Whatever someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, abuse should not be tolerated
It has been well known for some time that gender identity and sexual orientation are variants on development, sometimes at an early stage in utero. In other words, they are not a choice.
It is a characteristic of ideologues to label their strictly ideological worldview as real and to dismiss alternatives as ideological. Stalin, for example, embraced the claims of Trofim Lysenko that fitted the Soviet ideology as opposed to the views of Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, a highly competent geneticist.
Vavilov did extensive research on identifying strains of wheat that could result in higher yields in a cold climate. Lysenko, on the other hand, had an untested claim that plants could “learn” to do well in a colder climate. Genetics was dismissed as “bourgeois” and contrary to the ideological view that all attributes are learned, not inherited.
Vavilov was sidelined and narrowly escaped being shot along with his colleagues for his ideological errors; he ended up starving to death in jail. Lysenko pushed Soviet agriculture in a disastrous direction, resulting in mass famine. The Soviet Union went from having world-class geneticists when the field was relatively novel to embracing a disastrous alternative that had no basis in science and killed millions.
The right wing has taken to labelling transgender and sometimes LGBTQ rights as “gender ideology”. The presumption is that gender is rigidly defined as male or female and conformity to puritanical patriarchy is the only view consistent with reality. Everything else, the claim goes, is an ideological fantasy. In a simple-minded approach to genetics, to determine gender, you count X and Y chromosomes and you are done. Males have one X and one Y; females two X chromosomes. That is a general rule in mammals — XX is female, XY is male. Easy peasy.
If you study biology in school, you do not have the detail needed to go deeper, so the notion that XX and XY is all you need to know is deeply embedded in society even among those with some elementary science education.
Reality is not quite that simple.
A 2016 Danish study showed that about one in 15 000 women have the XY combination yet present as women in almost all respects — a tiny minority of these can even give birth — though there is considerable variability in the condition Swyer syndrome. To make it even more interesting, you can also get XX males. As with XY females, they are usually infertile. Incidence of this condition is about one in 20 000. So what is going on?
The SRY gene plays a major role in sex determination. This gene provides instructions for creating the sex-determining region Y protein (also called SRY). As is hinted at by its name, it is found on the Y chromosome. So it should not exist in a female. The protein concerned is what is called a transcription factor, a protein that regulates other proteins (whether they are created at all, if they are created, in what volume and how fast, for example).
The SRY protein switches on the creation of male reproductive organs and switches off the creation of female reproductive organs. If this was a simple process, not much could go wrong but there are several steps before all this does what it usually does and they can take a nonstandard turn in various ways. And it is not only SRY: a 2018 study, for example, showed that various genes involved in sex hormone signalling are implicated in the development of transgender women.
Physical sexual differentiation occurs in the first two months of pregnancy (thanks to our friend, the Y chromosome — if present). But sexual differentiation in the brain only starts in the second half of pregnancy and that is one reason for how these two processes can get out of sync.
So, in short, transgender and many other variations on the simplistic XX or XY view has a solid scientific basis, whereas the puritanical patriarchal view is ideological with no basis in fact.
Sexual orientation has also been extensively studied. This, too, is a result of processes long before birth — sometimes even environmental factors before pregnancy.
When ideologues accuse others of not being reality-based, it is useful to turn the mirror to them. In psychology, projection is turning discomfort about yourself into accusations against others.
Much of the attack on transgender and other “nonstandard” attributes focuses on problems widely found in puritanical patriarchy. Matt Gaetz, who was US President Donald Trump’s initial choice for nomination as attorney general, was forced to drop out when he was revealed to have among other things participated in underage prostitution. Pete Hegseth, narrowly voted in with a deciding vote by the vice-president as secretary of defence, was an interesting case. He was credibly accused of being an alcoholic and a sexual predator and lacked key experience needed for the job such as a demonstrated capacity to run a large organisation. He attacked the puritanical patriarchy’s favourite target, DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) saying that the military should be purely about merit and definitely no trans people should be there. Yet when his own qualifications for the job were questioned, a Republican senator said that does not matter.
Trump pardoned every one of the 6 January rioters, including at least one who was a child sex offender.
Is there any evidence that being gay or trans makes you more likely to be a child sex offender, take part in grooming or any of the other accusations claimed by the patriarchal right? If such evidence existed, you can be sure it would have been produced.
Whatever someone’s sexual orientation or gender identity, abuse should not be tolerated. But what we see from the puritanical patriarchal right wing is that it is not only tolerated among their own but is seldom a bar to high office. Consider the credible evidence of sexual violence against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing. Further evidence that has since come to light is even worse. Yet there he still sits.
So that is the real gender ideology: right-wing puritanical patriarchy excuses all manner of sexual misconduct if the perpetrator is white, male and with a reasonably high social standing. If they aspire to leadership, it can even be an advantage to be a sexual predator.
Here in South Africa, patriarchy is less racially-based and not exclusive to the right. So when we encounter the language of “gender ideology” it is slightly different. But the same issues apply. Harming someone for who they are is fundamentally wrong. Controlling behaviours that harm others has nothing to do with sexual orientation or gender identity — anyone who carries out such harm should be called to account.
Let us reject “gender ideology” as a right-wing patriarchal construct that camouflages their own “gender ideology”, which is profoundly anti-rights.
Philip Machanick is an emeritus associate professor of computer science at Rhodes University.