Sex determination in humans is complicated. Most of our 20,000 genes have switches on them that allow them to work in ‘male’ and ‘female’ modes, in response to chemical signals. The idea is that a Y chromosome triggers the development of testes, which release hydroxytestosterone in the womb, which triggers the release of more sex hormones, signalling proteins, structural changes, which changes what signals those organs produce, and so on in a tree-like cascade throughout the body. Each bit of the body plan is switched to one design or the other, from bone growth to hair follicles to genital structure to brown fat deposits to brain structure. For example, which sex you are attracted to is obviously a sex-linked function of the brain that is hardwired in. And there are plenty of others. Personality traits. Talents. Introversion/extroversion. Risk-taking. Nurturing. Promiscuity. The ability to read a map. The ability to ask for directions. As our bodies are different, so are our brains. The brain is just another organ, after all.
But nature is messy and imperfect. So a lot of those ‘switches’ are broken. They’re jammed ‘on’, or jammed ‘off’, or missing entirely, or mutated to do something different and not have the intended effect. A lot of the time this doesn’t matter. So the sex-linking of gene activity and anatomical structure is statistical. Some features appear in 99.99% of one sex and 0.01% of the other. Some features appear in 99%, or 90%, or 70%, or some similar number. They’re clearly sex-linked, but there are an awful lot of people with the ‘wrong’ version. Like – men are taller than women, but there are short men and tall women and the distributions overlap. And even for the 99% sex-linked genes, about 1% of them occur in the ‘wrong’ version. With 10,000 genes, it’s pretty much certain that everyone has a mixture, and some small fraction of the population are more of a mixture than most.
So, the theory is that homosexuality, for example, isn’t a mental illness/delusion, but a case of the ‘wrong’ sexual attraction module in the brain being installed. Males get the female version, or vice versa. It’s not a matter of opinion or belief – you’re hardwired to be attracted to a particular sex, you don’t have a choice, you can’t be persuaded otherwise, and it’s biologically normal for this sort of thing to happen. To evolution, a 99% success rate is good enough. Perfection is expensive, so it’s better to make them cheap and throw the rejects away than implement an extremely expensive manufacturing process with fewer rejects.
It’s biologically entirely possible for the effect to be asymmetric. You can get a characteristic appear in 99% of males and 5% of females, for example.
It’s also possible that the difference is social. There’s a lot of social pressure to conform, and that pressure may be stronger on one sex than the other. It used to be that women with short hair wearing trousers and going to work were seen to be as aberrant as men with long hair in dresses and doing housework. Women had a revolution, and men didn’t. It could be that girls feel more able to express a male-like social persona in public than boys do vice versa because of that.
And of course it’s also possible for people to pretend to have medical conditions they don’t, because it’s fashionable, or it gets them sympathy and support, or it’s more socially privileged, or to claim welfare and other advantages. I’ve noticed it’s currently fashionable to claim to be on the autism ‘spectrum’. That doesn’t mean autism isn’t a thing, biologically speaking. But a lot of people are clearly not, and are just making excuses for personal advantage.
So it should be entirely legitimate to question whether any particular person or group of people have a particular medical condition, without necessarily denying that the condition exists.
The basic problem is intolerance. People used to be intolerant of homosexuality. Then we were persuaded that it was biologically natural and shouldn’t be persecuted. So we switched to being intolerant of ‘homophobes’ and persecuting them instead. The particular issue we’re being intolerant about is irrelevant – race, sex, gender, religion, nationality, football team, geekiness, whatever – some people just feel the need to define what other people are allowed to be and do and believe and enforce their opinions by unlimited nastiness. Fashions in what is enforced change, but human nature remains the same. ‘Wokeness’ and ‘political incorrectness’ are just the same tribal intolerances they’re supposedly trying to eliminate, rebranded. Here comes the new boss, same as the old boss.
It’s the general, abstract “tyranny of the majority” that you have to fight. We don’t care about the reason. We need to learn to let other people get on with their own lives, without feeling the need to interfere, or tell them what they are required to or not allowed to believe or do. If women want to go around in trousers – it does no harm to anyone else. If people want to express their opinion that women should not be bifurcated in public – it does no harm to anyone else. So what if other people don’t agree or don’t like it? It’s a free country.
Remarkably sensible. So, everyone should see it, not just those following that comment stream.