[Originally Published May 27th, 2018 on Wordpress]
INTRODUCTION:
Gender as many topics in the present era of 2018, once a largely a noncontroversial topic has become more polarizing. However, the struggle between religious/ social conservatives and the LGBTQ community towards mainstream acceptance of transgender individuals has made this topic more contentious. I personally do not harbor any prejudice against transgender people and I even agree with the scientific community when it comes to the biologic basis for transgenderism. What I find to be problematic is the manipulation of the entity of gender for political agendas. The political opportunism utilized to weaponize the "gender as a construct" theory, not only can be considered dangerous but also lacks ideologically congruence. If you accept the notion that there is a biological basis attributing to transgender-ism, it almost appears to be diametrically opposing to believe that gender in of itself is a human fabricated concept. A concept that individuals of this dogmatic paradigm perceive as institutionally reinforcing most societal institutions. It requires a great deal of rectification of cognitive dissonance to solve that puzzle.
While there is little doubt in my opinion that there is a scientific confirmation that being transgender is based on physiological and biologic differences. How can gender be a human fabricated idea, but yet the politically correct notion of a natural basis for transgender people coexist? It would appear to me as the clever jogging of rhetoric is what causes both paradoxical ideas to ideologically congruent. However, from the standpoint of a clear logically flow and cohesiveness of concepts this is analogous to fitting two ill-fitting puzzle pieces. You need excessive force to make it conjoin both pieces with the two pieces overlapping versus fitting together flush. Then to utilize these two misfitting pieces as the core evidence of oppression and other forms of systematic discrimination. In a manner that is perniciously divisive, with little to no basis in objective facts, but justified in conspiratorial and theoretical speculation. Generally firmly rooted in theories bogged down in sociological jargon only intelligible to Noam Chomsky.
Biological Basis For Gender:
There appear to be two very distinct paradigms when it comes to the theory of gender. The first we will examine will be the objective and scientific perspective on gender. We will follow this perspective by exploring the wholly subjective and sociological on gender. One particularly good article focusing on this topic is the National Geographic article: How Science is Helping Us Understand Gender. The article overall covers the how science can provide some empirical explanations in regards to some of the changing consensus in regards to gender norms. In other words, how can science address the reason for transgender people, gender fluidity, or another deviation from the bi-gender model of classification. [3]
The article addresses how now gender classifications have now been veering into approximately 50 plus categories. The traditional biologic perspective our gender is ascertained by our sex chromosomes(XX chromosome pairing= female, XY= Male). As linear as this may seem the article does point to the possibility for even with perfectly corresponding sex chromosomes an individual may not exhibit the stereotypical sex characteristics of that gender. Per the article: "It’s possible to be XX and mostly male in terms of anatomy, physiology, and psychology, just as it’s possible to be XY and mostly female.". At the embryonic stages of development, gender differentiation does not transpire until approximately week 8. Per the article at this stage of fetal development the SRY gene which is crucial in the development of male genitalia. However, it is stated that:
"But the SRY gene’s function isn’t always straightforward. The gene might be missing or dysfunctional, leading to an XY embryo that fails to develop male anatomy and is identified at birth as a girl. Or it might show up on the X chromosome, leading to an XX embryo that does develop male anatomy and is identified at birth as a boy." [3]
It is quite salient from the excerpt from the National Geographic article provides a sound account of the biological basis of gender. Even detailing how during fetal development how sex chromosomes can function in a manner that would be considered abnormal potentially accounting for gender expression that veers away from the binary gender model. Now many in the LGBTQ community are probably incredulous about my motive behind this article. However, I am far from a bigoted person. Not only do I feel that transgender people should be treated as just as anyone else. I am convinced that science can explain transgender differences from a biological standpoint. My issue is not with biological or even constructional perception and identification of gender. It is the politicization of gender and its weaponized use a weapon in a fruitless and self-serving culture war to disrupt the status quo. It would be noble to fight for the civil liberties of all people, I can get behind that kind of a rhetorical battle. However, many who use gender as a political battering ram, have other less laudable intentions.
BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR TRANSGENDER-ISM:
While many social conservatives refute the extent to which the state of transgender gender identification is natural, science would tend to prove contrary to their assumptions. While I can sympathize with the moralistic convictions of socially conservative Christians it does not mean that their paradigm is adaptable to modern society. Not that I am saying that we need society move towards the zenith, the apogee of liberal progressiveness, however, at least tolerate what you do not agree with. Even if your beliefs are at odds with the empirical evidence. Do the Christian thing and forgive them for their perceived "sins". However, I digress.
Regardless of your personal feelings about transgender people there does appear to be scientific evidence pointing towards a biological basis for their gender identification. Granted most of the evidence corroborating the scientific rationale for transgender identification is theoretical, however, it would suggest that is not merely a personal choice. The Scientific American article: Is There Something Unique About The Transgender Brain addresses this possibility. The article asserts that there are minute differences in the structures of brains of males and females do vary slightly. However, studies tend to show that for transgender people that their brains mirror more closely the structure of their experienced gender than their biological gender. A study conducted by the University of Barcelona where researchers analyzed MRI images of "....brains of 24 female-to-males and 18 male-to-females—both before and after treatment with cross-sex hormones ...". The results of the study illustrated:
"For example, the female-to-male subjects had relatively thin subcortical areas (these areas tend to be thinner in men than in women). Male-to-female subjects tended to have thinner cortical regions in the right hemisphere, which is characteristic of a female brain. (Such differences became more pronounced after treatment.)" [4]
Such pronounced structural differences in the brain can provide more than anecdotal or theoretical evidence for transgender gender identification. Such physiological evidence should be considered even when faced with any diametrically opposing influence from theological ethos. While science may not be able to elaborate on all topics, biology is certainly a discipline scientist are meant to expound upon with their unwavering commitment to reason and rigor.
GENDER AS A CONSTRUCT:
While in my opinion, the biological basis for gender is overwhelmingly apparent. However, there are more peripheral aspects in regards to gender, such as gender roles. Obviously, gender roles themselves are culturally contrived making them constructs. The associated variable of gender roles cannot be evaluated on any kind of empirical standpoint. Rather would need to be analyzed from more of socio-cultural perspective which veers away from the ability to make any sorts of causal claims. Also, erodes from the objectivity of any theories or observations of gender roles. However, I do not see gender as a construct, but rather a biologically derived state of classification that has attributes that can be constructional. Which is a distinction that alludes many of the officers representing the politically correct police.
Regardless of my perspective in regards to gender, I really need to present the other side of the issue. Essentially, this perspective operates under the assumption that gender is more of a concept than a biologically expression phenotypical and genotypical attributes. From there our cultural perception of these "concepts" influences how we interact with people. In the example of child rearing "... parents are the primary influence on gender role development during the early years of life..". Parents tend to direct their children toward toys and activities that reflect traditional gender roles. For example, fathers encouraging their sons to play with action figures. Through addressing and encouraging such stereotypical behavior we reinforce and keep gender stereotypes substantiated. Through continuing to reinforce such stereotypes we keep the opportunity open for women have limited potential and unfair treatment. It is even speculated that children that are raised more in an androgynous manner tended to not experience much of the harm imparted by being raised in a less gender-neutral manner. [5]
FOOT NOTES:
1. (Video) https://youtu.be/6Wz25ljfpA0
2. https://invertedlogicblog.wordpress.com/2018/05/28/political-opinions50-gender-biology-or-construct
3. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/01/how-science-helps-us-understand-gender-identity/
4. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
5. http://gozips.uakron.edu/~susan8/parinf.htm
Comments