Looking beyond chromosomes to question the unprecedented rise in gender dysphoria—and what our environment might be telling us about human development.
It's true, chromosomal differences aren't statistically prevalent enough to account for most trans and non-binary people. But Rebecca Helm wasn't saying they did. She identified many mechanisms besides chromosomal variation that can influence the expression of biological sex, and importantly, she made no claim that any of these were responsible for trans or non-binary ideation. She was simply pointing out that sex is complicated from the very outset.
So yes, trans and non-binary ideation isn't a matter of chromosomes (who ever said it was?). From there your essay leaps into untested supposition. The real cause, you propose, is "our increasingly artificial environment" and our state of being "divorced from the biological coherence that shaped our evolution". Trans and non-binary gender identities should be treated similarly to depression, you suggest: they should not be normalised "as immutable aspects of identity" but recognised as "treatable conditions ... a signal that something requires attention, not ... an identity to be celebrated". These are very contentious statements.
The evidence you give for all of this is ... none. I know you work with disease and chemical exposure, so I'm not surprised that you might look for such links, but simply having the thought is not in itself evidence. Yes, there has been an increase in pernicious chemicals, unnatural lighting and internet usage throughout the world, and the incidence of openly trans and non-binary people has also risen in many places. But the incidence of openly homosexual people has also risen, with only a few decades lead, so might we assume that gayness is caused by a different set of toxic chemicals that infiltrated our environments a little earlier? Might we also suppose that these precipitating factors (chemicals, lighting, online activity) are not universally spread? Chechnya is famous for having zero incidence of openly homosexual, trans or nonbinary people: should we then expect Chechnya to be a haven free from toxins, light pollution and online gaming?
I would suggest that the incidence of openly trans people has more correlation with culture than with chemicals. We see more openly trans people in cultures where being trans is not so stigmatised, and especially where it's not a death sentence, as it is in Chechnya (where, incidentally, the environment is grossly contaminated with toxins). Conversely, toxic contamination and the internet can hardly account for the traditional recognition of gender-diverse and third-gender identities among North American tribes and in India, South East Asia and the Pacific Islands.
I do agree that our increasingly online life has probably contributed to more people coming out as gender diverse, but not because it distorts their sense of self: rather, because marginalised minorities are more likely to find their communities online, and gain courage and self-understanding from them.
You observe that trans people continue to experience "persistent discontent" even after gender-affirming interventions, with higher rates of depression, anxiety and psychological distress than the general population. The reason for this, you suggest, is a "profound disconnection from authentic embodied experience". I would suggest the exact opposite: that psychological distress may in fact arise because they are _more_ deeply connected to authentic embodied experience than most people. For a start, gender-diverse people are far more likely to have deeply and critically examined their embodied experience than almost any other demographic group. And there is a growing consensus among mental health professionals that mental distress is often better understood not as an individual pathology but as a rational response to harmful or alienating environments. People who are _more_ authentic in their relationships to self and society are also more sensitive to dissonance and injustice, and are thus more likely to experience psychological distress. “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
Throughout your essay you pathologise trans and non-binary ideation, yet you actually present no evidence to suggest it is a disease. In fact, there are good reasons to believe it should not be pathologised, as either a biological or mental illness. I've already pointed out the widespread recognition among traditional cultures of gender-diverse roles, which makes it very hard to explain gender diversity as a response to modern toxins, and on the contrary shows that trans and gender-diverse people can be an entirely healthy part of a society that supports them. Furthermore, consider that there are certain structures in the brain that broadly tend to differ between male and female (in the BNST, putamen, certain white matter microstructure and functional connectivity); and that these areas tend to look structurally male in trans males and structurally female in trans females -- even prior to hormone therapy. This suggests that trans ideation is not a fad or cultural craze, but may have a biological basis.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, consider that trans people experience more discrimination and threat than virtually any other minority in our society. Labelling them as ill, and treating their identity as something to be cured, will only add to that discrimination and threat. Didn't we learn anything from "gay conversion therapy"?
Trans and gender diversity is a complex area of study, and highly consequential for those with skin in the game. It is perhaps possible that for a few individuals, there are some unhealthy factors playing into their gender identity, or gender dysphoria. But I think it would be compassionate to take some more time to learn the current state of the research, and really critically examine your theories before you present them.
