human identity that we experience in human life."

bigthink.com/21st-century-spirituality/can-transgenderism-be-explained-with-genetics

I just wondered if you'd come across this, and what you thought of it.

Derek Beres is a Los-Angeles based author, music producer, and yoga/fitness instructor at Equinox Fitness

I think you would have to read the actual book yourself.

Disorders of sexual development are not an explanation of Transgenderism.

I think you would have to read the actual book yourself.

I am reading the book. I only copied and pasted from that article to save myself a bit of typing. The paragraph I copied does broadly agree with the content of the book.

Do report back.

Does he give an explanation and definition for 'male identity'?

Do report back

??

See the OP. No he doesn’t directly

You might have male identity with differing sexual attractions, or you might have differing aspects of male identity.

What does he mean by 'male identity'. Is that to do with stereotypes or is it about someone feeling dissatisfaction or contentment with their sexed body?

He seems to be using the usual arguments.

Saying that Swyer syndrome proves that there is not a sex binary is often quoted by trans activists but it does not. Someone with Swyer syndrome may look like the female sex from the outside, but they have not developed fully as female as they have male chromosomes so the part that develops into ovaries and uterus will not form. They will not produce eggs and they will not produce a different type of gamete from eggs and sperm. It is a development pathway that has not gone along the normal route, like many other congenital disorders. However, it give the person different social problems to navigate than say a kidney disorder.

As for groups of genes determining 'sex identity' - there are no doubt genes that affect sexual behaviour that are tied to sex to a greater or lesser extent, but what is his proof for the 'master switch' analogy?

He seems to be quite a big name in the genetics of cancer, but maybe this is out of his field?

What does he mean by 'male identity'.

He doesn't really go into it, because he's not writing as an expert on gender per se, he's writing as a specialist on genetics. The book is not about gender or sex, it's a short section in an interesting book.

Saying that Swyer syndrome proves that there is not a sex binary … but what is his proof for the 'master switch' analogy?

In the book, he argues that sex is binary, which in part is the argument for the master switch analogy. I think what he is saying is that the binary nature of sex means that by and large, there is one gene that determines sex. However, genes can turn other genes on and off, which can set off a cascade of effects.

I think a lot of it is speculative, because I don't think he's saying we have found these genes, but he seems to be making the point that (a) gender identity does seem to exist and is not entirely socially constructed, and (b) there may be a pathway that explains it.

gender identity does seem to exist and is not entirely socially constructed

But isn't a gender identity socially constructed by definition, since gender is socially constructed?

But isn't a gender identity socially constructed by definition, since gender is socially constructed?

My inclination is to say yes, but the David Reimer case (and others like it) seem to suggest it's not entirely the whole picture.

I don't know how anyone can use David Reimer as evidence of anything.

The case started to be considered borderline unethical due to consent issues, then it turned out to have been falsified and finally that it had elements which today would be considered sexual abuse.

The whole thing was a horror show for those two boys and led to many children with certain intersex conditions being operated on and lied to (which is why AFAB/AFAM were originally coined)

The David Reimer story is grim. Are there other cases like that? I'm not sure that the disgusting experiment that was carried out on him should be used as proof of anything. He was seriously abused as a child.

Two aspects of transgenderism/transsexualism are dissatisfaction with the social role connected to your sex and a dislike of your body's sexual characteristics. I'm not sure that 'gender identity' is a helpful term to describe either of these.

The David Reimer case is absolutely exceptional, but the Mukharjee cites a few other articles and cases (XY brought up as girls), which show similar findings of cases where gender identity, if it exists, cannot not be entirely programmed

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-005-4342-9

ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2007.07040587

It just got me thinking.

No, it got you double thinking.

Reality: People are whomever they are.

Socialisation/Social mores: group together a set of stereotypes, expectations of each sex and call them mascuine or feminine, can be utterly polarised or can be a shifting scale, especially over very long periods of time, but are not ever set in concrete

Lived experience: Each individual navigates those mores according to how they feel, like, dislike

Gender Identity - seeks to set those stereotypes in concrete so as to make men women and women men based on appearance and 'feelz'

Gender Critical people say fuck off! Be who you are, celebrate your individualism, don't try to enforce your indicual choices on the rest of the world!

Hiccups in genes make exceptions, not the rule!

This is intersex not trans, no?

Innate gender identity is kind of a red herring for the purposes of women's rights though. Intersex/DSDs are acknowledged to be a special case. I don't care about gender feelz in my changing rooms and contact sports, I care about the physiology. No penises, no male puberty, no testosterone-determined offending levels and patterns.

