A study looking at a possible genetic marker for gender dysphoria has sent off alarm bells in the trans community.
A team from the Hudson Institute of Medical Research investigated a set of gene variations that appeared more frequently in the DNA of trans women than of cisgender men. This study was looking at the relationship between these genes and the possibility that they are a factor in what causes gender dysphoria.
By examining a link between genetics and gender dysphoria, this study is investigating a potential biological cause for the existence of transgender people.
Casey, a representative of the Zoe Belle Gender Collective was dismayed to hear that this line of research was being investigated. “This is nothing new. These arguments have happened before with research into the ‘gay gene’ in the late 1980s and early 90s.”
Professor Shelling is a geneticist and an associate dean at the Faculty of Medical and Health Science at the University of Auckland who has concerns with the scientific rigour of the study. “In their study, they found that some of these gene variants were significantly more associated with being trans women, and not just being male. That doesn’t establish causality, and it is just an association. And in fact, its a weak association,” he said.
He said “when you adjust for multiple testing” the associations between the genes and gender dysphoria wouldn’t stand up to more stringent scrutiny.
Shelling, as well as the lead researcher of the study, Vincent Harley, noted explicitly that genetic markers are not assumed to be the only factor in what shapes something like gender. However, studies of this nature often garner far more media attention due to confirmation bias.
Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favour, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s pre-existing beliefs. When publishing material that supports the idea that there is a biological element to gender identity, scientists, policy makers and the general public are less inclined to listen to trans activists.
This is particularly important given trans activists have spent so long working to help people understand the social and cultural influences on gender. Trans activists seek to educate people on their fundamental human right to experiment with dress, movement, identity and presentation. Talking about genes and biology in relation to gender entrenches the idea that gender is fixed and rigid – something you are born with.
This sort of approach to gender is terrifying considering the rise of fascism and hate crimes towards trans people. As Casey says, “The way that science, technology and science is progressing can be incredibly dangerous in regards to things like eugenics.”
Eugenics is most associated with Nazi Germany where the concept of a “pure” race fuelled the genocide of anyone they deemed “undesirable”. But eugenics also plays a big part in our current day. Until 2013, trans people in Sweden were required to undergo sterilization before they could access gender-affirming treatment.
Given the rising accessibility of gene testing, this sort of research can easily be weaponised as justification for sterilisation, persecution or the abortion of fetuses with these genes. Given the lack of rigour of this avenue of investigation and the prominence of confirmation bias, studies like this have the potential to threaten anyone – regardless of whether they are cis or trans.
It also further troubles the tenuous relationship that the scientific and medical community have with the trans community. At present, to access gender affirming treatment such as surgery, trans people have to go through an expensive and rigorous series of medical appointments.
Fostering the notion of a genetic factor to gender dysphoria threatens to further complicate trans people’s access to appropriate care. As Casey says, “Those people who might not have a genetic basis – it takes away their right to self determination and the right to bodily autonomy in regards to gender expression and creativity.”
It should also be noted that the ethics board from the Monash Medical Centre that approved this study, also approved a study earlier this year that caused outrage in the transgender community.
The study, called “Sexuality, gender and self-image” had a demographics section that implied that people who were trans were not real women, instead separating them into a category of their own. This showed a lack of comprehension or understanding of the basic needs of the trans community. The fact this was not addressed before the study called for participants casts doubt on the ethics board’s authority, and raises questions about the repeated and unchecked power discrepancies between science, medicine and the trans and gender diverse community.
As Casey said, “It’s 2018, why are we having these old, recycled debates? I mean, as my good friend Shirley Bassey would say, it’s all just a little bit of history repeating.”