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.

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

One way to deal with that is by being clear about what you’re saying

So, should some men be using ladies toilets for example?

Should some men be using DV shelters set up by and for women?

Should some men be appearing on all women shortlists?

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.

This is an anonymous online forum. No one has the smallest clue who you are. I can only go on what you say.

So say it. Stop not, not saying it.

Which female sports do you think should include transwomen? Athletics, for instance? Should they be included in female athletics?

And when you say the compromise is that transforming should not say they are women, and should not be included in women's rugby.

I can assure you it's not 'astonishing', if people think you mean just rugby. It's really not.

My psychic powers are on the fritz so I'm afraid that if anyone wants me to know what they think they're going to have to actually tell me.

OP preferring to get grumpy rather than clarify their views I see

But tra la! It’s been a great thread for them and really helped them form some views (which are top secret obvs), so that’s nice

OP, I don't think there's anything wrong with reading something that makes you re-think your beliefs. It's just very hard from your OP as to what the author is saying about trans people as opposed to intersex.

As far as I can tell, without reading the book (any good excerpts??) he is saying there may be a very small genetic component - in some people - contributing to some people's sense of what is referred to as 'gender identity' (but not defined).

As with pretty much everything it (whether or not you think you have a gender identity, whether you can articulate what it is, and what it is and in what proportion) still seems to be a swirling web of experience, society, etc even if there is some genetic component. If it was shown that it was very highly heritable what difference do you think that would make? It's a bit academic - because it's clearly not, unless there's some award-winning research in the pipeline.

Thanks to FWRLurker for their input too, v helpful.

I agree that stating something that goes against another person's beliefs can be seen as rude in certain contexts and that rudeness does have consequences, often determined by the mental state and/or aggressiveness of the recipient.

I am not too clear what your compromise is - you say "The compromise on religion is not to call Muslims or Christians mentally ill, and that’s the starting point i think" - so we should be kinder? But surely there's a limit to that, and I think it's already been reached.
Some mentally ill people identify as Muslim or Christian btw, the two are not mutually exclusive.

As much as I struggle with the definition of 'gender identity' I have also in the past (and still do) struggle with the definition of 'religious belief' - perhaps a discussion for another thread, but I don't really get what differentiates a plain old 'belief' from a 'religious' one, unless it's very specifically to do with the rotes of a particular religion.
must go.

Lapeste I've had a quick look at some of the relevant pages of the book, using Amazon look inside. I get the feeling that he hasn't considered that the supposed sense of "gender identity" he is talking about could just be explained by comfort/discomfort with the "fit" of personality to assigned sex. Which is pretty much what we see in non-intersex individuals. Children and adolescents who are gender non-conforming often have a sense of not fitting in with their actual sex, and of thinking that they "ought" to be the other sex. But that's different from having some kind of inbuilt brain signal telling you what sex you are, based on your chromosomes, which is what he seems to be hypothesixing.

I do think that if a male person says “I’m female, I know it in my heart” to you, they might consider it rude if you said “no you are not”. Like if a religious person said “there is a god, I know it in my heart” it might be considered rude to say to them “no, there isn’t.” So as far as getting along with that specific person there are “consequences” in both cases.

However we (as a society) do not tell atheists who have conversations where they disagree with religious people that they are endangering the lives of Christians. Nor are we saying that we are being exclusionary if we do not invite the Christians into our atheist gatherings in order to make them feel better about themselves. Nor are we saying the law should be changed so that the Christians’ belief in God is recognized by the state as actually true. Because that would be theocratic.

Now generally when talking to either Christians or trans people, I will in most contexts be slightly more diplomatic and I will say “oh, ok, that’s interesting” Instead of disagreeing. Still I should not feel compelled to actually agree to something I know to be untrue by LAW or IMO even by social convention. Especially when it matters most.

OP: Look at the thing. It means I have kernels.

Everyone: Oh, right, not sure what the thing is, or what kernels you might have, perhaps you could be clearer.

OP: I see we almost agree.

Everyone: Well, actually we still don't know what you mean, could you explain?

OP: The kernels of compromise are about to pop! It's a way forward™️

Everyone: But you haven't explained what you mean.

OP: I think this has been very enlightening. You're all very tribal.

Everyone: Eh?

Me: Salted or sweet? Can I have some hot butter on mine?

was I the only one who had an image of their child's nappy after a sweetcorn heavy meal lurch into their brain every time the OP mentioned their kernals of compromise?

just me then?

I'll get my coat.....

an image of their child's nappy after a sweetcorn heavy meal

I think that's the consequence of a failure to compromise.

By Gad, we've got it! The kernels really were shit.

I think "gender denialist" was my favorite new term.

