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.

You are floundering, OP ... You can't define any of your terms, think that rugby is the only sport that men who say they are women should be segregated from

Where on earth did you get the idea that I think rugby is the only sport that TW should be banned from playing with women? You see, I didn't say that at all, which is half the problem. You're imagining things I'm actually saying, which means you're really struggling to think and discuss politely.

What I will say is fine, this whole issue of gender and sex is difficult and confusing. And I'm comfortable with that. And I don't have all the answers. And some of my thoughts may be a little fuzzy, and I may only have the kernel of a solution. But I'm much happier to be in this situation. I am thinking, playing with ideas and thinking about the consequences. The one-way direction of insults is quite illuminating.

This thread has been great and both the negative and positive contributions have helped to see a way forward for me at the very least.

Despite being a born and raised atheist and living my life in a society blighted by sectarian division I have utterly failed to be sent for re-education at any time for stating there is no god.

I have never been forced to attend church. Never had anyone complain to my employer. Never been called a bigot. Never been assaulted (though my equally atheist brother has been for being 'protestant'). Never had any consequence that I can think of.

I wish gender ideology were treated as a religion. The whole bloody problem is that it isn't.

So what are the ‘consequences’ for me saying I don’t believe in god?... Don’t think there are any are there?

I do want to leave this thread, but depending on the context, yes there might be consequences. If your colleague was a christian, and you kept on telling her it was bollocks, (which was the original question), you might get a reprimand from your boss. If your colleague was called Jane, and you decided you wanted to call her what you like (Susie), you might get a reprimand from your boss.

this whole issue of gender and sex is difficult and confusing

It isn’t really you know

Once you let go of the idea that it’s important for men to get what they want, the whole thing becomes very clear

Any way, about DSDs; trying to leverage them in the trans debate is relevant and not reprehensible appropriation how?

So what are the ‘consequences’ for me saying I don’t believe in god? They used to include prison, urning as a heretic etc.

"I don't beleive trans women are women" gets a modern version of the same.

Which is why OPs talk of compromise is daft.

And again... what has DSD got to do with gender identity and trans individuals?

What if I refused to cross myself when Jane wanted me to? And said I wouldn’t have my sons circumcised?

Cos if we’re doing tenuous analogies, that’s much closer to the kind of thing demanded by genderists

You said:

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.

Why pick rugby? Why not just say sport. I understand if you're new to this, but it's difficult if you're not being explicit. Because there are lots of people who will say rugby is no good, but running is fine.

What I will say is fine, this whole issue of gender and sex is difficult and confusing. And I'm comfortable with that. And I don't have all the answers. And some of my thoughts may be a little fuzzy, and I may only have the kernel of a solution.

I don't know how you can call anything I've said impolite, when I'm merely confirming what you're saying - floundering, fuzzy, it's the same thing.

Another thing you need to understand is that people have been talking about this here for five or six years. And very intensely since the GRA public consultation.

There is no compromise. There is no kernel of a compromise.

And your refusal to actually spell it out, makes me think you know that.

Try it. Let's hear it.

Man finds a way forward in an issue which doesn't affect him in any way.

Fabulous.

I think it would be wonderful if an actual medical cause for transgenderism could be identified and used for diagnosis going forward.

It would stop all the Prison Onset Gender Dysphoria in it’s tracks and separate ‘genuine trans people’ from fetishists and AGPs.

No research seems to be taking place in this area though, which seems a bit weird.

As the mother of a kid with a rare, poorly understood condition, fundraising for research is a massive part of what I, and our tiny worldwide community are focussed on (second only to peer to peer support for living with the condition, with awareness raising third).

At the moment, it’s pretty much a self-diagnosed condition, but if a diagnostic test, a trans gene, could be found via a blood test (like BRCA1 and BRCA2, for example) or perhaps via CT brainscans, then there would be no more concerns about people transitioning for the wrong reasons, and no regretful detransitioners. Parents and partners would find it much easier to get on board if they didn’t have to worry that their loved one was mistaken. All the stuff about social contagion and the internet and ROGD would be thoroughly debunked and consigned to history.
A diagnostic test would make it possible to compile worldwide statistics* and countries with public health systems would be able to plan, to fund and (hopefully) to provide adequate, appropriate care.

Why aren’t trans people, their allies and organisations pushing for research in this area? Why don’t they want a solid explanation, a clear diagnosis and a solid, provable transition treatment plan?

An uncharitable person might assume that the fetishists and autogynephiles don’t want to be told they aren’t trans, and that they consequently cannot access women’s spaces nor occupy women’s political and/or social positions.

*at the moment we have no idea how many transgender people there are, in part because as James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance recently wrote, the UK government thinks they are compiling data based on ‘legal sex’ and trans people have been ticking boxes for their preferred gender, regardless of their current legal status.
Some trans people stop describing themselves as trans when their personal transition is ‘complete’ but a ‘completed transition’ has no fixed definition, and most will not have genital surgery anyway.

