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:
champignonhill · 30/06/2026 12:12

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 12:00

"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.

Thank you for this. That's a good analogy as he talks about religious views very much as not genetically determined and as being a result of multiple phenomena (of which genes do play a role, but this isn't a hardwired mindset - so someone may be genetically disposed to think in a certain way which then due to social/cultural factors means they're more likely to have religious faith, for instance). Whereas he's talking about transgender identity being a direct cause of a mismatch between chromosomal sex and the hormones that then dictate how the brain responds to the resulting processes.

I think what I thought was interesting, not necessarily directly related to the 'transgender debate' per se but more widely in terms of gender as a whole, was the concept that he posits of there being a spectrum of hormonal possibilities in the way the brain responds to those sex-determined processes. Others here have pointed out (perhaps tangentially) that there are other factors such as autism, the taking of cross-sex hormones, and homosexuality, which would have a bearing on this as well - but even without any other factors I thought it was an interesting view.

OP posts:
champignonhill · 30/06/2026 12:13

(sorry if I'm not explaining myself very well!)

OP posts:
FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 12:26

champignonhill · 30/06/2026 12:12

Thank you for this. That's a good analogy as he talks about religious views very much as not genetically determined and as being a result of multiple phenomena (of which genes do play a role, but this isn't a hardwired mindset - so someone may be genetically disposed to think in a certain way which then due to social/cultural factors means they're more likely to have religious faith, for instance). Whereas he's talking about transgender identity being a direct cause of a mismatch between chromosomal sex and the hormones that then dictate how the brain responds to the resulting processes.

I think what I thought was interesting, not necessarily directly related to the 'transgender debate' per se but more widely in terms of gender as a whole, was the concept that he posits of there being a spectrum of hormonal possibilities in the way the brain responds to those sex-determined processes. Others here have pointed out (perhaps tangentially) that there are other factors such as autism, the taking of cross-sex hormones, and homosexuality, which would have a bearing on this as well - but even without any other factors I thought it was an interesting view.

I think what I thought was interesting, not necessarily directly related to the 'transgender debate' per se but more widely in terms of gender as a whole, was the concept that he posits of there being a spectrum of hormonal possibilities in the way the brain responds to those sex-determined processes. Others here have pointed out (perhaps tangentially) that there are other factors such as autism, the taking of cross-sex hormones, and homosexuality, which would have a bearing on this as well - but even without any other factors I thought it was an interesting view.

I think absolutely all of that is likely to be true. I just think it's all variety within ones sex. It does not justify a vault over the physical sex divide into "being really the opposite sex, just with a wrong sex body".

It's that vault that is the ideological framing. It only works by requiring us to change what we understand "sex" to be in the first place.

But the fact of physical sex is not like flogiston, a misapprehenion that went away when we understood heat better. It is undenaible that the sexed body exists. So that original meaning is still relevant and necessary.

So in fact this "sex is really in the mind" thing isn't a better or truer understanding of sex at all, it's just taking a word that means one thing and making it mean something different then pretending they were both somehow the same thing all along. It's dishonest intellectually, scientifically and morally.

champignonhill · 30/06/2026 12:33

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 12:26

I think what I thought was interesting, not necessarily directly related to the 'transgender debate' per se but more widely in terms of gender as a whole, was the concept that he posits of there being a spectrum of hormonal possibilities in the way the brain responds to those sex-determined processes. Others here have pointed out (perhaps tangentially) that there are other factors such as autism, the taking of cross-sex hormones, and homosexuality, which would have a bearing on this as well - but even without any other factors I thought it was an interesting view.

I think absolutely all of that is likely to be true. I just think it's all variety within ones sex. It does not justify a vault over the physical sex divide into "being really the opposite sex, just with a wrong sex body".

It's that vault that is the ideological framing. It only works by requiring us to change what we understand "sex" to be in the first place.

But the fact of physical sex is not like flogiston, a misapprehenion that went away when we understood heat better. It is undenaible that the sexed body exists. So that original meaning is still relevant and necessary.

So in fact this "sex is really in the mind" thing isn't a better or truer understanding of sex at all, it's just taking a word that means one thing and making it mean something different then pretending they were both somehow the same thing all along. It's dishonest intellectually, scientifically and morally.

I just had to look up 'flogiston'! New word learned.

Thank you again for this further explanation. All very interesting.

Again, I'm not really engaged in these wider debates, but I don't see anything in the article/book that says sex is anything other than a binary biological reality - however, I appreciate that there's a wider context that I'm not aware of. So this gives me a lot to think about, thanks!

