Help end medical misogyny. Sign our petition.

Help end medical misogyny.
Sign our petition.

Sign the petition

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Views on Siddhartha Mukherjee’s writing on sex, gender and biology

66 replies

champignonhill · 29/06/2026 22:58

I'm surprised not to have seen any discussion on here about Siddartha Mukherjee's views on sex/gender. I'm a big fan of his writing and read The Gene recently (which was written in 2016 so a bit before the current debates heated up).

This 2019 article, Why Sex is Binary but Gender is Mostly a Spectrum, which is an excerpt from the book, argues that biological sex is largely determined by genetic mechanisms that produce two main reproductive categories, while gender and gender identity arise from a more complex interaction of biology, brain development, and social experience. He traces the history of sex determination genetics, and explains how genes such as SRY influence physical sex, but suggests that the brain’s response to these signals can vary, helping explain the diversity of gender identities.

Below is a quote that sums it up, although the article (and the whole book, although this is just a few pages in a much broader exploration of genetics) is worth reading.

I was just wondering if anyone more intelligent than me had read this and had any views! I get lost in the science but found it an interesting view, especially since it comes from a biologist.

"The existence of a transgender identity provides powerful evidence for this geno-developmental cascade. In an anatomical and physiological sense, sex identity is quite binary: just one gene governs sex identity, resulting in the striking anatomical and physiological dimorphism that we observe between males and females. But gender and gender identity are far from binary. Imagine a gene—call it TGY—that determines how the brain responds to SRY (or some other male hormone or signal). One child might inherit a TGY gene variant that is highly resistant to the action of SRY on the brain, resulting in a body that is anatomically male, but a brain that does not read or interpret that male signal. Such a brain might recognize itself as psychologically female; it might consider itself neither male or female, or imagine itself belonging to a third gender altogether. These men (or women) have something akin to a Swyer syndrome of identity: their chromosomal and anatomical gender is male (or female), but their chromosomal/anatomical state does not generate a synonymous signal in their brains. In rats, notably, such a syndrome can be caused by changing a single gene in the brains of female embryos or exposing embryos to a drug that blocks the signaling of “femaleness” to the brain. Female mice engineered with this altered gene or treated with this drug have all the anatomical and physiological features of femaleness, but perform the activities associated with male mice, including mounting females: these animals might be anatomically female, but they are behaviorally male."

Why Sex Is Mostly Binary but Gender Is a Spectrum - Nautilus

A short genetic history of one of the most profound dimensions of human identity.

https://nautil.us/why-sex-is-mostly-binary-but-gender-is-a-spectrum-237620

OP posts:
Theunchosenone · 30/06/2026 07:41

JoanOgden · 30/06/2026 07:37

Yes, it's totally speculative and doesn't reckon with the fact that transgender identification has massively increased over the last 10-20 years, meaning that even if there is a contributing gene (totally unproven) it can't account for most trans people.

What has always interested me is the long-running link between same-sex attraction and interest in activities typically associated with the opposite sex. Obviously this doesn't apply to all same-sex attracted people but it does apply to quite a few. Has this ever been explained, does anyone know?

Wasn’t there a company a few years ago who said they had a test for if some one is trans, but the trabs community shut it down for being “transphobic”? You’d think they’d like to have proof trans identity can be determined medically.

AlexandraLeaving · 30/06/2026 07:43

EVEN IF Mukherjee's analysis was correct and there is a genetic factor influencing some people's gender identity, this does not excuse the attempted erosion of sex-based protections and rights or sex-based language that has been promulgated by the TRAs and the utter disregard for women's rights in the process.

Mukherjee is not, based on the excerpt posted by OP, arguing that sex doesn't exist and there therefore is no reason (other than misogyny and sexism) that the existence of gender identity would necessarily override the need for protection against sex discrimination or the occasional need for single sex spaces in areas where, in particular, women are in a state of undress or otherwise vulnerable. If Mukherjee's analysis was correct and if people genuinely subscribed to it, they would have been seeking third (fourth) spaces for protection for trans-identified people rather than expecting women to sacrifice their own rights to protect the TIPs, they would not have been commandeering words (like 'woman') to describe feminine-disposed male people but would have come up with new words to describe this new phenomenon, etc etc.

Personally, I think @FlirtsWithRhinos nailed it.