I would say yes but that depending on the context, it may come with consequences.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

And there we have it. Compromise or consequence.

Bless you, OP. You got there in the end.

If your colleague was a christian, and you kept on telling her it was bollocks, (which was the original question), you might get a reprimand from your boss.

No, the original question was if a Christian stated Jesus was the son of god am I free to respond that's bollocks. Which I am. We no longer have laws against blasphemy.

You have twisted the scenario into one where the non-believer is bringing the matter up rather than simply refusing to acquiesce to a belief they don't hold when brought up by the believer.

I wonder what LaPeste expected to happen on this thread?

That their attempted slight of hand in conflating DSDs and trans issues would go unnoticed and that our female socialisation would slot smoothly into place leading to women here falling over themselves to make suggestions about how they can compromise their privacy, dignity and safety to make some men more comfortable?

Why pick rugby? Why not just say sport. I understand if you're new to this, but it's difficult if you're not being explicit. Because there are lots of people who will say rugby is no good, but running is fine

But I didn't say that. Just because you assumed something I didn't say.

Another thing you need to understand is that people have been talking about this here for five or six years. And very intensely since the GRA public consultation.

And I get that, it's like a real-life example of "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Kahneman here. You see examples of reactive thinking, whereby on this issue, you see how people are engaging with what they're think someone else is writing, rather than with what they're actually writing. See the following

And there we have it. Compromise or consequence....Bless you, OP. You got there in the end.

Bless you, OP. You got there in the end. It had bubbled under a bit, but yes! There it is!

Ah, you’re still here LaPeste

What were you hoping to get out of the thread?

I wonder what LaPeste expected to happen on this thread?

I think I've already said, it's helped my thinking and its been interesting. Plus, I think it's given me an insight to how tribal this has become.

That their attempted slight of hand in conflating DSDs and trans issues would go unnoticed

I didn't conflate DSDs and trans issues, or at least in the way you seem to be thinking.

- OP, why are you confused? Shall I elaborate for you? You have used this thread to attempt to conflate intersex and trans issues and to suggest to the women of FWR that this conflation has enabled you to see how women could/should compromise with transactivism.

This is a) offensive to intersex people and b) anti-feminist. But you know: could be oblivious and naive but well-meaning. However, when Arnold asks you this:

Does your idea of compromise include allowing me to say to a man who calls himself a woman 'no, you are a man and I will refer to you as such' or not?

Your reply is:

I would say yes but that depending on the context, it may come with consequences.

So no: you're not being naive and well-meaning. You're trying to dress up an iron fist in a velvet glove. Not to mention appropriating intersex people to do it.

Like I say: you got there in the end.

i didn’t conflate DSDs and trans issues

So you started a thread about DSDs where in your own words it wasn’t about ‘intersex’ at its core and you’re not conflating the two?

Now it’s my turn to be

you see how people are engaging with what they're think someone else is writing, rather than with what they're actually writing. See the following

You didn't say any other sport. You just said rugby. That's not me interpreting what you say, that's me reading what you say.

When I question if it's any other sport, you doubling down on only mentioning rugby doesn't mean you don't, in your head, think every other sport, rather than say yes, every other sport, is the level 'I know you are but what am I' discourse.

Do you think we haven't encountered this sort of nonsense before?

You have nothing to say. You have no argument. You've heard nothing about the issue. You are ignorant of the problems.

Trying to invoke 'Books I Have Read', just makes you look daft. Especially as they are about a different subject entirely!

Why don't you just engage with the questions??

Let's start with which sports do you think transwomen should be allowed to play as women?

Like I say: you got there in the end.

It's really interesting as you've misunderstood what I've actually said. It's interesting to see it as it's quite astonishing.

Not as astonishing as your inability to see you have conflated DSD and trans.

You didn't say any other sport. You just said rugby. That's not me interpreting what you say, that's me reading what you say

It is literally you misinterpreting me. If I say that TW shouldn't play women's rugby, it is your interpretation that I'm saying that weightlifting (or whatever is fine).

Why don't you just engage with the questions??

Because I've tried, but it's becoming clear that the entrenchment means that people are not discussing with me, but a version of me they've created.

It's really interesting as you've misunderstood what I've actually said. It's interesting to see it as it's quite astonishing.

Of course it is, dear.

Are we now on the forty pages of filibuster stage?

Because I've tried, but it's becoming clear that the entrenchment means that people are not discussing with me, but a version of me they've created. Have you read the link Bernard provided?

Many posters, me included, had problems seeing past the apparent "entrenched" posts here. Until the penny dropped and I sudenly saw what posters were talking about. A humbling moment many posters have had, the reason the post linked to exists!