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.

Thanks for some of the additional detail about the SRY trigger. It’s talked about in the book. I’m certainly not talking about gendered souls, but I suppose what I’m getting at is these cases where genetics could form part of the basis for where people “feel” male or female as a hypothetical mechanism. It doesn’t make them male or female (which is where the TRAs go) but I’m not convinced that the cases where biological males legitimately feel female.

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.

Thanks for engaging. I think we’re very close to saying a lot of the same things, and largely in agreement. It is helping me to shape my small G small C gender critical views on this issue, while holding out the possibility of a compromise or some common understanding

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.

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.

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.

I think you're the one who is misunderstanding twin studies here (I could be wrong), and saying that this case is different. For example, schizophrenia is thought to have a large genetic component, but it doesn't mean that 100% of identical twins are schizophrenic if the other twin is.

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).

FWRlurker thanks for very interesting input

Yeah, thanks FWRlurker.

Another thanks to FWRLurker for helpful explanations.

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.

Thanks, I think this thread and the implications of these possible genetic mechanisms has helped to shape how I might think about this issue. The mechanism described above can actually strengthen the gender critical approach while pointing towards (for me) a potential compromise

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

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

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

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.

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.

Very clear explanation FWRLurker. Thank you.

I think the thread went quite well. The compromise I see starts from recognizing the following

1. sex is binary
2. gender identity exists, and its foundation is likely to be a combination of social, environmental and genetic factors.
3. trans women are not women
4. there should be some compassion and recognition for the fact that gender identity exists while retaining sex based rights and protection.

Why should we have to recognise that 'gender identity' exists? Isn't that a bit like saying we have to recognise that God exists?

there should be some compassion and recognition for the fact that gender identity exists while retaining sex based rights and protection.

Since there's been no definition of gender identity, that's going to be a bit tricky.

5. Until you spell out what you mean by 4) the whole conversation is a complete waste of time.

The only definition I have ever heard of gender identity is that which says it displays a preference for masculinity or femininity, that is so loaded with value, that the person exhibiting it is distressed if they can't.

As such, it should absolutely not be accommodated, it should be critically analysed, and eventually dispensed with.

Why should we have to recognise that 'gender identity' exists? Isn't that a bit like saying we have to recognise that God exists?

No, i see it as a bit like recognizing that religion exists. It’s a good parallel. I can imagine that are environmental and genetic factors that make people prone to believe in religion. You don’t have to believe in god to accept that Christianity exists

4) there should be some compassion and recognition for the fact that gender identity exists while retaining sex based rights and protection. Which is the conundrum we have now...