The Science of Transgender Understanding the causes of being transgender

[kira21 ♡♡♡]

The Science of Transgender Understanding the causes of being transgender
By SABRINA RUBIN ERDELY

What causes people to be transgender in the first place? The prevailing theories used to be psychosocial: That early traumas like dysfunctional family dynamics or childhood sexual abuse were responsible. "That is absolutely not true at all," says Dr. Johanna Olson, medical director of the Transgender Clinic at Children's Hospital Los Angeles. "But I still get people in my clinic who are trying to unravel what the traumatic incident was, that caused their kid to be trans."

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-science-of-transgender-20140730

[noah732]

Nice article. But question: If genetic factors like a longer androgen receptor are responsible, why do identical twins sometimes have separate gender identities?

[Lonicera]

Nice article. But question: If genetic factors like a longer androgen receptor are responsible, why do identical twins sometimes have separate gender identities?

Perhaps exposure to varying environments across time could cause differences in gene expression between the twins?

Having said that, I'm incredibly sceptical of essentialist explanations of gender and don't believe in the notion that transgender people have a variance of sexual development isolated to the brain. I'm not any form of scientist but the studies I have read are incredibly unconvincing, including the one cited in the article, due to lacking controls, failing to account for alternative explanations, small sample sizes, etc. As with evolutionary psychology, I regard attempts to ascribe gender variance to biology with suspicion because the academics themselves are often clearly unaware of the latent biases driving them to assume our white supremacist ideas of gender are somehow inherently derived from natural inclinations despite all the evidence it's a social construct.

Ultimately, I also think the attempt to make it seem we're 'born this way' is incredibly dangerous since it relies on a baseless appeal to nature, positions anything that isn't hard-wired as a choice, and positions choice as inferior to biological destiny. The fact something is biological is not a reason in itself to accept the existence of something. Equally, it implicitly accepts the idea that our identity is somehow lesser than that of cisgender people, that we're an abnormality that has to justify itself. We owe no explanation to anyone and if a hypothetical definitive biological process was ever found I fear that cisgender people would then attempt to impose their norms on to nature by searching for a 'cure'.

Nonetheless, I find research into this incredibly interesting.

[noah732]

Lonicera —

In 1965, an infant named Bruce Reimer lost his penis in an accident. His parents chose to raise him as a girl because they thought it was the only way to salvage his sexual and romantic future. Yet, he developed a male gender identity nonetheless and became the equivalent of a transsexual boy. He was turned back into a male at 12.

The Reimer case PROVES  that we all have a built-in, internal awareness regarding our gender. I do not at all believe that gender identity is something changeable by social influence. A very, very large majority of transsexuals reveal tendency to behave like the opposite sex as early as age 3. In fact, despite a parent's attempts to alter their child's 'unnatural' gender identity, whether it remains the same or not appears to be numb to upbringing.

The nature vs. nurture debate is barely even valid anymore due to the Reimers' case and others like it. Surely there are factors prior to birth that dictate our gender identities.

[Jaime R D]

Ultimately, I also think the attempt to make it seem we're 'born this way' is incredibly dangerous since it relies on a baseless appeal to nature, positions anything that isn't hard-wired as a choice, and positions choice as inferior to biological destiny. The fact something is biological is not a reason in itself to accept the existence of something. Equally, it implicitly accepts the idea that our identity is somehow lesser than that of cisgender people, that we're an abnormality that has to justify itself. We owe no explanation to anyone and if a hypothetical definitive biological process was ever found I fear that cisgender people would then attempt to impose their norms on to nature by searching for a 'cure'.

I wholeheartedly agree. I've never been a fan of trying to justify it to other people and I don't try to explain it to anyone either. They can accept me as I am or not, their choice.

[Lonicera]

The Reimer case PROVES  that we all have a built-in, internal awareness regarding our gender.

I'm aware of the case but I'm afraid I disagree with this. For me, a single data point is not, or a few cherry-picked examples are not, definitive proof of an overarching reality. Equally, there have been many alternative explanations for the outcome in that case due the exceptional circumstances, including outright abuse, imposed on Reimer.

Personally, I prefer to defer to scientific methodology and I believe there is nothing close to a scientific consensus on the origins of gender identity, if indeed that's what it continues to be regarded as in the future given the constantly evolving nature of our understanding. I regard it as deeply damaging when people, not just trans people, seize upon shaky science as truth in their campaigning since it's intellectually disingenuous and risks building activism on a foundation of sand.

Maybe there are biological factors that influence a desire to belong to a given group we're exposed to, including a gender, in the same way it's conceivable that there are biological factors that influence sexual identification too but there's no reliable proof of causation in both cases. If you're interested in further reading on the matter, and haven't already encountered it, then I think Natalie Reed's 'The New Essentialism' is a relatively close match to a lot of my thoughts on the matter and far more detailed than I could achieve in a forum post.