It's true, chromosomal differences aren't statistically prevalent enough to account for most trans and non-binary people. But Rebecca Helm wasn't saying they did. She identified many mechanisms besides chromosomal variation that can influence the expression of biological sex, and importantly, she made no claim that any of these were responsible for trans or non-binary ideation. She was simply pointing out that sex is complicated from the very outset.
So yes, trans and non-binary ideation isn't a matter of chromosomes (who ever said it was?). From there your essay leaps into untested supposition. The real cause, you propose, is "our increasingly artificial environment" and our state of being "divorced from the biological coherence that shaped our evolution". Trans and non-binary gender identities should be treated similarly to depression, you suggest: they should not be normalised "as immutable aspects of identity" but recognised as "treatable conditions ... a signal that something requires attention, not ... an identity to be celebrated". These are very contentious statements.
The evidence you give for all of this is ... none. I know you work with disease and chemical exposure, so I'm not surprised that you might look for such links, but simply having the thought is not in itself evidence. Yes, there has been an increase in pernicious chemicals, unnatural lighting and internet usage throughout the world, and the incidence of openly trans and non-binary people has also risen in many places. But the incidence of openly homosexual people has also risen, with only a few decades lead, so might we assume that gayness is caused by a different set of toxic chemicals that infiltrated our environments a little earlier? Might we also suppose that these precipitating factors (chemicals, lighting, online activity) are not universally spread? Chechnya is famous for having zero incidence of openly homosexual, trans or nonbinary people: should we then expect Chechnya to be a haven free from toxins, light pollution and online gaming?
I would suggest that the incidence of openly trans people has more correlation with culture than with chemicals. We see more openly trans people in cultures where being trans is not so stigmatised, and especially where it's not a death sentence, as it is in Chechnya (where, incidentally, the environment is grossly contaminated with toxins). Conversely, toxic contamination and the internet can hardly account for the traditional recognition of gender-diverse and third-gender identities among North American tribes and in India, South East Asia and the Pacific Islands.
I do agree that our increasingly online life has probably contributed to more people coming out as gender diverse, but not because it distorts their sense of self: rather, because marginalised minorities are more likely to find their communities online, and gain courage and self-understanding from them.
You observe that trans people continue to experience "persistent discontent" even after gender-affirming interventions, with higher rates of depression, anxiety and psychological distress than the general population. The reason for this, you suggest, is a "profound disconnection from authentic embodied experience". I would suggest the exact opposite: that psychological distress may in fact arise because they are _more_ deeply connected to authentic embodied experience than most people. For a start, gender-diverse people are far more likely to have deeply and critically examined their embodied experience than almost any other demographic group. And there is a growing consensus among mental health professionals that mental distress is often better understood not as an individual pathology but as a rational response to harmful or alienating environments. People who are _more_ authentic in their relationships to self and society are also more sensitive to dissonance and injustice, and are thus more likely to experience psychological distress. “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”
Throughout your essay you pathologise trans and non-binary ideation, yet you actually present no evidence to suggest it is a disease. In fact, there are good reasons to believe it should not be pathologised, as either a biological or mental illness. I've already pointed out the widespread recognition among traditional cultures of gender-diverse roles, which makes it very hard to explain gender diversity as a response to modern toxins, and on the contrary shows that trans and gender-diverse people can be an entirely healthy part of a society that supports them. Furthermore, consider that there are certain structures in the brain that broadly tend to differ between male and female (in the BNST, putamen, certain white matter microstructure and functional connectivity); and that these areas tend to look structurally male in trans males and structurally female in trans females -- even prior to hormone therapy. This suggests that trans ideation is not a fad or cultural craze, but may have a biological basis.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, consider that trans people experience more discrimination and threat than virtually any other minority in our society. Labelling them as ill, and treating their identity as something to be cured, will only add to that discrimination and threat. Didn't we learn anything from "gay conversion therapy"?
Trans and gender diversity is a complex area of study, and highly consequential for those with skin in the game. It is perhaps possible that for a few individuals, there are some unhealthy factors playing into their gender identity, or gender dysphoria. But I think it would be compassionate to take some more time to learn the current state of the research, and really critically examine your theories before you present them.