Shedmistress · 30/06/2026 07:43

MissingLynks · 30/06/2026 01:39

Notably Mukherjee does not say anything about "female brains" or "male brains" as those in bad faith are interpreting it, but rather talking about how the brain receives and interprets signals from the body. MRI scans do show physiological differences between trans people's brains and cis people's brains which, regardless of the mechanism, demonstrates at the very least that there is a real phenomenon that people are experiencing.

If I remember corrrectly the Transes did not want any brain scans that could show the difference between 'true trans' and 'fake trans'.

If you have the research that shows 'MRI scans show differences between brains of people x and y' have you got that to hand?

BunnyBunbunbun · 30/06/2026 07:48

I tried reading his book on cancer and found it very boring and stodgy and had to give up halfway through.

That article came out in 2019, during the big wave of trans propaganda when no one could diverge from the only one permissible belief that TWAW and you could suffer a big backlash if you did. See Malcolm Gladwell now admitting that he never believed that transwomen (i.e. men) don't have an advantage over women in sports but he was cowed into saying that.

I suspect if you asked Mukherjee about this trans gene thing now he'd probably have forgotten about his previous position and pretend he never held it or that he was misunderstood. At least, however, he did understand that sex is biological - something you were usually cancelled for saying back then - and he probably had to throw in some rubbish about "gender is a spectrum and there may be gene evidence for it" in order to stave off the lunatics. This weasily fence-sitting type of thing still caused great damage however.

Waxingmoons · 30/06/2026 08:11

I wonder what is considered “femalenes” in the poor rats that were subjected to experiments…
someone suggested homosexual behaviour?

and there we go again mixing physical reality to construed/ learned behaviours.

Thanks for the swan/crow analogy and the reminder of the “gender bender” years.

Hotlipshoolahan · 30/06/2026 08:33

rotoscope · 29/06/2026 23:32

The experiment he describes near the end of that quote indicates that, in mice, homosexual behaviour can be induced via genetic engineering. Seems like a huge stretch to try to apply this to transgenderism in humans.

Another thing is, how could the hypothetical human male also mentioned in that quote know that he is "psychologically female"? He has no personal experience of being female. At best he is imagining what he thinks this might mean and assuming this applies to himself. The concept itself is probably based on sexism.

Yes, his rodent example doesn’t prove his case as many TIM remain heterosexual ( based on their sex). Would he argue these individuals are not really trans?

He is also treating trans as a homogenous group, when in reality it’s now clear there are many different causes that route people into becoming gender confused/incongruent.

All this ( and his ‘imagine a gene I have made up’ comment) means this is an opinion piece, not an evidence based piece.

Seethlaw · 30/06/2026 08:33

I see at least two huge neon signs that this is all extremely suspicious at best.

The existence of a transgender identity provides powerful evidence for this geno-developmental cascade.

This is putting the cart before the oxen. There's zero scientific proof of "the existence of a transgender identity", so you can't draw conclusions from it.

Imagine a gene—call it TGY—that determines how the brain responds to SRY (or some other male hormone or signal).

Well, no. There's zero reason to imagine such a gene, and therefore all further considerations and conclusions based on this premise are null.

This is not science in any way, just imagination at work.

lcakethereforeIam · 30/06/2026 08:35

Perhaps the male rats started dying their lips with berries, tilting their heads and making wigs out of their bedding? Homosexual behaviour isn't transgender behaviour, that would erase the male 'lesbian'.

Seethlaw · 30/06/2026 08:40

MissingLynks · 30/06/2026 01:39

Notably Mukherjee does not say anything about "female brains" or "male brains" as those in bad faith are interpreting it, but rather talking about how the brain receives and interprets signals from the body. MRI scans do show physiological differences between trans people's brains and cis people's brains which, regardless of the mechanism, demonstrates at the very least that there is a real phenomenon that people are experiencing.

MRI scans do show physiological differences between trans people's brains and cis people's brains

I've never heard of that. It would be a huge topic of discussion in the trans community if it were true.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 08:56

MissingLynks · 30/06/2026 01:51

I'm sure the researchers studying trans brains are aware of this. I'm equally sure they're far more knowledgeable than you are when it comes to how to interpret evidence from brain scans.

I'm sure they are. Are you?

