Brilliant article by Sandra Pertot. How is it possible that psychology—which, in deliberate contrast to psychiatry, attempted to base itself as a profession on scientific research—suddenly forgot everything ever established about child development and instead ran after the bright shiny bauble of gender ideology?
It boggles the mind, but more than that, it inspires deep mistrust and disgust with our major social institutions.
Surely no parent would indulge their child in such nonsense:
……For example: presenters are told to avoid “gendering anatomy” because “not all boys have penises, not all girls have vaginas: Instead [one should] use: bodies with penises, testicles, bodies that produce sperm, bodies with vaginas, uteruses, ovaries, bodies that menstruate, etc”.
Apparently such parents abound and the motives will be variable , from genuine , though misplaced, compassion, to overt social activism ( John Whitehall saw them as “ cheerleaders “)
What remains inexplicable to me has been how social science based gender identity ideology has captured medical science to facilitate the provision of medical intervention in minors. The perceived virtue, inherent to the mission, excludes any challenging, regardless of evidence of harm.
Agreed, there seems no boundary beyond which this nonsense has not prevailed.
The very institutions that historically have been ‘where the buck stops’ have crumbled. The AMA, RACGP et al signed off early in the day but I would have expected a strong stand by the RACP and it is they that have been leading the charge.
What chance do children have with that juggernaut zeroing in?
Thank you, Sandra, for this article. I agree with much of your critique: the obscurantism in sex education, the dismissal of parents who object, the promotion of trans ideology as if it were an unquestionable fact, and the failure to recognize the role of social contagion in the explosive rise of trans identifications among adolescents, especially females. All of that is well pointed out.
But there is one point on which I deeply disagree, and I believe it is the central point.
Your article, by resorting to cases like that of Lucy, the chimpanzee raised as human, or the Kellogg experiment, seems to suggest that identity is fundamentally a social product, malleable, without a biological basis. And from that it follows, although you do not say it explicitly, that there is no such thing as gender identity, that everything is cultural construction, and that gender nonconformity is merely a response to stereotypes.
I disagree. The label we give to the phenomenon—gender identity, psychosexual traits, psychological gender, or whatever else—is secondary. What matters is that gender, understood as the set of psychosexual traits that evolution has genetically inscribed in our species, is a reality. It is not a social construction. Society and culture can shape how those traits are expressed, but the traits are wired into our brains from birth.
Most of us do not go around "identifying" with what we are or what we feel; we simply are and feel. A typical male does not "identify" as male; he simply is male, and his psychology aligns with what is typical for his sex. Likewise, a person does not "identify" as heterosexual; he or she simply feels attracted to the opposite sex. Identification only becomes visible, only becomes manifest, when there is a discrepancy between sex and psychological traits.
And here is the key point: there have always existed, and still exist, gender nonconforming people, homosexuals, bisexuals. That demonstrates that there is a certain independence between sex and gender. Sex is the binary reproductive function; gender is the set of psychosexual traits that revolve around it, with a bimodal distribution and overlaps. But that independence does not imply that trans people exist in an essentialist sense, nor that those people must undergo procedures to alter their phenotypic sexual characteristics.
That is: recognizing that there is something called gender, and that this something has a biological basis, is not the same as accepting trans ideology. Trans ideology confuses gender nonconformity (real, biological, universal) with the belief of being the opposite sex (an illusion, an overvalued belief, a phenomenon of social contagion). And from that confusion it draws the conclusion that the solution is medicalization.
Your article, by emphasizing social conditioning so heavily, runs the risk of denying the biological reality of sexual and gender diversity. And if we deny that reality, we leave the ground free for trans activism to fill the void with its own narrative: "if you feel different, it's because you're trans." On the other hand, if we recognize that gender nonconformity is a natural variation with a biological basis, we can say clearly: "your psychology does not fit with what is typical for your sex, and that is a variant of human diversity. It does not mean you are the opposite sex or that you need to alter your body."
That distinction is what I find missing in your article, and it is what, in my view, marks the difference between an effective critique of trans ideology and a critique that, without intending to, ends up denying realities that exist and that deserve to be understood, not erased.