I'd raise issues I have with other points you've mentioned but I have no desire to derail this topic beyond clarifying my position.

[Northern Jane]

Why would people assume there is a single cause? Case stories vary widely so multiple causes would seem more likely.

[Ducks]

re: born this way, when you have 3 year olds fighting tooth and nail to be girls or boys when their genitals say the opposite, and who try to cut off their offending parts, what else can it be? 

[Ducks]

Why would people assume there is a single cause? Case stories vary widely so multiple causes would seem more likely.

Indeed! There are lots of expressions of GD, why not multiple causes? 

[peky]

Nice article. But question: If genetic factors like a longer androgen receptor are responsible, why do identical twins sometimes have separate gender identities?

because gene expression and /or protein translation can be modified or modulated by epigenetic factors which may or may not affect both embryos...

Epigenetic factors are local cellular events that are independent of genes.

[noah732]

Ultimately, I also think the attempt to make it seem we're 'born this way' is incredibly dangerous since it relies on a baseless appeal to nature, positions anything that isn't hard-wired as a choice, and positions choice as inferior to biological destiny. The fact something is biological is not a reason in itself to accept the existence of something. Equally, it implicitly accepts the idea that our identity is somehow lesser than that of cisgender people, that we're an abnormality that has to justify itself. We owe no explanation to anyone and if a hypothetical definitive biological process was ever found I fear that cisgender people would then attempt to impose their norms on to nature by searching for a 'cure'.

Nonetheless, I find research into this incredibly interesting.

When you've lived with people who reject you, who tell you that it's your choice and you therefore must change, who have little to no empathy for the inescapable way you have felt your entire life, it becomes hurtful and frustrating. You yourself KNOW that you didn't choose this life but there isn't a way to prove such a thing without visible or presentable evidence like science.

Trying to prove that ->-bleeped-<- isn't a choice isn't a way to justify the existence of transgender people, it is a way of showing something that you already know to be true.

I understand a point you're getting at: Regardless of nature or nurture, a relationship with anyone who doesn't accept who you truly are should be severed. BUT that obviously doesn't make it OKAY for people to reject you. THEY'RE the ones trying to justify THEIR views by claiming ->-bleeped-<- is a product of decision or of upbringing. There's nothing wrong with trying to show that gender identity isn't a choice in hopes that things will get better for trans people!

Additionally, the amount of evidence supporting biological and genetic factors far surpasses that of social or psychological influences, regardless of validity.

I also don't understand why you are willing to accept the possibility of biological factors signaling to us what social groups we belong to, and not that they directly control our gender identities. So we need social exposure in order to develop gender identities? I believe not. We don't need to see a boy or a girl before our brains develop the ability to recognize the gender of faces, nor to we need it to recognize the gender of ourselves.

Ultimately, what is the core motivation behind your perspective? Do YOU believe your gender identity was a choice or a result of nurture?

P.S. Sorry if my opposition to your views comes across as negative. That's not how I intend it. I enjoy pressing these questions and debating the science behind ->-bleeped-<- because I like knowing more information and more theories about it. Thanks.

[noah732]

re: born this way, when you have 3 year olds fighting tooth and nail to be girls or boys when their genitals say the opposite, and who try to cut off their offending parts, what else can it be?

So very true.

[noah732]

because gene expression and /or protein translation can be modified or modulated by epigenetic factors which may or may not affect both embryos...

Epigenetic factors are local cellular events that are independent of genes.

Aha, epigenetics. Thanks.

[Emily1996]

Laverne Cox twin brother is not trans himself but if you google him you can see that he is kind of genderqueer.

BTW For me it's the opposite like maybe traumas from my family and surrounding made me thing that being transgender was not acceptable and therefore didn't help me accept myself, etc... u_u besides that it was quite informative.

[Lonicera]

I think the problem that needs to be tackled is the false dichotomy of biology vs choice. I'd rather try to teach people that a lack of a biological cause doesn't automatically make it a choice or that choices aren't inferior. An example most people can relate to is their sexual or racial identity which is largely socially constructed but seems to feel immutable to the majority of people. Something being socially constructed doesn't make it any less real, important, or capable of feeling engrained.

I understand the urge to appease society and I appreciate that it's comforting to make claims about the origin of gender but I don't accept claims that lack an evidential basis.

Additionally, the amount of evidence supporting biological and genetic factors far surpasses that of social or psychological influences, regardless of validity.

I'm afraid I disagree. I believe there's no consensus supporting either at present but, based on my reading as a total layperson, some constructionist theories seem to have more studies and analyses supporting them.

