WHO on gender and genetics

[Shedbuilder]

Advice please. I have a young, woke female doctor in my social circle and she lives with someone who's declared themselves non-binary. My contact is struggling to be both a feminist and maintain a woke transgender-is-based-in-biology stance. Time after time they've raised things that they say prove that transgender is a 'thing' and I'm just a horrid bigot and time after time I've politely refuted with rational feminist argument.

Their latest response is to quote the WHO and its Genetic Components of Sex and Gender material, which mentions common genetic mutations. They say this must be the root of transgenderism and proves that gender dysphoria is based in biology. The WHO goes on to say at the end of that section that gender is a social construct and adds that some societies allow for more than two genders — so the WHO is effectively linking genetic mutation and transgender.

www.who.int/genomics/gender/en/index1.html

I've replied asking what evidence they or the WHO can offer to show that those with only one X or Y chromosome or whatever are more likely to identify as transgender than people with a standard XX/ XY genome — and they've come back asking me to show evidence that transgenderism isn't genetically based. I seem to remember someone at some point mentioning that genetic tests had been carried out on young people presenting at the Tavistock and none had chromosomal abnormalities. Was I dreaming/ did I make that up?

Any other arguments I can use to put a stop to this? I'm being sucked down their wormhole.

Gender as a synonym for sex is genetically based.

Gender as a social construct is only genetically based in that you have to sex someone before you can gender them.

The people searching for the "genetic cause" of 'being trans' would do well to stop conflating sex and gender. Not only is it sexist, we're told it's also transphobic.

one tiny difference somewhere in his DNA actually means he's a woman — or can claim with justification his right to identify as a woman?

No, the most anyone could take it to mean is that he might be more likely to feel uncomfortable with being a man. It wouldn't make him any less a man. And it's all highly speculative anyway and might mean nothing at all. It's not even close to giving men the right to say they're women.

Good luck with trying to argue rationally about this, OP. You're being kind and honest. But transgender arguments are based on so much dishonesty basically, on the person's determination to force other people to collude with their fantasy that you are unlikely to convince this person.

I can see them just brushing that off with the explanation that it's only now it's socially acceptable that people are coming out as transgender.

Thank you, I think I've got enough there to lob the ball back into their court.

I am slightly concerned that the WHO seems to be linking genetics and gender ideology though. Not their job.

It's only now it's socially acceptable that people are coming out as transgender

We can pick that apart for the bollocks it is easily enough.

It's never been widely socially acceptable to break out of the confines of one's allotted gender-box. Women have made progress on this; men less so.

What's socially acceptable is to define yourself as transgender in order to be permitted to resist the gendered norms attached to your sex with relative impunity.

It's still not widely socially acceptable to be a man in a dress. You're just more likely to get away with it if you claim to be somehow actually a woman, because then you're not challenging the social construction of masculinity or threatening the patriarchal status quo.

It’s similar to people who are desperate to find genetic basis for race or IQ. They want to justify bigotry in some way. In this case people want to justify the idea that “feminine behavior” is innate fixed and unchangable. What other interpretation can there be of the various “studies” on brain sex, including all of those involving nag trans patients.

Ultimately it’s all in the interpretation. Let’s say we find a genetic variant that associates with people of either sex who have a trans gender identity. What does that mean? Maybe it causes those people to have dysphoria about their sexed bodies. Maybe it causes those people to be non conformists in general, and in the current milieu, this leads to attraction to opposite sex role stereotypes as a way to express that? Maybe it’s associated with ASD which is itself strongly associated with a trans gender identity.

Whatever the case I would ask her “why?” Why is “gender identity” more important than “sex” in terms of recognition by society? Is oppression based on “femininity”? If the latter, why does the double bind exist for women (act too masculine and you’re punished, act too feminine and you’re not taken seriously)? Why are butch and non gender conforming female humans still subject to sexual assault and harassment?

This why is where I am at. Even if gender dysphoria is genetic why does that mean we should bin sex as an important aspect of society? misogynists are still going to harass us and demean is based on sex, even if we pretend it doesn’t exist.

Generally my approach is to find something transphobic or problematic in what they've said. Perhaps suggest how offensive is it to (want to try to) reduce the whole of the transgender experience in all its beauty down to a genetic anomaly.

"Reducing us down to our body parts / genitals" is something GC people are often accused of.

"Reducing us down to our body parts / genitals" is something GC people are often accused of.

Yes there’s a good meme on this. Goes something like:

“Bad” biological essentialism: women have vaginas

Good biological essentialism: transwomen have female-typical neurons in the limbic nucleus of the brain, that means they are real women.

The genetic component of gender dysphoria is sex.

They've decided there's a biological cause for some people being too damned awkward to fit into a socially-prescribed box, they're on a mission to find it, and they're looking in the wrong place.

Gender dysphoria isn't a physiological medical condition. It's the natural result of sexed bodies interacting with a strictly gendered world. No one except feminists ever gave a shit about its extreme prevalence among women and girls. But when men present with it, suddenly it becomes a medical problem.

I was badly bullied for not performing woman properly. To say this is due to me having special genes that render me incapable of it is to say that feminine performance is genetic, and that my genes, despite being XX, disqualify me from womanhood.

It's Sexism 101.

The problem isn't located within me. A 'genetic cause' for gender dysphoria is putting the responsibility for a social problem on me as an individual. It's bullshit, and I'd go so far as to call it a form of covert victim-blaming.

There may be a genetic element which predisposes someone to believe they are transgender. Even if so, that doesn’t make their belief true.
My family has (unfortunately) what is presumably a genetic component increasing the likelihood of schizophrenia. That doesn’t mean the beliefs held by those of my family who tragically suffer from this illness are true. It just explains why they hold these mistaken beliefs.
There are only two sexes.
Is your friend fulfilled and happy in this relationship?

