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.

LaPeste

Can you explain what you mean by compromise?

And, I'm personally struggling with what you mean by a small C and a small G for being gender critical? I don't get it.

I imagine the reason people are wondering what you mean by compromise is that no matter how you cut it up, one has never been found.

I have to say, one good thing that has come out of this whole sorry mess is that I have a far greater understanding of DSDs, of the struggles people who have them face, of the way they have been mistreated and marginalised over the years.

A silver lining of sorts.

What I mean by small g small c gender critical is that I think I’m gender critical rather than a gender denialist. I might not agree with gender but it seems to exist and to some extent be affected by biological and environmental factors.

I think the parallel with religion is quite good. The compromise on religion is not to call Muslims or Christians mentally ill, and that’s the starting point i think

Me too, Arnold.

I read an account of the mother of someone who had a DSD condition which meant they were very severely physically impacted. Something to do with their heart. And how it can prove fatal.

It was incredibly distressing. They were living with this daily risk.

When you realise how people use the entire concept for political mileage it's disgusting.

I think I’m gender critical rather than a gender denialist. But that is based on a fallacy - that any GC feinist ois denying anyone's gender beliefs.

I might not agree with gender but it seems to exist and to some extent be affected by biological and environmental factors. That's called stating the obvious

I think the parallel with religion is quite good. Yes, in that it is a set of beliefs, not facts

The compromise on religion is not to call Muslims or Christians mentally ill, and that’s the starting point i think And there you go... twist twist. The starting point is not to make the whole world change to meet your beliefs... that way used to lie the Spanish Inquisition, Witch Finder General's etc!

Ah, yes, because not fully embracing gender theory is like denying that climate change is happening.

And there you go... twist twist. The starting point is not to make the whole world change to meet your beliefs

I think you’re misunderstanding what I wrote. If person says they have a gender belief, it’s not making the whole world believe they are actually are that belief but to accept that they have that belief. If someone tells me they’re a Christian, I only have to accept that they believe in a Christian god, not that god is real.

But LaPeste no-one disagrees that gender doesn't exist. Just that it is a set of societally imposed roles.

Women used to be considered to unimportant to educate. Then they were considered too uneducated and fluffy to vote (giving a woman the vote would be like giving her husband two votes).

They were considered irresponsible with money, so their husband, or a male member of the family had to sign the loan agreement or mortgage. Up until the 1970s.

Children would be the property of their husband, no matter what.

In my lifetime, quite recently, pub landlords were perfectly entitled to refuse to serve women, on the basis that they were female.

Until 1992 rape within marriage was completely legal. Since your wife was your property. And you were, of course, entitled to sex, even when she didn't want it.

Until the 1970s, it didn't matter if a woman did the exact same job as a man or better. She was automatically paid less.

Women have, variously and recently, been thought of as property, crap with money, stupid, unenlightened, there for sex on demand, automatically worth less, and completely unimportant.

That's 'gender'.

The socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

It exists alright.

It's amazing, isn't it though, how men who consider themselves women never display the actual female 'gender'.

Sorry, typing on phone, but I hope that distinction was clear. Accepting someone’s belief is not the same as accepting that their belief is true

The compromise on religion is not to call Muslims or Christians mentally ill, and that’s the starting point i think

Yes, yes, we know the current transactivist push is to demedicalise dysphoria. So what we are left with is what it actually is: a desire to mimic the opposite sex. This may simply mean stereotyped social cues such as clothes and make up or it may mean elective medical or surgical interventions.

And?

The connection to intersex is?

Women's obligation to it is?

And?

The connection to intersex is?

Women's obligation to it is?

I think I know this one, according to Rachel McKinnon, sexed genitalia doesn't exist, and everyone should have sex with meee.

Still no concrete examples from LaPeste of what form this compromise by women is to take?

OP, I'll also add that every definition of gender you can find will say it is a set of stereotypical society approved roles.

Even the international trans lobbying organisations. They all say the same.

Nowhere is it defined as an innate essence, other than extreme transactivism. Because there's absolutely nothing to back that up.

Magdalen Berns did a video on it. She trawled everywhere.

What's interesting is how people are very ready to accept that there IS a definition. Because, to them, seen through a lens of sexism, it appears obvious.

It's only when you question their belief, that they realise. If they don't realise, it's because their belief in sexism is too profound. Like Susie Green distraught over having to remove all her child's toys, on the basis that painful though it was for Susie, and devastating as it was for her child, they were the wrong toys.

Bernard, I didn’t say I had the solution, rather the kernel of a compromise

Which I'm sure you're about to explain any day now!

I’m certainly not talking about an innate essence. Anyway, it’s good to discuss, and as I say, I think it has been a positive thread

Prodigal, I’ve explained my kernel to a compromise as I see it. Thanks

If person says they have a gender belief, it’s not making the whole world believe they are actually are that belief but to accept that they have that belief. Which totally ignores the reality of the situation... where just that is happening, women's sport is the very current example. Hence twist twist

A kernel of a compromise on what exactly?

You still haven't explained this.

You haven't, though.

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.

You need to see the difference between gender identity and a belief in gender identity.

If you're going to compare this with religion, then 'gender identity' can be compared to 'God' and 'belief in gender identity' can be compared to 'Christianity'.

I recognise that Christianity exists.
I recognise that a belief in gender identity exists.
These are both belief systems that are an important part of some people's lives. I am not saying that any of them are ill, or that they shouldn't hold these beliefs.

I do not believe in God.
I do not believe in gender identity.
Forcing me to believe in gender identity is like forcing me to believe in God.

CuriousSamphire, indeed please feel free to twist what I’m saying.

What is noticeable is because there is so much anger on both sides that it’s hard to actually discuss anything without assuming ulterior motives.

Take the compromise. I think TW would need to recognize that they’re not women, or that TW should not be playing women’s rugby.

Please don’t assume things I’m not saying

I’ve explained my kernel to a compromise as I see it

Sorry, probably being a bit dim, could you point that out?

What do you think should happen?

I’m very clear on this subject

Men should not use women’s toilets, changing rooms, DV shelters, provide rape counselling to traumatised women, compete in women’s sports or appear on all women short lists

What compromises (or kernels of compromises) do you suggest for those situations LaPeste?

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

Is this the compromise?

Gender identity is a person's attitude to the damaging society imposed roles which they feel they cannot abide by.

Is this the compassion you mean? Because allowing them to adopt the roles approved for the opposite sex, is simply perpetuating the entire problem. And, let's face it, they don't actually adopt those roles. They adopt the sartorial side of it.

The gender roles that says men get what they want, when they want and fuck off women if you don't agree, they manage to retain.