OP posts:
lcakethereforeIam · 30/06/2026 12:37

This reminded me that there is a gene that's been nicknamed the God Gene, and there's been a book called The God Gene, that I haven't read and have no plans to. This link says a bit about it

https://www.geneticlifehacks.com/vmat2-gene-the-god-gene-and-neurotransmitters/

I picked it from the first links that came up when I googled the God Gene. I pasted it just to show I'm not making it up.

VMAT2 gene: The God Gene and Neurotransmitters

VMAT2, the so‑called “God gene,” packages dopamine, serotonin, and other monoamines into vesicles, protecting neurons from oxidative stress and influencing risks for Parkinson’s, PTSD, alcohol dependence, and diabetes.

https://www.geneticlifehacks.com/vmat2-gene-the-god-gene-and-neurotransmitters/

lcakethereforeIam · 30/06/2026 13:10

Just to clarify, carriers of the God Gene are supposed to be predisposed to belief. Apologies if I'm stating the blindingly obvious.

MoistVonL · 30/06/2026 13:11

Cake, I remember a documentary with Professor Susan Greenfield about the brain where she showed if you stimulate a particular part the person thinks they are having a religious vision.

lcakethereforeIam · 30/06/2026 13:23

I think I recall something along those lines.

That's reminded me of something I watched about sleep paralysis demons. Unfortunately the specifics are lost in the mists of time. Possibly a quirk of normal sleep patterns, possibly micro-fits, possibly something else entirely. The experience sounds utterly unpleasant whatever the explanation.

Scientists have posited that in ancient cave paintings, there are designs that don't tally with anything in nature (not aurochs or wild horses) but do correspond with brain architecture. The theory that it has something to do with what shamans saw when they were tripping.

That's the thing about having just three or four TV channels, I watched all kinds of niche stuff. Now there are dozens of channels and I rarely watch any of them.

Eta. Apologies for the derail OP

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 13:26

MoistVonL · 30/06/2026 13:11

Cake, I remember a documentary with Professor Susan Greenfield about the brain where she showed if you stimulate a particular part the person thinks they are having a religious vision.

The drug DMT is I think known for religious experiences, and has been used that way in traditional beliefs.

As anyone who is interested in psychedelics and hallucinogens knows, context and expectations have a great influence on the experience. As with so much in the mind, you can't separate the experience from the cultural context in which it is experienced.

champignonhill · 30/06/2026 18:16

Well this has become very interesting, thank you for the fascinating detail!

And thanks again for those who replied.

OP posts:
overnightangel · 30/06/2026 18:19

suggestionsplease1 · 29/06/2026 23:32

You're not talking to people who are prepared to consider anything other than their predecided opinions, OP.

Ah yes there’s that pesky thing called “reality” ruining things again 🙄

lcakethereforeIam · 30/06/2026 18:53

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 13:26

The drug DMT is I think known for religious experiences, and has been used that way in traditional beliefs.

As anyone who is interested in psychedelics and hallucinogens knows, context and expectations have a great influence on the experience. As with so much in the mind, you can't separate the experience from the cultural context in which it is experienced.

Edited

Just because you go for the authentic experience with some remote tribe you can't divest yourself of the baggage you bring with you.

I read somewhere that the types of delusions schizophrenics experience are also strongly correlated to the culture they live in.

FlirtsWithRhinos · 30/06/2026 19:11

lcakethereforeIam · 30/06/2026 18:53

Just because you go for the authentic experience with some remote tribe you can't divest yourself of the baggage you bring with you.

I read somewhere that the types of delusions schizophrenics experience are also strongly correlated to the culture they live in.

Absolutely. You'll probably have a different experience than you would lying on your own couch, but it will still be the experience of "me the UK city dweller visiting this remote authentic tribe to do some remote authentic things with these expectations of what it will be like" not how those people would experience it themselves.

Not least of which is the "remote authentic tribe" people will be having the experience of "here's another tourist, here's the version of us we find works best for tourists" 😂

ScrollingLeaves · 30/06/2026 20:05

lcakethereforeIam · 30/06/2026 13:10

Just to clarify, carriers of the God Gene are supposed to be predisposed to belief. Apologies if I'm stating the blindingly obvious.

And a Dog gene
( predisposing one to like to live with a dog).

Being a Dog Lover is in Your Genes, Study Finds.
news.liverpool.ac.uk/2019/05/17/being-a-dog-lover-is-in-your-genes-study-finds/amp/

ScrollingLeaves · 30/06/2026 20:09

champignonhill · 30/06/2026 18:16

Well this has become very interesting, thank you for the fascinating detail!

And thanks again for those who replied.

It has been very interesting to read this thread, thank you; and, everyone writing such detailed, carefully thought out answers.

Itcanonlyhelp · 30/06/2026 20:32

Studies of the Bed nucleus of the stria terminalis look interesting.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Swipe left for the next trending thread