What I always fear is that someone will try to "fix" what they consider "broken." Transgender people are worthy of respect, whether by genetics or choice or a combination of other factors. The idea that some of my greatest role models might not have existed had they found a "cure" fills me with sadness. Genetics are a slippery slope. How many transsexual children will be in danger of abortion if science can identify a gene? I hope, if there is one, it remains blissfully hidden, or is part of such a combination of genes that it is impossible to surpress.

Donna,
Your useful comment about all that has gone on around this study is the distinct lack of coverage by US corporate media. Every time we raise this issue we are called conspiracy nuts, but really what other explanation is there for an entire countries media to ignore what is being touted around the world a major scientific story? The story is not picked up by Reuters.

So for those who are tired of arguing the divisions in T (ala the earlier thread), how about trying to come up with rational explanations of why US media explicitly won't report these stories other than transphobia?

Donna.........the significance of this was in my guest blog. For more than a decade I have waited for the balance on biologic origin to fall far enough to be close to ironclad. Again, with the BSTc, the recent German study showing that transsexual women smell pheromones (which is gender specific) on female norms and a half dozen different studies on cognitive function of transsexual women also being female norm this finding is very very very important. First, it's the very first time a link for any GLBT group has been this definite regarding genetics. Second, the group studied was vetted strictly to DSM-IV-TR standards for transsexuality (classic transsexuals) despite the claims of the nay sayers otherwise (I just checked with an expert)

I waited for this because for over a decade now because I actually read laws and the ADA exception on transsexuality was very specific. Exempted was only transsexuality NOT from physical causes. Transsexuality that can be shown to BE from physical causes is covered.

I mentioned a good court case in my blog entry but the reality is RIGHT NOW, THIS MINUTE transsexuals have actual Federal protection for housing, employment and accomodation. All that needs be done is to exert those rights.

Read that again......right now, no ENDA required, before the entire rest of the alphabet soup.

Why on earth is everyone trying to pooh pooh this study? It makes zero sense unless they don't want transsexuals to have civil rights ever.

No court is going to require genetic testing to verify you are transsexual.....just show proof of a diagnosis. No legislator is going to require more than a simple abstract to confirm it. It does not require a bill to pass.....you just have to exercise it as a right under the ADA....period.

We should be dancing in the f**king streets and instead every trans out there besides me is busy doing the Judas thing and denying it three times before the cock crows.

As a further note, transsexuals are explicitly denied protection under the ADA on any grounds.

It does not make a distinction.

PART 36 -- NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY BY PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS AND IN COMMERCIAL FACILITIES

Subpart A -- General

Sec.36.104 Definitions.

(5) The term disability does not include --

(i) Transvestism, transsexualism, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments, or other sexual behavior disorders;

Not that the above includes 'classic transsexualism' as *transsexualism*, and that the GID not resulting from phys impair refers to any sort of get around other than IS.

Indeed, it expressly relies on the classification model presently in use in the DSM -- as was the intent of the Senator (Helms) who inserted it in there.

I always learn such a lot by reading these blogs.
Thank you to all of those who educate me.

I personally hope that there is no genetic link for transexualism. Not for my sake, but for my daughters sake.

At every therapy session we attend together she shares her concern that there may be a hereditary reason.
She wants to have children, and she doesn't want to have to deal with this again.
She already lost a father - could she lose a son, or a daughter too.

I too will believe it when I see it.

Claire

Donna I think for some it's important to know that there are cause's for transexualism and for others there is great fear.Personally studies like the Australian one have benefited me with my endo.When I first went to him he made it a point to let me know he was comfortable with treating me and that he has treated others.He provided me with information for treatment from the clinical journal of endocrinology and knew of the Danish Autopsy study.He told me he knew that it was more of a medical condition then a mental one.Then there's my brother you could provide him with undeniable proof and he'd still say it's a choice and he know's that I've had gid from early childhood.As for those who have great fear yes there might be some who would abort because of transsexualism but I don't think the majority would accept it.Then I also believe within the transgender umbrella that there is a pyschological verse's medical division.I believe Ts's are mostly medically caused with the Autogynephiles being mentally caused or a mix.Hetero CD's won't have a genetic cause either but some mental trigger.Drag queens could go either way but will most likely have the same cause as homosexuality which should be biological as well.

WTH does it matter?

What's with the division and exclusion, the "they aren't" and the "we are but"?

Am I excited? yeah. Will it have *any* impact whatsoever on anything right now?

Nope.

Stop being afraid, dammit.

Whether we find definitive proof or not doesn't negate, lessen, or invalidate things that we know to be true about ourselves. There's no test for "Love," yet nobody questions as to whether it's real or not. And to question the existence of God because there is arguably no scientific proof of some supreme being is to invite attack from all directions.

Ah, but science continues to search for as many possible gleanings as possible about both love and God. You don't have to question the existence, only want to know the mechanics.

Like other studies that are often cited, I find it suggestive but far, far from conclusive. Correlation does not equal causation.

The "born this way" argument is bothseductive to those to whom it applies -- freeing them from guilt and self-loathing, whether you're T or LGB, or whatever -- and admittedly has been effective from a civil rights/social acceptance standpoint.