Her reply is akin to a theist saying "well you disprove God".

How stupid humans are that even a doctor can't see that you cannot just make a claim and pretend it is true unless proven wrong.

There isn't one peer reviewed article that supports her view. Not one. An opinion piece in New Scientist does not count (for God's sake the editor is ex Guardian, which explain why this gender bollox gets published).

Scientists seem to be looking for minute variations that could 'explain' transgender

No. They're looking for minute variations that could 'explain' why some homosexual males adopt a female persona as a consequence of being too effeminate to be accepted as real men.

At the same time, they're looking for minute variations that could 'explain' why some heterosexual males are sexually aroused by being the object of the most extreme form of sexual humiliation they can comprehend.

They're also looking for minute variations that could 'explain' why females are uncomfortable with the sexist social construction of womanhood.

If they're looking for a single genetic cause for these three very disparate phenomena, they're on a hiding to nothing. The commonality between the three is internalisation of sexist stereotypes.

Stereotypes aren't genetically encoded.

Your friend’s ‘transgender-is-based-in-biology stance’ is based on her emotional commitment to her friend, not on a dispassionate assessment of the science, so a dispassionate assessment of the science will never persuade her.

Sorry I haven’t had time to read the whole thread so maybe someone has already said this, but I would avoid getting too drawn into whether there is a genetic component.

Surely the point is that even if there is, so what? It doesn’t justify people who appear wholly male accessing women’s spaces. Even if there is a true trans gene, that changes nothing in terms of women’s right to single sex spaces. Stop arguing about the science, there is no way to win if she will keep on quoting the many bullshit papers at you.

Stick with the main principle, that even if true trans exists, male trans people do not belong in women’s spaces.

Proving something is false is surely quite impossible to do. The onus would be on the one claiming their assertion is right. It would be incredibly hard, near..or actually impossible to prove the loch ness monster does not exist. So, those who claim it does exist are the ones who should prove it.

I have always been willing to believe theres a biological reason for transsexualism. But, what difference would it make anyway? It certainly wouldn't cover the many thousand who claim 'non binary' and such, as those are basically just elements of personality, made out to be much more important and different than they actually are. Wouldn't cover the 'I am female as I say so, worship my ladystick' types either. Nor autogynephiles (though I suspect in many cases, this group crosses over with the last I mentioned)

Agree with both Owls and Marrow.
That there may be a genetic explanation for transgenderism-or dysphoria - that does not mean that the belief is true. It only tells us the genetic mechanism for presence of transgenderism or dysphoria. It can make no comment on the truth of the claim that a man has always been a woman.
We may yet one day discover the genetics and epigenetic pathways of schizophrenia. That does not mean that a man who believes he is being persecuted because he's the second coming of Christ and he should be worshipped as our saviour instead. We can understand the genetic mechanisms responsible for his belief, but that does not mean his belief is true.
As others have pointed out, the evidence for chromosomal abnormality is not found in transgenderism, it is no longer tested for.

Its difficult to see how the article you linked to would be used as evidence by anyone, let alone a scientist or doctor to prove a genitic basis for trans status.
The article itself reads like a guardian fluff piece and the links claiming to link to scientific reasearch on Biology and Genitics link only to even weaker fluff pieces in one case and in the other to a coplealty different subject.
I am struggleing to see how anyone can fail to point out the unscientific nature of what has been presented so far.

That there may be a genetic explanation for transgenderism-or dysphoria - that does not mean that the belief is true. It only tells us the genetic mechanism for presence of transgenderism or dysphoria. It can make no comment on the truth of the claim that a man has always been a woman.
We may yet one day discover the genetics and epigenetic pathways of schizophrenia. That does not mean that a man who believes he is being persecuted because he's the second coming of Christ and he should be worshipped as our saviour instead. We can understand the genetic mechanisms responsible for his belief, but that does not mean his belief is true.

Yes! I have also made this exact same argument before on social media. But many people don't grasp it, they read a pop science article that says trans people have similar brain structure to the opposite sex and think that means they are the sex they claim to be.

I knew somebody a bit like the person you describe OP. I stopped speaking to her because her contradictory stance on feminism regarding transgenders simply infuriated me so much and one day we nearly came to blows.

In my experience you are best not engaging. People like that are set in their bigoted ways and it’s never going to change no matter how much you try. Move on and stop talking to her.

they read a pop science article that says trans people have similar brain structure to the opposite sex and think that means they are the sex they claim to be.

When what this actually means, to anyone capable of critical thought, is that that particular brain-structure isn't sex-limited.

All too easy to get it backwards when there's a baseless assumption (brain-sex) built in at the start.

If gender is a social construct then it is not possible for transgenderism to be genetic. The one depends upon the other.

But women aren't oppressed because of internal identity - they're repressed because of external biology.

Nobody disputes that gender dysphoria exists.

But its really irrelevant to the issue of whether women need sex/biology based rights.

Women don't have sex separated changing rooms because they all want to get changed with people who have the same lady brains. Its so that that they don't have to get changed in front of people with dicks.

So I think my question would be to her - so what? How does the fact that someone with a dick feels like they should have a vagina change the rights that vagina having people have?

and they've come back asking me to show evidence that transgenderism isn't genetically based

If it was genetically based and happened at conception wouldn't identical twins both be trans if one was?

Apologies if this has been said but, just supposing for a moment that it was found that transgenderism is genetically based... would trans activists then accept that only those with the genetic marker should 'qualify' as trans? Because its not, the argument is irrelevant.