Eduardo, We’re on the same page about most of what you’ve mentioned, the messed-up sex ed, parents getting dismissed, trans ideology treated like fact, and social contagion in the teen cases, especially the girls. And yes, we both reject medicalising people over this.
But this claim that gender is “the set of psychosexual traits that evolution has genetically inscribed in our species” doesn’t hold up. You say society only shapes how those traits are expressed, but the traits themselves are wired in from birth. define gender without just listing the usual stereotypes. Interests, aggression levels, nurturing tendencies, spatial skills? That’s just average differences between the sexes with a lot of overlap. Calling that “gender” and treating it as its own biological category that can partially detach from sex is exactly how the activists got their foot in the door.
You also say most of us don’t go around “identifying” with anything, we simply are and feel. Exactly. So why keep the concept alive at all? Identification only becomes a thing when there’s a discrepancy, as you put it or when the culture teaches people to go looking for one. That’s identity formation, and the animal studies in the article show how powerful that process is. Lucy the chimp raised as human ended up believing she was one. The Kellogg experiment had the human baby picking up chimp behaviours. Those aren’t side notes. They show how strongly environment and modelling shape what someone thinks they are. You’re downplaying that part while leaning hard on the idea of innate psychosexual traits that can float free of the body.
Nonconformity is real. Same-sex attraction is real. None of it means there’s a biological gender independent of sex. Sex is the binary. The rest is just variation.
Bea, you say that the idea that "gender is the set of psychosexual traits that evolution has genetically inscribed in our species" does not hold, and that those traits—interests, levels of aggressiveness, caregiving tendencies, spatial abilities—are merely average differences between the sexes with a great deal of overlap.
Your objection is based on overlap. But the rest of the physical differences between men and women, such as height and body fat distribution, are also average differences with a great deal of overlap, and yet we affirm without hesitation that they are real sexual differences. Those differences are consistent on average, they are governed by the endocrine system, and the endocrine system acts in turn governed by genetic information.
Beyond overlap, in most cases we can distinguish a person's sex just by looking at their face. Or we could get it right most of the time by knowing a few data points, without even seeing them. Moreover, there are studies that manage to deduce the sex of fetuses through MRI studying the brain connectome. The differences between the sexes are not binary in the sense that there are not two rigid categories, but they are systematic: they obey two developmental programs, beyond the overlaps that really exist.
The author of the article correctly points this out under the title "Gender evolution": «early human survival required a practical division of labor. Since only women could conceive and nurse, they were often confined to camps, which led them to specialize in gathering food and childcare. Men, who lacked these physical constraints, generally specialized in hunting and defense.» That is the foundation on which, over millions of years, the differences between the sexes are inscribed. The mechanism is simple: those who have characteristics that make them more fit leave more descendants, and those characteristics are transmitted from generation to generation until they settle in all populations.
Then—only then—come social expectations and the interest of adults in children developing specific qualities according to their sex. Stereotypes are not whims or patriarchal impositions; they are what is expected according to what is known or has been seen to work, and it is entirely logical and expected that adults promote those stereotypes, beyond the fact that today we know that each child's gender characteristics must be respected.
Sandra Pertot also asks how "identity" develops in an individual, and whether it is innate and immutable. Here things get complicated. The first thing to say is that there is no such thing as trans gender identity. Trans is not a gender; it is an attitude taken in certain circumstances. Trans is a procedure—social, hormonal, and surgical—to modify phenotypic sexual characteristics. No one is born trans, just as no one is born tattooed or with dreadlocks.
What we are born with is biological characteristics that will manifest, some immediately, others later. And here the examples are compelling:
Early childhood preferences: Boys and girls have different toy preferences: boys prefer vehicles, toy weapons, balls, and building toys; girls tend to prefer dolls and household items. Girls are more interested in babies than boys. These differences appear before any significant social influence.
Differentiated cognitive abilities: Boys have better throwing accuracy; girls have better fine hand movement control. Boys perform better on visuospatial tasks such as mental rotation and aiming; girls have better verbal fluency. Girls are more people-oriented; boys are more thing-oriented.