To me, it seems like there are things that trans people understandably cherry-pick in their attempt to placate a hostile cisgender society but reading many of the studies convinced me that they're invalid due to fatal flaws (e.g. infamous 'brain sex' stuff) or that they provide incredibly tentative results that can equally be subject to alternative interpretations.

I also don't understand why you are willing to accept the possibility of biological factors signaling to us what social groups we belong to, and not that they directly control our gender identities.

Oh dear, I should've been clearer about my baseless speculation. It was just idle thought and nothing serious.

The reason I'm dubious about accepting a learning mechanism specifically for gender (rather than a generic learning mechanism) without evidence is because gender has never been shown to be biological. Conversely, there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating that it is a socially constructed system. I appreciate it could've been the case that there was some kind of coevolution or something else but I personally fail to see how that's likely when genders vary so greatly across the planet, sometimes to the extent that genders assigned to a given sex at birth in one culture are totally contradictory to those in another or even absent entirely.

In my mind, the onus is firmly on people claiming that gender identification is biologically innate to categorically prove that's the case with consistent studies, not with anecdotes, small studies that can readily be disputed, or studies that can easily be subject to a different interpretation.

There's nothing wrong with trying to show that gender identity isn't a choice in hopes that things will get better for trans people!

I agree that there's nothing wrong with trying to convey the way it can feel engrained for some of us, including me, but I don't think it's necessary to rely on hollow appeals to nature for that. It also troubles me that it leaves people behind for whom gender may feel like a choice, I won't do that. I'd personally rather tackle the root problem rather than mollify it but I appreciate the pragmatic focus of others.

So we need social exposure in order to develop gender identities? I believe not.

Whereas I believe we do need exposure to an external world since gender is not solely a personal trait but is something that is done to us as well as done by us. For me, gender is a complex semiotic system and I don't think that gender can develop in isolation or prior to internalising knowledge. As people like Judith Butler might put it, we constantly 'perform' or 'do' our gender so I don't see identity as something that can exist in total absence of that.

I think it can feel incredibly fixed and deeply-rooted, as it has done for me since childhood, but I still think it is something that is constantly evolving and developing based on our situational performances of it every day.

As for the facial recognition you mentioned, I'd love to see it if you can recall any details.

Ultimately, what is the core motivation behind your perspective? Do YOU believe your gender identity was a choice or a result of nurture?

I don't think it was a conscious choice but I can't identify any kind of process in the complex history of my life. I can only impose retrospective narratives on to things that I presently remember which isn't particularly useful. In theory, it could be purely biological causes, purely due to learning, or a combination of both. I'd need evidence.

Personally, I have an illogical sense of liking the constructionist theories I've seen more than alternatives because they manage to encompass the full range of gender without becoming too messy and complicated. For instance, the things I've read seem to readily account for gender feeling fixed while also accommodating people that feel theirs is totally fluidic. We each become people that have simply learned, internalised, performed, etc in a way unique to us.

P.S. Sorry if my opposition to your views comes across as negative. That's not how I intend it. I enjoy pressing these questions and debating the science behind ->-bleeped-<- because I like knowing more information and more theories about it. Thanks.

Oh my word, not at all. I apologise if my formal tone seems callous or such. For some reason, I'm just 'stuck' typing like this despite trying to change it. I also regret that I'm tired and not particularly clever so I can't really offer any comments or insights of use to others.

re: born this way, when you have 3 year olds fighting tooth and nail to be girls or boys when their genitals say the opposite, and who try to cut off their offending parts, what else can it be?

I don't think that's the only plausible conclusions but may be very wrong. By age three a person has had considerable exposure to gender as a system and has typically learned at least one language to high degree. In my mind, the latter is very important because the complexity of language means it conveys and instils countless ideas without us even really knowing it. I'd suggest we internalise that and accordingly develop in relation to it.  Similarly, a child will have absorbed a great deal of knowledge about gender from surrounding society and will have engaged in performance of it on a daily basis themselves to increasing degrees as they age.

Flowing from this, I think I can conceive of a child having acquired a sense of gender identity that causes them to behave in such a way by that point in time or even earlier.

Why would people assume there is a single cause? Case stories vary widely so multiple causes would seem more likely.

Eap, I apologise if it seemed like I was arguing that I'd only accept a single identifiable cause. I try to appreciate that the reality of things is that they're a composite of many factors. I'm just yet to see any such contributory aspects properly outlined.

[Stochastic]

Lonicera,

Understandably, it is common for individuals to hold on to information that fits their personal perspective while omitting other evidence. Even researchers have biases when it comes to their work versus the works of others. I have read a few studies out of personal interest and a handful of studies focusing on 'brain sex'. I would be interested in reading any refrences you may have that are critical of mainstream transgender research. Reading different works provides me with a well rounded perspective and a better understanding of what affects me.