I am not sure what drives people to try to prove that personality is hardwired in the genetic code, or who the nature/nurture dispute refuses to STFU because everyone knows it is effing both. Still, every few years another book comes out speculating, postulating, and justifying, that which they very much want to be true.
Or maybe we are all such suckers for predestination speculation that it is a reliable money maker for hacks.

Good post Creepster

Indeed, on the nature/nurture thing everyone does know it’s effing both

And people like the OP who want to convince me that my genitals will predestine me to want to dress a certain way, act a certain way, live a certain life can eff right off

When the only plant based matter your child will eat is sweet corn, truly they are the kernels of compromise

I am not sure what drives people to try to prove that personality is hardwired in the genetic code

Rank sexism in my experience.

I think it is simply a case of controversy sells. Like clickbait. They are taking an extreme position they don't really believe themselves in order to make money.

Either that or they have never actually met another human being as none of us have 100% gender conforming personalities.

From the book cited by the OP:

a purely genetic view fails to perform; it does not provide a particularly sophisticated understanding of gender or its identity….history , society and culture collide and intersect with genetics, like tides. Some waves cancel each other, while others reinforce each other. No force is particularly strong – but their combined effect produces the unique and rippled landscape that we call an individual’s identity.

As I said above, the author makes unwarranted assumptions about the causes of "gender identity", in my view. However, it doesn't look like he believes personality is 100% hard wired in the genetic code.

Is gender, or identity described in terms of the actual behaviour? Because, in my experience, this is often left off. People will talk about femininity, or masculinity, but when you actually describe it, (football, flowers), that's when the whole thing looks rather hollow.

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.

He's bringing his own bias into it.

Swyer involves a female-typical external body. People with bodies that are to all appearances female at birth do tend to be raised in the understanding that they're female ie girls/women.

This says nothing about "gender identity."

It's evidence that we don't routinely use chromosomes to determine whether someone is male or female. We go by phenotype, rather than genotype. Because no one's got built-in gene-detectors in their eyes.

It's about firstly, whether a gender identity can differ from one's chromosomes, and it would seem that is the case.

You're bringing in the same bias here, OP. You're assuming there's something innate within the body that determines "gender identity".

Identities are socially constructed over time. They emerge. They're not genetically encoded.

What they mean when they talk about "gender identity" is whether their mindset, inclinations and proclivities are coded-masculine or coded-feminine. Whether personality is innate is irrelevant here; the fact that certain personalities are designated by other people as 'manly' or 'girly' is culturally-dependent and not genetic.

You say you're GC, OP - assuming gender is biological and innate is the opposite of GC.

Has 'gender identity' been defined yet?

Nothing has been defined, we're just meant to hope in the promise of the kernals.

(Butter and salt on mine when they're ready, please.)

OldCrone it was, by Datun.

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

Next time I get a blank text box to fill in my "gender identity" I'm putting 'oppositional defiance'.

Is gender, or identity described in terms of the actual behaviour?

The book seems unduly vague on this. That's one reason why his thesis comes across as unconvincing.

And talking about the DSD cases where the XY individuals changed their sex identity to male when they found out about their DSD is all very well, but he seems to ignore the many cases where they didn't change it - so how does he explain that? I still think the most logical thing is that individuals' personalities are likely to make them more or less comfortable with what society expects of each sex. So whether they want to switch to their chromosomal sex is probably dependent at least partly on their personality, and partly on practicality.

he seems to ignore the many cases where they didn't change it - so how does he explain that?

Actually he doesn’t ignore it. Instead he uses these cases as further proof for the thesis that gender is NOT “solely due to chromosomes”.

The problem here is that he’s entirely discounting the much more obvious cause which is that other people tell you what sex you are based on your phenotype / sexed physical characteristics, and that these vary WILDLY among the XY DSD conditions.

Swyer women will never look anything except 100% female. They are for all intents and purposes women who are sterile. They even have Fallopian tubes and a uterus.

Meanwhile there are XY boys/men who have ambiguous genetalia at birth who in the past the doctor basically flipped a coin and said “hmm... their penis is not big enough, you should raise them as a girl and we’ll give them lots of surgery and keep everything secret from them” but then puberty makes it clear they are and always were male when they develop all the typical features of male puberty. Then There are cases of penile disgenesys and androgen insensitivities which go the other way - the body still remains phenotypically female Similar to swyer. These individuals will remain female because they will continue to be seen as female because they have a body that everyone recognizes as female.

Ultimately what happens is that people will reidentify as their chromosomal sex (or not) in the vast, vast majority of cases depending on the information they later learn and how their body develops. It is genetic to the extent that the conditions which caused the confusion to the first place are themselves genetic, which of course they are.

But absolutely none of this has any bearing on the gender identity of an individual who has undisrupted sexual development.