Personality differences: Men score higher on assertiveness, competitiveness, aggressiveness, and independence. Women score higher on expressiveness, sociability, empathy, openness to feelings, and altruism. Men prefer thing-oriented occupations; women prefer people-oriented ones.
Sexuality: Men are more interested in casual sex and have a greater desire for variety. Women experience more emotional jealousy; men experience more sexual jealousy. Men are more prone to paraphilias and sexual aggression.
Sexual orientation: Men are more likely to be attracted to women (gynephilia); women to men (androphilia). This difference entails a more specific attraction to the physical characteristics of the opposite sex.
And all of this is not an artifact of socialization. Twin studies show that both childhood gender nonconformity and adult homosexuality are substantially heritable. Childhood gender traits are linked to adult sexual orientation, not through a "socialization cycle," but because both are components of a set of traits that develop under the influence of common biological factors, such as genes and hormones. Androgen levels during early development organize the brain circuits that mediate a wide variety of gender traits, including sexual orientation.
Even in genetic conditions that alter prenatal hormonal exposure, such as androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), we see how biology shapes psychosexuality: XY fetuses with AIS develop with a female external appearance, are raised as girls, and in adulthood are psychosexually similar to other women: the vast majority are attracted to men and are feminine in other gender traits.
Psychosexual differences are biological, they are consistent, they have an evolutionary explanation, and they are relatively easy to appreciate. The fact that trans ideologues make a mess of these issues does not negate the reality that we not only have genitals of one sex or the other, but also a whole series of other masculine and feminine characteristics; and both the genitals and those characteristics—which include sexual orientation—are configured innately in a hormone-mediated process.
Regarding Lucy and the Kellogg experiment: they are extreme cases that show the influence of the environment on the formation of social identity, but they do not demonstrate that innate psychosexual traits do not exist. One thing is that social identity is malleable—and it is—and another is that biological differences do not exist. Confusing both things is the error that trans activism commits, and I fear that you commit it by denying that a category called 'gender' exists that is not reduced to mere individual variation.
Nonconformity is real. Same-sex attraction is real. And both things evidence that something exists—call it gender, psychosexual traits, or whatever you like—that is not reduced to individual variation. They are the psychosexual traits that evolution has inscribed in our species and that are distributed bimodally. Calling that "gender," "sexual identity," or "psychosexual traits" is secondary. What matters is that it exists, and that denying it leaves the ground free for activism to fill the void with its own narrative.
No, I certainly don't deny the "biological reality of sexual and gender diversity." Keep in mind that this article was written in response to the claim by gender affirming health professionals and educators that social influence play no role in a child's statement they are transgender, and they will suicide if not affirmed.
However we can only explore who we are by our interactions with others. For example, Australian aboriginal people only realised there were other races than black people when the British landed and these white creatures emerged: the aboriginal people thought thought must be souls of the dead.
Certainly there are gender nonconforming individuals who challenge the social expectations of their sex and gender, but when that comes at a cost eg punished in some way, that can modify their behaviour and damage their sense of self.
Alternatively when a set of expectations seem attractive and rewarding, particularly for individuals who have comorbid mental health issues, then an individual can modify their internal dialogue about themselves to fit this appealing option. This is what happens with the young people who adopt the transgender model but at no stage do I claim that all young people are influenced to believe they are trans.
In the example of Lucy, she had no alternative model to learn from, and so adopted the behaviours that gave her a sense of belonging to the individuals who populated her world. The example of Gua demonstrated that biology was more influential than environment.
Nevertheless, and thankfully, there have always people who do not conform to social expectations, not just for sexual and gender issues, who withstand any of the pressures put on them, which lead to the feminist movement and the gay rights campaigns and brought about social change.
Sandra, I appreciate your response. I agree with you that social influence exists and that it can lead some young people to adopt a trans identity. In fact, in my writings I have developed the concept of "trans ideation" precisely to describe that phenomenon: a cognitive preoccupation that can arise through multiple pathways, including social contagion.
