Having an XX or XY sex chromosome is the biological norm and a foundational reality that is the basis of species reproduction.
For those who inhabit the bubbles of technology, affluence and apparent choice, reproduction may not loom large in a world teeming with 7+ billion people, but for those outside the bubbles, it remains a more central and pressing reality.
Numeric variations of the foundational chromosomal binary do occur; all are rare, some are extremely rare; some do not affect either reproductive fitness or wider health and well-being but most do affect reproductive fitness, and some have wider adverse outcomes for overall health and well-being, even causing death without the appropriate treatment.
The existence of a range of chromosomal and phenotypical variants on the XX: XY binary is used ideologically to claim that biological sex exists on a spectrum – taken by some to mean there are a number of different sexes. It is also used to justify the existence of a number of gender identities, some congruent with biological sex, some not.
Although it is sometimes implied or overtly claimed they do, these numeric variants of the XX: XY norm do not constitute a range of sexes.
The poor understanding of DSDs and the links between sex and gender can be illustrated by the claim made by the World Health Organisation, that it is possible for there to be people who have sex monosomy – i.e. only 1 X or one Y chromosome.
The truth is that, while a single X chromosome is compatible with life, (although known to be the cause of a large proportion of spontaneous abortions) – a single Y chromosome is incompatible with life. It would not make it past zygote stage, let alone to being a viable foetus.
Yet this claim has been repeated as fact in two major pieces here and here on the transgender issue published by Stuff in the past year.
It may seem a bit nitpicky and a bit academic but it illustrates the way in which an ideology can harness science – in this case the existence of a growing list of numeric chromosomal disorders or variants - in order to influence a range of social policy decisions.
In all of the above instances, the existence of DSDs is being used to strengthen the case for what is now seen as a "naturally occurring variation of human experience" - transgender identity.
Gender identity is rather loosely defined as an individual's perceptions or subjective experience of being of a gender that may be 'cis' - congruent with their biological sex, or 'trans' - non-congruent, or neither. Given gender and sex are now used interchangeably, getting a grip on these increasingly slippery descriptors can be difficult.
There is an overlap between transgender and DSDs in that some people with a DSD may also be transgender but they are distinct phenomenon and it does no favours to either grouping for them to be lazily or opportunistically conflated in the way that the concepts of sex and gender have been to the point where they are so fused as to be politically and critically indistinguishable - which serves to undermine a key component of second wave feminist theory.
The change in the words that make up the acronym DSD illustrates this popularising and politicising of a scientific term. It used to be disorders of sexual differentiation and is now differences of sexual development.
The descriptive umbrella term Intersex was coined to depathologise individuals born with a DSD, which is a valid strategy, but it may also serve to support a normalisation of a phenomenon for reasons that may not be benign or progressive.
For example, in a world saturated in endocrine disrupting (EDC) and DNA damaging chemicals, (DDC) if there is an increase in these conditions and others that are even subtler, it would not be surprising.
An increase in human genito-urinary disorders and a decrease in male sperm quality has been charted globally over the past 50 years, and we know there are profound effects of these chemicals on marine mammals.
We ought to be alert to the potential for snowballing effects on humans, given environmentally induced endocrine disruption is now widely accepted and evidence now shows that metabolic syndrome in horses is connected to the presence of EDCs in their food – most likely herbicide and pesticide residues.
The effects of any one of these chemicals on any given species or individual within that species, at any given point in the life cycle, are complex enough; the effects of thousands of chemicals in various amounts and combinations is a nightmarish unknown.
Mass chemical pollution is one of the three inter-related global catastrophes facing us. It would hardly be surprising if there were a variety of powerful entities with a vested interest in normalising chromosomal or autosomal disorders and other more subtle conditions, which may always have existed but the prevalence and severity of which are increasing. After all if these are all just naturally occurring variations in human genetics and physiology, then no-one needs to be held to account if they are increasing in incidence and severity.
Under significant pressure from the transgender lobby, which has a power and reach at complete variance with the claim of being the most marginalised and discriminated against of all minorities, the WHO has recently removed gender identity disorder (GID) from its diagnostic manual, the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) - following the American Psychiatric Association’s influential Diagnostic and Statistical Manual’s (DSM) 2012 replacement of GID with gender dysphoria (GD)- defined as the "emotional distress that results from a marked incongruence between one’s experienced or expressed gender and the assigned gender."
This move from a disorder - an illness, to dysphoria - a non-specific state of anxiety or dissatisfaction, to a natural variation of human experience, combined with the almost complete fusion of the concepts of sex and gender, has huge implications, which I will explore further in another post.
No comments:
Post a Comment