Perhaps some high-level, broad-stroke education would be useful. I may use "gender" and "sex" interchangeably although I do realise that there may be some utility in distinguishing the terms into what could be called "internally experienced gender" and "morphological gender". I'm not trying to politically correct or incorrect, it's just that it's not a big issue for me and understanding seems more important than petty conformance with rules that appear to be in flux.
There are at least four contributors to a person's gender, possibly more, but I think these four pretty much cover it:
- genetics
- epigenetics (warning, this might not be 100% use of the term, but I will explain below)
- morphology
- socialisation
Genetics: As a mammal, if you have two X chromosomes and only two X chromosomes, then you are genetically female, by definition. As a mammal, if you have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome and only one X chromosome and one Y chromosome , then you are genetically male, by definition. This is not the full range of genetic possibilities, there are XXY people (most of whom are morphologically male, but a small proportion of whom are either female or intersex, meaning pseudohermaphroditistic) as well as the significantly more rare XXXY and XXXXY people. The intersex people here may manifest externally morphologically as male or female but feel differently internally due to epigenetics.
Epigenetics: [By epigenetics here I mean the processes by which the cytoblast/foetus/embryo and the womb interact to generate a new human (or whatever species is in question). I'm deliberately sweeping in other factors that might not be strictly related to gene expression.] The "operating code" for standard male behaviour and standard female behaviour will exist in all of us and if "everything goes right" standard male behaviour operating code will be turned on for genetically male embryos who have already begun the morphological development of male anatomy (7 weeks as a foetus). Problems with testosterone, however, can lead to this not happening (it can also affect the completion of male anatomy development, resulting in undescended organs).
Morphology: This is pretty simple. If you have a penis you are morphologically male and if you have a vagina, you are morphologically female. There are other things associated with being male and female, of course (testes, ova, breast development, body fat distribution, fat-muscle ratio, bone density, hip structure, testosterone/oestrogen ratios and so on), but these two are key signals for anyone looking at the newborn child. Sometimes, it's not so easy. There are boys born with their genitalia "retracted" and girls born with larger than average clitoral extrusion (sometimes looking like a little penis sans sac). Then there are the pseudohermaphrodites some of whom have developed a bit of both due to a genetic abnormality (see above) and some of whom are actually chimera - the fusion of two fertilised ova into one person, one person with both XX genetics and XY genetics - a mono-twin, if you like. What operating code gets laid down in such people would be a bit of a lucky dip, so it would always be risky to decide what gender such an infant should be assigned at birth. But once you have assigned a gender, you can move on into socialisation.
Socialisation: This would be the point at which gender roles and all the rest that identity politicians like talk about would come into play. It's possible to forceably raise a child against its morphological gender - this happened as a tradition in Polynesian nations such as Samoa although it seems to be dying out now. It seems that it doesn't necessarily cause huge distress if the practice is socially accepted, so that the person subjected to anti-genderal socialisation isn't outcast or discriminated against. But it does seem that socialisation can be overcome. Samoan men raised as women can later marry and become fathers without too much trouble (although it does seem more common that they end up in gay relationships). Current practices appear to be to let children who have a proclivity that way develop into "fa'afafine", indicating that it's not
just socialisation that matters. On the flip side, it seems possible to force a child to align with its morphological gender (and traditional sexuality) despite what appears to be an innate alignment with a different internal gender.
Socialisation is complicated by the fact that some of it is somewhat, if not entirely arbitrary. Colours for example. At one point in history, pink was the strong manly colour for male infants. Now it's either "gay" or the predominant colour in the girl's aisle in Toys'R'Us. There are arbitrary declarations regarding what is lady-like and what men can and cannot eat (some men can't even spell qwitchy) or drink, or the cars they can drive.
Females can be encouraged to do less well in mathematics by being reminded that they are female. I suspect, however, that if we eliminated the stereotype, this effect would be eliminated (although any male benefits associated with superior,
testosterone-related spatial processing would remain).
----
So ... "Transgenderism". If this means the move to be more forgiving of people who challenge the notions of people who think that boys are boys and girls are girls, full stop, then I'd say it's a good thing and I'm all for it. If it means a total disconnect from reality with regard to the influences on what make us male and female (which might well be more extensive than I've listed above), then no, thank you. I'll put that in the same category as many other ideologies which should be firmly rejected.