But I disagree on a central point. When you say that "we can only discover who we are through our interactions with others," you are talking about social identity, not genuine gender identity. Social identity is formed in relation to others; genuine gender identity, which manifests in the individual's psychology, is fundamentally given to us from the start, independently of whether society recognizes it or not and whether we identify with it or not.
Gender nonconformity has always existed, in all cultures, even in those that did not name it. That demonstrates that it has a biological basis. If it were purely social, it would not exist in cultures that do not recognize it. The fact that it exists in all of them is evidence that there is something more than social construction.
Your article correctly points out social influence, but by emphasizing it so heavily, you run the risk of denying the biological reality of sexual and gender diversity. And if we deny that reality, we leave the ground free for trans activism to fill the void with its own narrative: "if you feel different, it's because you're trans." On the other hand, if we recognize that gender nonconformity is a natural variation with a biological basis, we can say clearly: "your psychology does not fit with what is typical for your sex, and that is a normal variant of human diversity. It does not mean you are the opposite sex or that you need to alter your body."
How do you think 100% of readers are going to answer the question, "was Lucy a human or chimpanzee?" I assume that 100% will answer that she was a chimpanzee ... thus biology trumps socialisation.
Was Donald a human or a chimpanzee?
That was the entire reason for using those examples, that socialisation doesn't trump biology!
How do you propose we identify "genuine gender identity"? What is a it? How does an individual become gender nonconforming? What are they not conforming to?
I disagree categorically, modern medicine has been shamed by the damage done by well intentioned physiicians who were convinced that their intervention was appropriate.
Vincent, I think there is a misunderstanding. My comment does not defend well-intentioned doctors who practice gender medicine; I agree that good intentions do not excuse harm. My point was different: to distinguish between genuine gender identity (which is a real psychological phenomenon) and the erroneous belief of being the opposite sex (which is an ideation). That distinction is key to not denying the reality of sexual and gender diversity while we criticize trans ideology.
Brilliant article by Sandra Pertot. How is it possible that psychology—which, in deliberate contrast to psychiatry, attempted to base itself as a profession on scientific research—suddenly forgot everything ever established about child development and instead ran after the bright shiny bauble of gender ideology?
It boggles the mind, but more than that, it inspires deep mistrust and disgust with our major social institutions.
Surely no parent would indulge their child in such nonsense:
……For example: presenters are told to avoid “gendering anatomy” because “not all boys have penises, not all girls have vaginas: Instead [one should] use: bodies with penises, testicles, bodies that produce sperm, bodies with vaginas, uteruses, ovaries, bodies that menstruate, etc”.
Apparently such parents abound and the motives will be variable , from genuine , though misplaced, compassion, to overt social activism ( John Whitehall saw them as “ cheerleaders “)
What remains inexplicable to me has been how social science based gender identity ideology has captured medical science to facilitate the provision of medical intervention in minors. The perceived virtue, inherent to the mission, excludes any challenging, regardless of evidence of harm.
Agreed, there seems no boundary beyond which this nonsense has not prevailed.
The very institutions that historically have been ‘where the buck stops’ have crumbled. The AMA, RACGP et al signed off early in the day but I would have expected a strong stand by the RACP and it is they that have been leading the charge.
What chance do children have with that juggernaut zeroing in?
Thank you, Sandra, for this article. I agree with much of your critique: the obscurantism in sex education, the dismissal of parents who object, the promotion of trans ideology as if it were an unquestionable fact, and the failure to recognize the role of social contagion in the explosive rise of trans identifications among adolescents, especially females. All of that is well pointed out.
But there is one point on which I deeply disagree, and I believe it is the central point.
Your article, by resorting to cases like that of Lucy, the chimpanzee raised as human, or the Kellogg experiment, seems to suggest that identity is fundamentally a social product, malleable, without a biological basis. And from that it follows, although you do not say it explicitly, that there is no such thing as gender identity, that everything is cultural construction, and that gender nonconformity is merely a response to stereotypes.