Does this study show that the differences pre-exist transitioning, or are they, like the cabbies, showing the outcome of a change the person chose to make changing the things they think about?

Did they control for sexuality, trauma, ASD, OCD, intrusive thoughts?

Are these "trans" brains the same as those of the opposite sex, or just "different"?

Did they select a wide representation of so-called "cis" people covering the diversity that already exists within one sex?

lcakethereforeIam · 30/06/2026 09:13

The only studies I've heard of neglected to account for sexual orientation. The differences disappeared once that was taken into account.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 09:18

The desparate need to find a physical cause for transgenderism to make it "real" always makes me think of the guy who drew the little man in the sperm. He also believed science would shortly emerge to prove his sexist beliefs.

But the reality was, he wasn't making scientific advances, he was trying to back up his existing prejudices.

Same as the "science" over the years that has attempted to explain why women are so emotional and hysterical, so much more suited to a domestic role, so bad at maths, and so on.

As a great man once noted, most folks rarely step outside their own heads. They see what they expect to see.

Transgenderism makes obvious sense to a lot of people because at some level a lot of people still have pretty sexist ideas about what's socially right/normal for each sex.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 30/06/2026 09:31

MissingLynks · 30/06/2026 01:39

Notably Mukherjee does not say anything about "female brains" or "male brains" as those in bad faith are interpreting it, but rather talking about how the brain receives and interprets signals from the body. MRI scans do show physiological differences between trans people's brains and cis people's brains which, regardless of the mechanism, demonstrates at the very least that there is a real phenomenon that people are experiencing.

Differences which mostly don’t survive controlling for same sex orientation, if I remember rightly. Heterosexual men’s “trans” brains were not in any sense like women’s, while gay “trans” subjects had some minor similarities. Though they did have a difference to controls of both sexes in the area related to body perception which is I guess what you’re referring to. It doesn’t suggest they should be classified as the opposite sex though.

MarieDeGournay · 30/06/2026 09:35

MissingLynks · 30/06/2026 01:51

I'm sure the researchers studying trans brains are aware of this. I'm equally sure they're far more knowledgeable than you are when it comes to how to interpret evidence from brain scans.

MissingLynks would be absolutely correct to say that there are researchers far more knowledgeable than am I when it comes to how to interpret evidence from brain scans.
Fortunately we have the input of a neuroscientist, who is definitely far more knowledgeable than me - and presumably than you too, MissingLynks?

Pingponghavoc · 30/06/2026 09:37

There have always been gender non conforming people, and different societies accept the non conformity in different ways. The idea that women could wear trousers and work in the building trade or be a professor is either unthinkable or welcomed is dependent on societies expectations.

Maybe years ago we would have tried to find a biological reason why some women want to wear trousers? But the idea we would do that now is bonkers - we know it's personal choice, not a faulty gene.

Trans ideology isn't just a woman wanting to wear trousers, its a woman saying she has to wear trousers because thats what men do. And she wants to signal that she wants to be treated as a man.

Why would that have a biological cause rather than just be a personal choice as we accept GNC to be? Is it that different?

Lots of speculative studies and papers are published, in part, to try to justify the next step in trans ideology that is unacceptable in our society - men wanting to be in toilets, changing rooms and other female only spaces.

Our society knows thats just not GNC but tips over to unacceptable male sexual behaviour.

These studies aim to say that men wanting to be in women's spaces isnt a choice but natural need.

They havent found that gene, brain difference or natural hormone imbalance yet, but what would they do? Are they expected every man, trans or not, to have access to female spaces if they pass the test?

MoistVonL · 30/06/2026 10:00

The existence of a transgender identity provides powerful evidence for this geno-developmental cascade

Does it bollocks. How does the 4400% increase in trans-identifying girls fit into this "evidence"? Where were they for the 10,000 years before 2015?

Putting Descartes before the horse as the old joke goes.

His argument is a completely imaginary gene because some genetic manipulation in rats makes them homosexual? That's one hell of a reach.

The only studies I've read of hinting that there is a ladybrain have either not been controlled for sexuality or have been roundly debunked as nonsense.

If there was a biological test to determine who is actually trans, that would be fantastic! No more traumatised detransisioners, no pumping children full of damaging chemicals, no homophobia transing the gay away. Just a very, very few distressed men getting treatment to ease their distress.
Whilst still not letting them use women's single sex facilities, obviously.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 10:10

The existence of a transgender identity provides powerful evidence for this geno-developmental cascade

The existence of a Christian identity provides powerful evidence for this deity.