It's only TRAs who are forcing us to go down to the level of 'XX/XY' and then going "Aha what about intersex people?" (when the community has asked them not to) because they are refusing to allow us to exclude them from our spaces on the grounds of their normal adult male physiology.

And anyone who has been through male pattern puberty by definition has a Y chromosome - the anomaly is only the other way round.

If we're going to discuss this, we need a definition of 'gender identity'. I've never seen one which isn't either based on stereotypes or on feelings which can't be defined or even described.

This is intersex not trans, no?

No, I don't think this is a conflation about intersex and trans people. It's about firstly, whether a gender identity can differ from one's chromosomes, and it would seem that is the case. And it's also about whether a gender identity might be something that is not entirely socially constructed. And then thirdly, if genetics could provide a mechanism for this.

In the book, the same author provides the example of the "gay gene", and he makes the point that while some "gay genes" have been identified, it's likely that sexuality might derive from a combinations of genes that give rise to a cascading effect on other genes that result in the sexual identities that exist.

If we're going to discuss this, we need a definition of 'gender identity'.

To be frank, I don't have one, and I don't really understand gender identity. I'm not even sure I've got one, but that said, I've never doubted my "identity" in any way shape of form.

If he means gender identity, it's 100% a construct and 0% an innate trait.

If he means sex identity, I imagine it's found next to the gene that encodes knowing-how-many-legs-I-have-identity.

Or perhaps he is referring to the wish-I-could-fly-right-up-to-the-sky-but-I-can't lesser known Orville gene, which encodes intense desire to be something other than what one actually is.

Like so many before him, it's possible he's confusing propensity to believe the impossible, with the idea that the impossible might therefore be true if you believe it hard enough, and if the gullible gene appears to be switched on.

You can't know yourself to be of the reproductive class that has ovaries, if you actually are of the class with testicles.
A feeling of desire or yearning to belong is not evidence of actually belonging. And it never will be.

If he means gender identity, it's 100% a construct and 0% an innate trait … If he means sex identity, I imagine it's found next to the gene that encodes knowing-how-many-legs-I-have-identity.

I'm not so sure. I'm not saying I have a very firm position on this, but it would seem that this doesn't quite match the evidence.

Intersex is a medical condition and has nothing to do with trans which is about individuals clearly male or female wanting to be the opposite sex/gender. Gina Rippon makes the excellent point that our world is so gendered that teasing out nature vs nurture is almost impossible. Girl and boy babies are treated differently from birth and as our brains are plastic and respond to our external environment they do therefore become different as a result of being treated differently. If there was a biological basis for transgenderism identical twins would have identical rates of transgender identification. But they don’t - if one is trans about 28% of the time the other is, higher than chance but they have been brought up in the same environment. A good article in Quilette - ‘No-one is born in the wrong body’ makes the point that there are large areas of overlap between men and women in the characteristics they have. With a bell shaped distribution men at the extreme ‘more feminine’ end will be ‘more feminine’ than most men and ALSO most women. So it’s easy to see why they might think they have a female gender identity. I can see this for myself, I have more stereotypically male traits than some men I know. Doesn’t make me a man.

But Swyer syndrome is a DSD, I mean. It's no suprise to me that someone with an outwardly entirely female physiology assumes themselves, from the circumstantial evidence, to be a girl/woman (or has a female 'gender identity' in newspeak).

I think the role of hormones in 'feeling' male or female should be explored as much as genes.

Either way, I'm about what affects women's rights safety and that's male physiology in our spaces, whatever is causing them to think/feel/wish otherwise.

There isn't a gene for gender identity. No one can say what it is without resorting to social stereotypes. How can you find evidence for something you cannot quantify?

Interesting points - I do have to take issue with this statement

If there was a biological basis for transgenderism identical twins would have identical rates of transgender identification. But they don’t - if one is trans about 28% of the time the other is, higher than chance but they have been brought up in the same environment

I agree this it's very difficult to distinguish nature v. nurture, but the twin studies would suggest that there may well be a genetic component. It certainly doesn't rule it out. Which I think this is what Mukharjee is saying.

There isn't a gene for gender identity.

I don't think Mukharjee is making that argument.

How can you find evidence for something you cannot quantify?

To be fair, scientists use self-reported data on a whole load of things that we accept (I've been following social psychology and its travails for a while, but they certainly use self-reported data to study happiness.

I think the role of hormones in 'feeling' male or female should be explored as much as genes.

I think the argument Mukharjee is making is that hormones are switched on to varying degrees through the actions of genes.