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.

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

Quite.

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

Exactly. It's such a derailment.

At the risk of coming back to the thread, I wanted to clarify a few things. First of all, the definition for gender identity that some have asked for. The broadly standard definition in the medical literature goes along the following lines.

"A person’s deeply-felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or a male; a girl, a woman, or a female; or an alternative gender".

It seems to accord with what I was saying, about gender identity being a belief or a feeling.

Second, I wanted to go back to my original point. Leaving aside the issue of DSD (which I didn't think I was conflating with the trans issue), I came across this paper.

"The Biological Contributions to Gender Identity and Gender Diversity: Bringing Data to the Table"

link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-018-9889-z

It concludes the following.

This review of existing family and twin studies summarizes significant and consistent evidence for the role of innate genetic factors in the development of both cisgender and transgender identities, a negligible role for shared environmental factors, and a small potential role for unique environmental factors. Heritability estimates are consistent with other behavioral and personality traits, which generally fall in the range of 30−60%

This brings me back to my compromise. If (and this is an if) there is scientific evidence that genetics does play a significant role in determining someone's gender identity, then part of the compromise is in recognizing that at very least, these feelings may well be real and those who have those feelings are not necessarily ill. This seems to be at odds with the strictly gender critical position, which seems to be saying that gender identity is only socially constructed.

I think it is a legal or philosophical question whether transwomen are women and transmen are men (I personally don't think they are, and I still believe that sex is binary), and I think this is where we get into terminology.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion.

The GC position is that gender identity doesn’t exist at all.

We are gender atheists.

It seems to accord with what I was saying, about gender identity being a belief or a feeling.

these feelings may well be real and those who have those feelings are not necessarily ill. This seems to be at odds with the strictly gender critical position, which seems to be saying that gender identity is only socially constructed.

So we agree that 'gender identity' is a belief or a feeling. In that case, it could be treated like a religion, which is also a belief. A belief in 'gender identity' can be treated exactly the same as a belief in Christianity, Islam or any other religion.

We don't have any legislation based on 'feelings' as far as I know, so although people who have a 'feeling' that they have a 'gender identity' may not be mentally ill, this feeling shouldn't be treated any differently in law to the way the law treats any other feelings.

"A person’s deeply-felt, inherent sense of being a boy, a man, or a male; a girl, a woman, or a female; or an alternative gender"

With all the words in the English language at your disposal, every single word in the dictionary, give me, let's make it easy, just the top three things that would make a man believe he was a woman. Since it must be on his mind 24/7, just give me the top three things that are exploding in his brain to make him think that. Take a random stab.

I'll tell you what, let's make it even easier. Give me one thing, just one.

Give me one single, solitary thing that any man, anywhere, at any time could ever, in the history of the world, and the universe make him think that he was actually a woman. One, single, solitary, material example.

or an alternative gender

Also what on earth does this mean?

Sounds like yet another attempt to argue that outliers define everybody.

then part of the compromise is in recognizing that at very least, these feelings may well be real

I don’t understand why this matters really. Recognise away if it makes you happy. I still don’t want to share toilets/changing rooms etc with men

I’m still no closer to understanding what you’re actually proposing

the strictly gender critical position, which seems to be saying that gender identity is only socially constructed

You're confusing the queer theory/transgender ideology concept of "gender identity" with the feminist concept of "gender".

The former is a metaphysical belief in an inner sense of being akin to a soul.

The latter is a class analysis of the social imposition of power relations between the sexes.

You don't seem to have even the most basic grasp of the issues at hand here.

It doesn't matter whether the feelings are real or not. If a person feels like Napoleon do we pronounce them the newly restored ruler of France? What about if the French aren't very happy about that idea?

AND IT'S STILL NOTHING TO DO WITH INTERSEX.

Why, OP, did you start a thread about DSDs? Why are you not acknowledging how offensive it is to intersex people to conflate their physical conditions with woke religionist beliefs?

Is transNapoleon then allowed to invade Russia and stable his horses in the cathedral in Moscow that's been restored since the last time he used it as a stable? Where are the people currently using that cathedral for its intended purpose meant to go? Or should they offer to share space with the horses to be kind?

Also comparing it with a belief in god and saying "you don't say religious people are mentally ill" isn't an entirely accurate comparison.

Transgenderism claims that gender (sex) dysphoria is a congenital health condition caused by a variety of proposed factors where a body has a different innate "gender". Its proponents say that identifying with the opposite sex is more natural.

If we accept that gender dysphoria exists, which I do (but I think only a tiny fraction of the people claiming it have it), but don't actually believe in the innate gender identity concept, the only other possible suggestion and the one most likely for me is that it is a pathological psychological condition (which I acknowledge causes great distress) with or without a genetic component. How else would you frame it?

Lots of feelings are real. Religious feelings are real. If the suggestion is that gender religionists should be accorded the right to believe in their quirky little faith, then no one on this board has ever said they shouldn't be allowed to believe it.

What we don't agree with is the wholesale imposition of their religion on everyone else, on pain of employment or legal sanction, via the removal of single sex provision for women, or the imposition of the abusive elements of the religion on children with fanciful sexist lies about what is a boy or girl thing, leading to medical and surgical interventions that induce stunted development and sterility.

Whether they really feel this is a good plan is irrelevant. The rest of us think it's fucking nuts.

It's the difference between being allowed to have a religious belief that abortion and contraception are sins and being allowed to ban abortion and contraception for everyone else because you have that belief. The latter scenario is what trans activists are pushing for.

Great analogy.

Personality traits like religiousity are also heritable. Doesn’t mean religion is anything other than a social construction. Just means some people have personalities more prone to choosing to follow a religion.

Gender ID is similar I imagine.

Also many mental illnesses are heritable - most have a higher heritability than this. So I am not following your idea that a trans gender identity being genetically heritable means it can’t be a mental illness. There’s no if-then here.

Anyway of course it’s quite plausible that inheritance of certain personality traits (or heritable mental illness) may increase the likelihood someone identifies as trans. And I already explained why heritability studies that use terms like “a genetic basis” can be misleading because a high heritablity can actually be entirely caused by an environmental mediator (see:race). This is formally called a gene-by-environment effect.

just give me the top three things that are exploding in his brain to make him think that.

I'll tell you what, let's make it even easier. Give me one thing, just one.

Ooo, oooh, I know this one!

Misogyny?

As for religiosity being heritable - humans are basically born naive and credulous. We all believe whatever shit we're told by parents which is why my favourite game for small children is Plausible Lies. I suspect the 'heritable' part comes in with which story you're told (and how plausible it is within the sociocultural context).