The existence of a clairvoyant identity provides powerful evidence for a future-seeing geno-developmental cascade.

The existence of a shamanic identity provides powerful evidence for a link between nature and human consciousness.

🙄

ScrollingLeaves · 30/06/2026 10:35

The female rat who was given a gene variant sounds as though her sexual orientation changed because of the gene variant.

The hypothesis that the female rat has a ‘male gender identity’ because of its ensuing behaviour would seem to be saying lesbians are females with male gender identities.

In humans why not just be a lesbian? You don’t have to take dangerous cross sex hormones or carve up your body. Surely Nature does not want that.

If they think it us a gene variant with the female rats following male behaviour why sa

ScrollingLeaves · 30/06/2026 10:42

lcakethereforeIam · 30/06/2026 08:35

Perhaps the male rats started dying their lips with berries, tilting their heads and making wigs out of their bedding? Homosexual behaviour isn't transgender behaviour, that would erase the male 'lesbian'.

🤣😂🤣

champignonhill · 30/06/2026 11:38

Thanks to everyone for taking time to reply - it's given me quite a bit to think about!

I think maybe I wasn't very clear in my OP. I wasn't really posting it because I have a strong view on transgender issues one way or the other. I'd just finished reading The Gene, which was published in 2016, and this was a very small part of a much bigger book about genetics. The article is just an extract from those few pages, published later in 2019.

I wasn't really asking "is Mukherjee right?" so much as wondering whether this small mention of this topic was a reasonable scientific idea, and whether others had also read the book and had any more informed opinions on it than I do (as I'm very much not a scientist!).

A few people have pointed out what seems to me to be the biggest weakness in his argument, which is going from experiments on rodents to explaining human gender identity. That seems like a perfectly fair criticism.

What surprised me a bit was that quite a few replies seemed to read things into the passage that I don't think are actually there. He's not saying he's discovered a "trans gene" - "Imagine a gene..." is explicitly presented as a hypothetical mechanism

Equally, I don't think he's literally talking about "male brains" and "female brains", but about whether the brain could respond differently to developmental signals from the rest of the body.

I don't think it's fair to assume he was writing with today's trans debates in mind. As far as I know, he isn't someone who's known for taking a public position on these issues. He's an oncologist writing a book about genetics, and this is only a tiny section of it. But thank you to those who read further than my OP to engage with what he was saying, and the context of when he was saying it, as that's what I was really interested in.

MissingLynks I loved The Emperor of All Maladies, it was one of the first 'proper' non fiction books I read shortly after it won the Guardian First Book Award, and while I struggled with some of the more scientific parts I found it utterly compelling. I was so grateful to have read it when I was then diagnosed with cancer a decade later, as I wasn't afraid of chemo in the same way I found others were - because I understood it thanks to him.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant it's not AI, it's a published article from 2016 (from a book published 3 years prior). Em-dashes are very commonly used in books / articles (but agree nowadays they're also often a tell-tale sign of AI!).

OP posts:
ApplebyArrows · 30/06/2026 11:47

I looked at a load of "trans brain" studies once, nearly all of them involved people who were taking opposite-sex hormones from what I remember. If oestrogen and testosterone affect the brain, then that's going to happen to anyone regardless of what their gender identity may be.

They also didn't tend to control for things like autism which might also affect brain structure and is very frequent in trans populations.

MarieDeGournay · 30/06/2026 11:50

Thank you for coming back, OP, that doesn't always happen...Smile
I've just remembered that that's the last line in Brief Encounter, isn't it?
Hubby says 'Thenk you for coming beck to me'.

Sorry for the derail -I wonder what S. Mukherjee would make of my brain?🙃

champignonhill · 30/06/2026 11:58

MarieDeGournay · 30/06/2026 11:50

Thank you for coming back, OP, that doesn't always happen...Smile
I've just remembered that that's the last line in Brief Encounter, isn't it?
Hubby says 'Thenk you for coming beck to me'.

Sorry for the derail -I wonder what S. Mukherjee would make of my brain?🙃

Of course! It took me a while to read everything after a manic school run / first meetings of the day, I don't visit this particular board often and was genuinely intrigued to know if anyone had read it and had any thoughts 😀 I'm not able to engage in particularly intelligent debates but wanted to know what the more educated folk here had to say!

