Genetic basis for transgenderism?

[Ecstatic]

Interesting article:

http://www.world-science.net/exclusives/050511_transfrm.htm

[flombago]

I have to admit I am not a biologist, but I have studied biology with pleasure and have thought about the origins of sexuality for years, so allow me to offer the following partially original ideas.

Actually there have been claims in the past about a "gay gene" (not the same kind of sexuality as transgenderism, I am well aware, but it illustrates a point). The claims could not be reproduced by other researchers, and the claims were discredited.

With something as complex as sexuality, I am fairly certain there is no single gene that has a controlling influence, instead it must be caused by a large network of genes. Indeed, the future of biology will probably center around progress in understanding NETWORKS, the subtle links between different components. In other words, genes are the parts, but understanding how they interact is the next frontier. Sexuality is presumably like intelligence -- we know that it is largely heriditary, but the details are buried in a complex network that nobody understands yet.

The "sexuality network" might be controlled by the presence or absence of the Y sex chromosone, whose presence turns on/off various expressions. One expression is a desire for men, a desire to display the traits of femininity; the traits are culturally dependent but the desire is what genes trigger. The opposite expression is a desire for women. I would speculate that all people have both desires in various degrees, some more than others.

And what is the advantage of ambivalent sexuality ? Well, it's a long story, but briefly: the basic fact of life is that it is a copying operation. Long ago, 4 billion years ago, some molecules started catalyzing reactions that led to templated copies. Given basic biological principles (which I'll assume you know), this led to the various forms we have today. And one of those principles is that if a trait makes a living thing more likely to copy itself, then this trait is more likely to propogate into the future. Its the brutal logic of the process. And so, a desire for women makes a man more likely to reproduce, while a desire for men makes a woman not want to remain a spinster.

And what does this do for the true TGirl, whose genes may be on a dead-end course (assuming she does not reproduce) ? The answer is that, since it is genes that copy themselves, individual organisms do not need to. This is because humans are different mixtures of the SAME GENES. And there is a simple proof that we have the same genes: If you look back 100 generations and suppose that each pair of ancestors had unique genes, it would lead to 2^100 ancestors, an absurd number. This is a well-known proof that we all derive from a limited, very successful, gene pool.

Considering that only the genes matter in this copying game of life, it is understandable and acceptable that some people do not reproduce. Please be aware, this contribution was written in an attempt at an objective explanation. I tend to have an "atomic" view of the world. In my view, although art, music, and cultural phenomena may provide useful and comforting models for understanding the world, I believe it is science that will provide the ultimate truth. And this understanding brings peace of mind.

I also want to make clear that I adore Tgirls (I may explain why in a future post), and consider them to be quite normal.

[Ecstatic]

Outstanding and extremely articulate response! Yes, the brutal logic is undeniable, isn't it?