I disagree. The label we give to the phenomenon—gender identity, psychosexual traits, psychological gender, or whatever else—is secondary. What matters is that gender, understood as the set of psychosexual traits that evolution has genetically inscribed in our species, is a reality. It is not a social construction. Society and culture can shape how those traits are expressed, but the traits are wired into our brains from birth.
Most of us do not go around "identifying" with what we are or what we feel; we simply are and feel. A typical male does not "identify" as male; he simply is male, and his psychology aligns with what is typical for his sex. Likewise, a person does not "identify" as heterosexual; he or she simply feels attracted to the opposite sex. Identification only becomes visible, only becomes manifest, when there is a discrepancy between sex and psychological traits.
And here is the key point: there have always existed, and still exist, gender nonconforming people, homosexuals, bisexuals. That demonstrates that there is a certain independence between sex and gender. Sex is the binary reproductive function; gender is the set of psychosexual traits that revolve around it, with a bimodal distribution and overlaps. But that independence does not imply that trans people exist in an essentialist sense, nor that those people must undergo procedures to alter their phenotypic sexual characteristics.
That is: recognizing that there is something called gender, and that this something has a biological basis, is not the same as accepting trans ideology. Trans ideology confuses gender nonconformity (real, biological, universal) with the belief of being the opposite sex (an illusion, an overvalued belief, a phenomenon of social contagion). And from that confusion it draws the conclusion that the solution is medicalization.
Your article, by emphasizing social conditioning so heavily, runs the risk of denying the biological reality of sexual and gender diversity. And if we deny that reality, we leave the ground free for trans activism to fill the void with its own narrative: "if you feel different, it's because you're trans." On the other hand, if we recognize that gender nonconformity is a natural variation with a biological basis, we can say clearly: "your psychology does not fit with what is typical for your sex, and that is a variant of human diversity. It does not mean you are the opposite sex or that you need to alter your body."
That distinction is what I find missing in your article, and it is what, in my view, marks the difference between an effective critique of trans ideology and a critique that, without intending to, ends up denying realities that exist and that deserve to be understood, not erased.
Eduardo, We’re on the same page about most of what you’ve mentioned, the messed-up sex ed, parents getting dismissed, trans ideology treated like fact, and social contagion in the teen cases, especially the girls. And yes, we both reject medicalising people over this.
But this claim that gender is “the set of psychosexual traits that evolution has genetically inscribed in our species” doesn’t hold up. You say society only shapes how those traits are expressed, but the traits themselves are wired in from birth. define gender without just listing the usual stereotypes. Interests, aggression levels, nurturing tendencies, spatial skills? That’s just average differences between the sexes with a lot of overlap. Calling that “gender” and treating it as its own biological category that can partially detach from sex is exactly how the activists got their foot in the door.
You also say most of us don’t go around “identifying” with anything, we simply are and feel. Exactly. So why keep the concept alive at all? Identification only becomes a thing when there’s a discrepancy, as you put it or when the culture teaches people to go looking for one. That’s identity formation, and the animal studies in the article show how powerful that process is. Lucy the chimp raised as human ended up believing she was one. The Kellogg experiment had the human baby picking up chimp behaviours. Those aren’t side notes. They show how strongly environment and modelling shape what someone thinks they are. You’re downplaying that part while leaning hard on the idea of innate psychosexual traits that can float free of the body.
Nonconformity is real. Same-sex attraction is real. None of it means there’s a biological gender independent of sex. Sex is the binary. The rest is just variation.
Bea, you say that the idea that "gender is the set of psychosexual traits that evolution has genetically inscribed in our species" does not hold, and that those traits—interests, levels of aggressiveness, caregiving tendencies, spatial abilities—are merely average differences between the sexes with a great deal of overlap.
Your objection is based on overlap. But the rest of the physical differences between men and women, such as height and body fat distribution, are also average differences with a great deal of overlap, and yet we affirm without hesitation that they are real sexual differences. Those differences are consistent on average, they are governed by the endocrine system, and the endocrine system acts in turn governed by genetic information.