I'm sure Mr Mukherjee would think your brain is as beautiful and intriguing as everyone else's. Love the quote!

OP posts:
FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 12:00

champignonhill · 30/06/2026 11:38

Thanks to everyone for taking time to reply - it's given me quite a bit to think about!

I think maybe I wasn't very clear in my OP. I wasn't really posting it because I have a strong view on transgender issues one way or the other. I'd just finished reading The Gene, which was published in 2016, and this was a very small part of a much bigger book about genetics. The article is just an extract from those few pages, published later in 2019.

I wasn't really asking "is Mukherjee right?" so much as wondering whether this small mention of this topic was a reasonable scientific idea, and whether others had also read the book and had any more informed opinions on it than I do (as I'm very much not a scientist!).

A few people have pointed out what seems to me to be the biggest weakness in his argument, which is going from experiments on rodents to explaining human gender identity. That seems like a perfectly fair criticism.

What surprised me a bit was that quite a few replies seemed to read things into the passage that I don't think are actually there. He's not saying he's discovered a "trans gene" - "Imagine a gene..." is explicitly presented as a hypothetical mechanism

Equally, I don't think he's literally talking about "male brains" and "female brains", but about whether the brain could respond differently to developmental signals from the rest of the body.

I don't think it's fair to assume he was writing with today's trans debates in mind. As far as I know, he isn't someone who's known for taking a public position on these issues. He's an oncologist writing a book about genetics, and this is only a tiny section of it. But thank you to those who read further than my OP to engage with what he was saying, and the context of when he was saying it, as that's what I was really interested in.

MissingLynks I loved The Emperor of All Maladies, it was one of the first 'proper' non fiction books I read shortly after it won the Guardian First Book Award, and while I struggled with some of the more scientific parts I found it utterly compelling. I was so grateful to have read it when I was then diagnosed with cancer a decade later, as I wasn't afraid of chemo in the same way I found others were - because I understood it thanks to him.

TheywontletmehavethenameIwant it's not AI, it's a published article from 2016 (from a book published 3 years prior). Em-dashes are very commonly used in books / articles (but agree nowadays they're also often a tell-tale sign of AI!).

"Imagine a gene..." is explicitly presented as a hypothetical mechanism

I understand this, but I think it is significant that he considers this to be a viable hypothesis when I suspect (and happy to proved wrong here) that he wouldn't think imagining a gene that codes for belief in a God or belief in an afterlife was viable beyond an interesting thought experiement. (The difference between the two being "what if we found a gene..." vs "I expect we will find the gene...")

It's all coming back to how "being one sex but somehow really, metaphysically the other" has been taken as a "truth" in our nominally secular society in a way that other equally metaphysical belief systems have not.

In fact it reminds me very much of how scientists in the enlightenment and even as recently as Victorian times were looking for the scientific basis/proofs of Christian beliefs.

They were certain they would be able to find it because they were looking to understand something they already "knew" to be true, so it had to be there.

It is the framing that is so important in seeing the bias. The rat experiment I'm sure is true, but the conclusion that these rats experienced themselves as "I'm a male rat" rather than "I'm a female rat" or IMO mostly likely "I'm me, and I'm feeling rutty right now!" - that is the bias that creeps in.

Upon observing characteristics previsoulsy assumed to be female in a male person or vice versa, the most logical conclusion is that those characteristics are not after all exclusive to one sex.

That so many humans jump to the conclusion that some people are really, metaphysically not the sex they are is IMO testament to the strength of human sexism, not proof of the existence of a physical, objective and innate human quality of gender that can end up expressing itself in the wrong body.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 12:05

@champignonhill - FWIW the suggestion that transgenderism is some sort of DSD of the mind rather than the body, and science will eventually catch up and explain it, is quite a common one.

It falls down IMO on many counts, but even if it didn't, all it would mean is some people genuinely feel the wong sex. It still doesn't mean they are the opposite sex.

Given the body still exists and still has sex-based consequences, feeling like the opposite sex, no matter how genuinely, does not justify the claim that sex is "really" what is in your mind rather than your body and the body doesn't matter. That is and always wil be a political/ideological position not a scientific one.