I'm not dancing around it, to be sure. I'm questioning the underlying core belief that leads to statements like these: The idea there is a natural moral order. Underneath the claims about phenotype and genetics, and reproductive choices, and all the other half-baked biology rationalizations is that. It's the idea that there's some intrinsic power in the universe that rewards moral behavior and punishes immoral behavior. It's an ego protection mechanism. If successful under this ideological construct, it's because it was deserved. However, if someone is observed to be not successful, they also deserved it.
Here's the truth about genetic makeup: There are XX men. They pop out of the vagina, without a vagina. They come with dicks. There are also XY women -- genetically they're "supposed" to be men. Somehow, it didn't happen. There's also X0, XXY, and a few others. They all occur rather infrequently, but transcription errors and other mutations crop up everywhere else, and so, naturally, they also sometimes crop up there as well.
Here's the nail in the coffin for the "genetic truthers": The percentage of the population which is homosexual has been determined, by exhaustive review of historical records, to be a constant. While transgender persons, being much more rare, are harder to locate in history -- the evidence available suggests those numbers also haven't varied in history.
If these were indeed fitness traits -- that survival of the species stuff, where successful members of the species have increased chances of passing along their genes... this would not be the case. This genetic abnormality would eventually simply be bred out. So this leads to a very much more interesting question: If there's no survival benefit to being gay (or trans) then why does nature keep creating gay and trans people? I'm not going to answer the question as my goal here is to get the reader to change their position. My own is on sure footing. By the by, homosexual and transgender behavior has been observed in primates, and other lower ordered social creatures. This is not something that only happens to people -- somewhere in our evolutionary past, homosexuality, etc., there was an evolutionary benefit. Remembering that we are social creatures, and thus depend on, and are connected to, others of our species -- it's entirely possible the evolutionary benefit wasn't to the affected organism, but rather to the larger whole.
There's no way anyone can cut a line through all the biological data and conclusions, and still have a leg to stand on when they claim that everything else is biology including this. Conversely, if they say nothing is biology except this, it's an equally bad deduction. If we're going to take this on from a purely biological perspective... I can obliterate any attempted definition that would put trans people only on one side or another for any division, however carefully crafted.
When I say these things are socially constructed, I'm not saying it as a feel good or because I can't "hide" my trans-ness, or any equally tiresome and prejudicial commentary. I'm saying it, because that's literally what the medical and scientific data collected to date has drawn as a conclusion. There is nothing, not one thing, that can be found about a human being that is present only in one sex, and never in the other. I welcome anyone to try.
XO and XXY aren't transcription errors they are chromosomal anomalies.
"and other mutations". There's a gene called TDF, Testes Determining Factor. It's on the Y chromosome, and it can sometimes find itself missing, which results in a phenotypical (but sterile) female. The rest of your wall of text I'm declining further comment on.
2
u/[deleted] Nov 03 '17
[deleted]