Beyond overlap, in most cases we can distinguish a person's sex just by looking at their face. Or we could get it right most of the time by knowing a few data points, without even seeing them. Moreover, there are studies that manage to deduce the sex of fetuses through MRI studying the brain connectome. The differences between the sexes are not binary in the sense that there are not two rigid categories, but they are systematic: they obey two developmental programs, beyond the overlaps that really exist.
The author of the article correctly points this out under the title "Gender evolution": «early human survival required a practical division of labor. Since only women could conceive and nurse, they were often confined to camps, which led them to specialize in gathering food and childcare. Men, who lacked these physical constraints, generally specialized in hunting and defense.» That is the foundation on which, over millions of years, the differences between the sexes are inscribed. The mechanism is simple: those who have characteristics that make them more fit leave more descendants, and those characteristics are transmitted from generation to generation until they settle in all populations.
Then—only then—come social expectations and the interest of adults in children developing specific qualities according to their sex. Stereotypes are not whims or patriarchal impositions; they are what is expected according to what is known or has been seen to work, and it is entirely logical and expected that adults promote those stereotypes, beyond the fact that today we know that each child's gender characteristics must be respected.
Sandra Pertot also asks how "identity" develops in an individual, and whether it is innate and immutable. Here things get complicated. The first thing to say is that there is no such thing as trans gender identity. Trans is not a gender; it is an attitude taken in certain circumstances. Trans is a procedure—social, hormonal, and surgical—to modify phenotypic sexual characteristics. No one is born trans, just as no one is born tattooed or with dreadlocks.
What we are born with is biological characteristics that will manifest, some immediately, others later. And here the examples are compelling:
Early childhood preferences: Boys and girls have different toy preferences: boys prefer vehicles, toy weapons, balls, and building toys; girls tend to prefer dolls and household items. Girls are more interested in babies than boys. These differences appear before any significant social influence.
Differentiated cognitive abilities: Boys have better throwing accuracy; girls have better fine hand movement control. Boys perform better on visuospatial tasks such as mental rotation and aiming; girls have better verbal fluency. Girls are more people-oriented; boys are more thing-oriented.
Personality differences: Men score higher on assertiveness, competitiveness, aggressiveness, and independence. Women score higher on expressiveness, sociability, empathy, openness to feelings, and altruism. Men prefer thing-oriented occupations; women prefer people-oriented ones.
Sexuality: Men are more interested in casual sex and have a greater desire for variety. Women experience more emotional jealousy; men experience more sexual jealousy. Men are more prone to paraphilias and sexual aggression.
Sexual orientation: Men are more likely to be attracted to women (gynephilia); women to men (androphilia). This difference entails a more specific attraction to the physical characteristics of the opposite sex.
And all of this is not an artifact of socialization. Twin studies show that both childhood gender nonconformity and adult homosexuality are substantially heritable. Childhood gender traits are linked to adult sexual orientation, not through a "socialization cycle," but because both are components of a set of traits that develop under the influence of common biological factors, such as genes and hormones. Androgen levels during early development organize the brain circuits that mediate a wide variety of gender traits, including sexual orientation.
Even in genetic conditions that alter prenatal hormonal exposure, such as androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS), we see how biology shapes psychosexuality: XY fetuses with AIS develop with a female external appearance, are raised as girls, and in adulthood are psychosexually similar to other women: the vast majority are attracted to men and are feminine in other gender traits.
Psychosexual differences are biological, they are consistent, they have an evolutionary explanation, and they are relatively easy to appreciate. The fact that trans ideologues make a mess of these issues does not negate the reality that we not only have genitals of one sex or the other, but also a whole series of other masculine and feminine characteristics; and both the genitals and those characteristics—which include sexual orientation—are configured innately in a hormone-mediated process.
Regarding Lucy and the Kellogg experiment: they are extreme cases that show the influence of the environment on the formation of social identity, but they do not demonstrate that innate psychosexual traits do not exist. One thing is that social identity is malleable—and it is—and another is that biological differences do not exist. Confusing both things is the error that trans activism commits, and I fear that you commit it by denying that a category called 'gender' exists that is not reduced to mere individual variation.
Nonconformity is real. Same-sex attraction is real. And both things evidence that something exists—call it gender, psychosexual traits, or whatever you like—that is not reduced to individual variation. They are the psychosexual traits that evolution has inscribed in our species and that are distributed bimodally. Calling that "gender," "sexual identity," or "psychosexual traits" is secondary. What matters is that it exists, and that denying it leaves the ground free for activism to fill the void with its own narrative.
No, I certainly don't deny the "biological reality of sexual and gender diversity." Keep in mind that this article was written in response to the claim by gender affirming health professionals and educators that social influence play no role in a child's statement they are transgender, and they will suicide if not affirmed.
However we can only explore who we are by our interactions with others. For example, Australian aboriginal people only realised there were other races than black people when the British landed and these white creatures emerged: the aboriginal people thought thought must be souls of the dead.
Certainly there are gender nonconforming individuals who challenge the social expectations of their sex and gender, but when that comes at a cost eg punished in some way, that can modify their behaviour and damage their sense of self.
Alternatively when a set of expectations seem attractive and rewarding, particularly for individuals who have comorbid mental health issues, then an individual can modify their internal dialogue about themselves to fit this appealing option. This is what happens with the young people who adopt the transgender model but at no stage do I claim that all young people are influenced to believe they are trans.
In the example of Lucy, she had no alternative model to learn from, and so adopted the behaviours that gave her a sense of belonging to the individuals who populated her world. The example of Gua demonstrated that biology was more influential than environment.
Nevertheless, and thankfully, there have always people who do not conform to social expectations, not just for sexual and gender issues, who withstand any of the pressures put on them, which lead to the feminist movement and the gay rights campaigns and brought about social change.
Sandra, I appreciate your response. I agree with you that social influence exists and that it can lead some young people to adopt a trans identity. In fact, in my writings I have developed the concept of "trans ideation" precisely to describe that phenomenon: a cognitive preoccupation that can arise through multiple pathways, including social contagion.
But I disagree on a central point. When you say that "we can only discover who we are through our interactions with others," you are talking about social identity, not genuine gender identity. Social identity is formed in relation to others; genuine gender identity, which manifests in the individual's psychology, is fundamentally given to us from the start, independently of whether society recognizes it or not and whether we identify with it or not.
Gender nonconformity has always existed, in all cultures, even in those that did not name it. That demonstrates that it has a biological basis. If it were purely social, it would not exist in cultures that do not recognize it. The fact that it exists in all of them is evidence that there is something more than social construction.
Your article correctly points out social influence, but by emphasizing it so heavily, you run the risk of denying the biological reality of sexual and gender diversity. And if we deny that reality, we leave the ground free for trans activism to fill the void with its own narrative: "if you feel different, it's because you're trans." On the other hand, if we recognize that gender nonconformity is a natural variation with a biological basis, we can say clearly: "your psychology does not fit with what is typical for your sex, and that is a normal variant of human diversity. It does not mean you are the opposite sex or that you need to alter your body."
How do you think 100% of readers are going to answer the question, "was Lucy a human or chimpanzee?" I assume that 100% will answer that she was a chimpanzee ... thus biology trumps socialisation.
Was Donald a human or a chimpanzee?
That was the entire reason for using those examples, that socialisation doesn't trump biology!
How do you propose we identify "genuine gender identity"? What is a it? How does an individual become gender nonconforming? What are they not conforming to?
I disagree categorically, modern medicine has been shamed by the damage done by well intentioned physiicians who were convinced that their intervention was appropriate.
Those who speak out that are the heroes!
Vincent, I think there is a misunderstanding. My comment does not defend well-intentioned doctors who practice gender medicine; I agree that good intentions do not excuse harm. My point was different: to distinguish between genuine gender identity (which is a real psychological phenomenon) and the erroneous belief of being the opposite sex (which is an ideation). That distinction is key to not denying the reality of sexual and gender diversity while we criticize trans ideology.
Thank you for your clarification Eduardo.