[helen2010]

Lonicera

This is a really interesting and thought provoking thread.  With the caveat that I am not a sociologist, biologist or psychologist, while I certainly see merit in a view of gender as a social construct, I see more merit in the developing and richly researched view of gender as a bio/psycho/social phenomenon as per Prof Allan Schore's work on attachment theory and development at UCLA.  While Schore does not dismiss the feminist favoured social construction of gender he does not see any social (primarily maternal) interaction occurring without biological and psychological consequence.   The interesting question to ponder is what leads the way in the development of gender identity, and does this really matter?

As a result of my own experience, where I depart from the purely sociological view of gender is in trying to explain my experience of gender dysphoria and it's effective treatment by hrt.   Moving from a situation where every day was clouded by intense dysphoria to a situation of zero dysphoria courtesy of low dose hrt suggests hormonal, chemical and biological factors are at work.  Hrt does not appear to be just a placebo given this impact, and while Schore's work does provide me with a possible explanation, a purely sociological explanation eludes me.  Is there something that I am missing?

Like you I would like to find a single widely accepted theory of gender identity.  Perhaps a bio/psycho/social view of gender is the equivalent of looking for a unified field theory for gender - if so this is where I lean and my experience of dysphoria takes me.  This is an interesting area for research and I hope to see its resolution during my lifetime.

Having said this I am not sure that seeking to accept the most or least supported view of the cause of gender identity makes a whole lot of difference. My sense is that gender identity rarely changes, it is what it is and understanding your identity, accepting and expressing your identity  seems more important  to those who are trans* than in agreeing its origin or cause.

Safe travels

Aisla

[Jill F]

My drunkle said it was because of the devil and all of that devil music I listen to. 

Damn you, Freddie Mercury!

[Lonicera]

Lonicera,

Understandably, it is common for individuals to hold on to information that fits their personal perspective while omitting other evidence. Even researchers have biases when it comes to their work versus the works of others. I have read a few studies out of personal interest and a handful of studies focusing on 'brain sex'. I would be interested in reading any refrences you may have that are critical of mainstream transgender research. Reading different works provides me with a well rounded perspective and a better understanding of what affects me.

Oh I agree entirely and appreciate that I'm no doubt rendered oblivious to a great deal based on bias and lack of even a teeny tiny specialist knowledge. I just have a few textbooks and use university to access journals due to personal interest, that's all. In the past, I used to cling to the possibility of an innate gender identity but reading the studies often cited as proof made me dubious over time.

As for sources to explore, I'm actually unsure of anyone to recommend since my tentative lay-person conclusions are based on directly reading studies that I expect you've encountered before, like the work by Zhou JN et al that seems to be commonly relied on as proof of innate gender identity or Hulshoff Pol et al that focuses on the impact of hormone therapy.

From what I recall, my own personal issues were that the studies were typically undermined by minuscule sample sizes that meant the result could be due to chance, by failure to include proper controls, by absence of replication, by complete absence of any proposed relationship to gender, and by the fact almost all (except for one or maybe two) assumed observed neurological differences were causative of gender identity rather than gender development leading to the observed differences.

In the case of the Hare et al study into androgen receptors, the only reason I don't yet accept it is definitive proof of a contributory factor is due the fact I haven't seen any replication and my personal discomfort with drawing a firm conclusion based on the variation in frequency of CAG repeats in the androgen receptor between the cis men and trans women.

The interesting question to ponder is what leads the way in the development of gender identity, and does this really matter?

Thank you for sharing that post. I totally agree with asking whether it matters at all, agree that self-understanding and exploration are paramount, and agree with everything included in your post. I should phrase myself better in future and apologise if it seemed like I was claiming gender is entirely socially constructed. I am entirely happy to accept any combination of factors but would just like very reliable evidence for them. Given I'm utterly unqualified in any relevant specialist fields and generally quite dim, it's very likely that the reliable evidence exists everywhere but I simply haven't encountered it due to ineptitude. I have searched for overarching expert analysis in the past so I can defer to it but have never succeeded in finding such things. As a result, I just bumble about in clueless exploration.

Also, I tend to sometimes use 'gender' for what others, I later realise, would call 'gender identity' in the context which doesn't help at all in conveying what I mean. I need to remember to separate the various aspects when typing. Oopsie.

[helen2010]

Lonicera

You are certainly not dim and your willingness to share your perspective and reading is impressive and very welcome.  On Susans and in the broader trans* community we are fellow travellers who, while wishing to know why we are as we are, really want to accept and to be accepted.

Safe travels

Aisla