Today President Trump announced that transgender individuals
would not be allowed to serve in the U.S. Military. This follows a previous Trump reversal of guidelines
put in place by President Obama regarding how public schools should handle
their transgender students’ use of bathrooms. In discussions of these issues, a
distinction is often made between “biological sex” and a psychological state of
“gender identity” with the latter weighted as less important, less biological,
or less real. Political commentator Ben Shapiro, for example, illustrates the
attitude in his response to a transgender rights advocate questioning him at a recent lecture: “I’m not going to modify basic
biology because it threatens your subjective
sense of what you are.” [Emphasis added.] This sort of statement presupposes that Mr. Shapiro understands the basic biology, which I'm sure he doesn't given that biologists are still working it out.
What we do know from basic biology is that the classic model of sexual differentiation is probably wrong.
There is a classic understanding of the biology of sex: X
and Y gene expression leads to the determination
of female or male gonads (ovaries, testes), which in turn secrete hormones that
lead to a wide range of sexual differentiation
in females and males from external genitalia to body size and shape to
behavior. Recent research, however, has
demonstrated a more complex biology in which non-gonadal sex differences,
including in the brain and the behaviors it controls, result from gene
expression directly in these non-gonadal tissues. Much of the evidence for this new view has
come from a range of animal studies demonstrating that manipulation of hormone
levels does not fully account for non-gonadal sexual differentiation, even when
it comes to behavior. To provide one example, castrated male zebra finches
develop normal male song patterns and hormone-modified genetically female
finches, who develop testes as a result of the hormone manipulation, nonetheless
retained their normal female song pattern.
If it is the case, as the existing science indicates, that biology
operates along parallel pathways to determine and differentiate male and female
phenotypes, then it is biological feasible that genetic variation could lead to
individuals with mixed sex differentiation, that is, with the gonads of one sex
and a brain that leans the other way. One
theory is that transgender individuals are the phenotypic realization of this
biological state of affairs.
To put it into lay terms that policy makers and political commentators can understand, what this may mean is that your subjective sense of what you are IS due to basic biology even if it disagrees with your gonads. And if this is true, the individual who Shapiro chastised might have responded, "I'm not going to modify basic biology because it threatens your subjective sense of what I am."
To be clear, science does not yet have a definitive answer
regarding the biology of gender identity. The underlying biology is complex and
particularly difficult to study in humans.
But at the same time, it is quite clear that if lawmakers, lawyers, and
presidents are to engage in a debate that turns on biology, then
state-of-the-art biological science must be part of the discussion.
-->
Links to some relevant literature: