Excuse me, ma’am, I think we have forgotten which one of us is here for remedial math instruction.
Well, half of them were there for remediation, and half of them were there to teach, which is two fourths of them in all.
I’m happy to give you the benefit of the doubt on the second apology, but perhaps I can speak to the subtext here that you are struggling with this issue because you’ve bought into the oft-repeated fallacy that it’s “basic biology” that trans people are not “really” who they say they are.
I’m an actual biologist, and this is false.
You are correct that in humans male/female differentiation is determined by genes on the Y chromosome. But there is very little information on the Y chromosome, it’s tiny, and mostly junk. What it contains are high-level “triggers” that set in motion a whole chain of complex events. All the many genes required to make every part of a human of either sex are on the other chromosomes, and present in all of us. To put it crudely, every human being contains all the genes required to make a penis and to make a vagina; we just do one or the other according to which pathway is triggered.
Now consider that this also applies to the brain. Our brains (behavior and feelings) are also sexually dimorphic to some extent - men and women are different. Of course, it’s highly contentious just how much of the difference is genetic, and it’s hard to distinguish between things that are genetically determined and things that are somehow “firmly established” early in life. But there’s some difference, including how we feel about ourselves, our sense of who we are - our identity. But just as with a penis and vagina, all the genes to make either a “male brain” or a “female brain” (nobody knows exactly what that means, but it means something) are in all of us. And the brain that actually develops just depends on which pathway gets triggered.
From a biological point of view, then, the hypothesis to explain how a trans person comes about is obvious. Something unusual happens in the process of determining which developmental pathway gets triggered, and it goes one way for the brain and the other way for the rest of your body. And again - this is biologically perfectly plausible because we all contain all the genes required to make any part of a man or a woman, including the brain.
The evidence that something like this actually happens is simply the existence of trans people, who have always existed throughout history, and most of whom are insistent and persistent about their identity despite appalling treatment by society. Why on earth would anyone assert a trans identity unless it were real? Brains are just as much part of our objective physical reality as our genitalia, and although we can try to change some aspects of how we feel and how we behave through personal development, we cannot change or choose who we are.
Thank you very much for that explanation, it was both understandable and thorough (and repetitive just where probably needed, at least by me).
(Of course, I am taking your word for it based on your self-spoken credential, which for the time being is good enough for me.)
I’m a genuine (evolutionary, not developmental) biologist by training - but to be clear, I’m not claiming that there is any substantial body of evidence supporting what I wrote (the specific application to trans people I mean, the rest is well understood). What I’m saying it’s that this hypothesis is both obvious and perfectly plausible scientifically, contra those who claim that if you have dick or are XY it’s “basic biology” you must be a man.
It also gives the lie to the ridiculous “I identify as a helicopter” attempt at a reductio ad absurdum. Someone born XY has all the genes necessary to be a woman. They don’t have the genes to be a helicopter.
As I said, the principal evidence that something like this is correct is simply that trans people exist, and that trans people can live happy and fulfilled lives if others simply believe what they say about who they are.
Just to be even clearer (and IANABiologist at all, of course), ISTM that there is an absolute shit-ton of evidence supporting everything you wrote in your post #63 except the fifth paragraph, i.e., the hypothesized biological mechanisms producing transgender identity.
The claims that human beings all contain all the genetic material to develop all the sex characteristics of both females and males, and the Y chromosome mostly just “flips the switches” to override the default setting of female development, are AFAICT thoroughly established as solid fact.
For what it’s worth from a non-biologist, I think the differential-development hypothesis of transgender identity sounds totally plausible, and sounds a lot like current hypotheses for explaining same-sex sexual orientation as well.
Yes, I edited my post late to try to clarify, but thanks for emphasizing this.
Absolutely correct.
Yeah. It took me a surprisingly long time to fully realize that transphobes who argue “well what about someone who identifies as a dog” or “what about someone who identifies as a helicopter”, etc., are operating on the unexamined assumption that human males and females are fundamentally as biologically different from each other as humans are from dogs or helicopters.
It really clarifies how baked-in gender stereotypes are in many people’s perceptions. I honestly think there are probably zillions of men, for example, who would be perfectly willing to believe that they are more genetically similar to a dog than to a human woman. (As long as the dog was big and badass and male enough, of course. Toy poodles and such are obviously on a whole different evolutionary branch as far as male-identity traits are concerned.)
…is it though?
“This blow up” is being entirely contextualised through the lens of Peterson. We don’t know what is actually happening behind the scenes. I don’t trust a single word of anything that Peterson says.
Peterson is a well known liar, transphobe and misogynist and has manufactured a controversy in an attempt to both keep being relevant and to promote his personal brand. That’s what this blow up is really about.
When would you say a fetus develops gender? It could be argued that since gender is determined so quickly after conception, it seems unlikely that a fetus would develop a dual (or non-) identity so soon.
I’m not sure what you mean. A fetus does not “develop gender” in an abstract sense at some specific point. There are development pathways, some of which are sexually dimorphic, that initiate at the various relevant stages of development. Obviously the “triggering” of any sexual dimorphic brain development pathways would occur during brain development.
Development is an imperfect process that involves complex integration of signals. And with brain development we don’t know how and in what way the sexually dimorphic characteristics are implemented. It’s certainly not such a binary process as the “decision” to grow male or female non-brain body parts. With the brain, it’s not even as though you could say that there are two completely distinct sets of pathways that always go together. I simplified to the male/female cases, but there’s a wide spectrum of identity.
So Peterson posted the email he got from the College today. Assuming he’s being honest that this is the only complaint (and I doubt it), the issue is he made a joke about suicide. In particular he told a person talking about overpopulation “You’re free to leave at any point.” The College requires that all social media posts about suicide reflect safety and prevention (no shit). He then repeated the joke a little later. That seems reasonable to me that if he wants to keep his psychology license he should probably not make suicide jokes. As a free speech absolutist, octopus probably think joking about suicide is fine, but that’s because he’s an asshole.
Which it is, if by “fine” he means “constitutionally protected from universal legal prohibitions”. (In the US, anyway, and probably in Canada too AFAICT.)
However, it is definitely not “fine” in the sense of “constitutionally protected from professional protocol regulations set by organizations officially governing standards of professional practice”.
Once again, Peterson can’t have his cake and eat it too. He can’t be both a mere private individual saying anything he wants on his highly publicized personal social media accounts in defiance of the standards of conduct required in his profession, and a prestigious credentialed “expert” whose prestige is largely derived from the professional credentials bestowed by the organization that officially regulates his profession’s standards of conduct.
Thanks for your posts @Riemann. It was really illuminating to hear some of the biological specifics of human development, and how that might apply to transgender identity.
Two quick points:
-
Androgyne insensitivity syndrome can lead to a person with normally male XY chromosomes to appear female to all outward inspection
-
Based on this and laboratory experiments, it seems pretty certain to my Bio 101 understanding that it is hormonal exposure in the womb that actually triggers most, if not all, sex differentiation, including neural and behavioral, but that it is too complex to always be all or nothing. Most of the visible physiological markers we use to categorize someone as male or female exist on spectrum, so why wouldn’t the neurological be the same?
And even though some non-brain dimorphic characteristics are strongly bimodal, we have no reason to expect that of the highly complex brain.
Rather than a linear spectrum, perhaps we can think of it as varying multidimensionally in a large (and largely independent) number of traits, some of which are correlated with XX or XY karyotype to whatever extent. I certainly wasn’t suggesting that brains are necessarily even weakly bimodal.
Animals, including humans are complex. It would be very difficult to create a score that defines sex (10 points per gonad, 1-3 points for facial hair level, etc.) on observable characteristics, much less neurological/behavior ones. So go with the marker that makes the most sense and produces the most happiness: what gender feels correct to the individual.
I don’t think we’re in any disagreement about neurology.
I think it’s unconvincing to claim that some non-brain sexually dimorphic characteristics (genitalia, obviously) are not strongly bimodal, but I think nothing depends on that.
The only documentation he’s shared seems to say that the complaints related to statements, plural, he made on social media, and on Joe Rogan’s podcast. I tried to see the documentation myself but he seemingly deleted whatever he previously shared. I don’t think there’s any doubt it’s about more than the interaction with that one person, since he originally said it was about what he said about Trudeau and the Conservative Party leader.
I agree. I think he’s being selective, and even if in being selective what he’s showing reveals that he is very clearly breaking professional norms.