OTOH, we ought to be careful what we wish for. If trans-ness is like many other medical "conditions" (Asperger's, cancer, manic depression, etc.) -- and I see no reason why it wouldn't -- it's undoubtedly got multiple causes from a biological standpoint alone. Not to mention the psychological and sociological causes that are probably involved for some trans people. Just as sexual orientation can involve all three of these causes. Or even "race"* can. For example Obama is biracial, and arguably has chosen to identify himself as "black." (Of course the flip side is that even if he didn't, others would "race" him that way, much as others gender us in particular ways, regardless of how we may may identify own gender identity.)

So what happens to the person who feels an overwhelming need to transition, but doesn't have the "proper" genetic/homonal/physical difference? Do we say sorry, you can't transition, you don't deserve the same rights, etc? What happens to the crossdresser or genderqueer who might have the gene but doesn't feel the need to permanent cross gender boundaries. What about those who sexually attracted to the same sex (whether all of time or part of the time) but who lack the "proper" gay gene. Do we say they don't deserve rights either?

I think the "born this way" argument misses the point. We don't grant people protections from persecution based on their religious beliefs because they were born with those beliefs. Rather it's because we've decided that religious beliefs (or disbelief) are such an integral part of who we are that they merit protection. Yes, it's a somewhat more difficult argument, but I think it's one that most people will get. Those who reject it probably won't listen to "born this way" arguments either.

* I realize that scientifically "race" is meaningly from a biological perspective. That said -- like gender -- on the ground it's a different story.

While I'm hopeful this leads to inclusion under the ADA I see a few concerns. The ADA requires there to be substantial limitations on major life activities for coverage. One has to be able to prove having one of these conditions causes limitations in working, thinking, walking, hearing etc.

This may be difficult to do for transsexuality - though I think one could make an arguement for an individual based upon some areas and upon limitations on reproduction caused by medication needed to treat the condition. Just as side effects from treatments for other conditions are included.

One would also have to be tested to show they have this genetic basis for their transexuality or GID - everyone won't - I'm sure other physical factors will also be discovered. And the cost will likely be a huge burden.

I do see some hope also on this approach for insurance coverage. The ADA limits blanket exclusions for any specific conditions - but does alllow some limitations on the coverage provided. Given the blanket exclusions on transgender & transsexual related health care in most policies - this might be able to be used to remove the exclusions.

Great article, Donna. I think the same arguments could be applied to those who are looking for the "Gay Gene." I think the "X-Men: Last Stand" movie provided an apt analogy. If there is a genetic cause for our gayness or transness, leave it to science to create a "cure." There will be some people in the community who will long to be "cured," and others who, like you, argue that we don't need to be "fixed" because there's nothing wrong with us.

The study compared 128 transsexual women to 258 nontranssexual men.

55% of transsexuals have long alleles (vs 45%), and 48% of men have long (vs 52%).

Its statistically significant but not that conclusive. Almost half of transsexual women don't have it and almost half of men do.

What is interesting is that they didn't find an association that was found in another study (and that study did not find an association with the allele in the current study).

The finding is scientifically interesting but politically relevant.

I have a question for both Cathryn and JJ. Do you have to have SRS before you are considered a "classic" transsexual, or just the desire to have SRS is good enough?

Correction

From Riding the Second Wave:

In a letter dating from 1994 to Senator John Kerry from James P. Turner, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division stated clearly that Gender Identity Disorder FROM a physical impairment is covered under the ADA. We have a legal opinion from the civil rights branch of the Attorney General’s office making our coverage clear.

There's also a definition of "physical impairment" too.

“Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.”

Although I still think many, perhaps most courts would find that a cause isn't proven, or that the definition of "physical impairment" excludes it, or that the opinion of the former AG should be discarded, in the main I was just plain wrong. I've changed my opinion accordingly.

As John Maynard Keynes said: When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

It seems that every year or two there is an article somewhere that some scientist or doctor has identified a biological "cause" for being gay or transgender. These kinds of things seem to get a significant amount of attention and then fade into obscurity until the next bombshell discovery is made. In 1993 there was much fanfare over an article published in Science magazine about the discovery of a "gay gene." Did that settle the question of whether or not sexuality is biological or learned? Of course not. That investigation continues today.

I'm disappointed that such a prominent activist is so determined to play down this study and mix the issues of causes of being a gay man and of being M2F. That Donna then bemoans the sparse US coverage of the story, despite herself playing it down to almost zero seems strange.

At a time when gay campaigners in Thailand are on track to have SRS before 21 made illegal, because, they claim, the patients are all gay boys who will regret it, and, in the UK, the largest L&G organisation is considering awarding "Best journalist" to a lesbian who strongly advocates that SRS should be banned because we are really just gay, it is amazing that any aware woman with a transsexual background would be taking this line.

The 1993 paper by Dean Hamer et al was on finding a "marker for a gay (male) gene", not a "gay (male) gene" itself. Genomics was almost in the dark ages back then. Unfortunately no one was able to replicate the result. A clear genetic link with male homosexuality has been found, but it is another of those biological background facts that are useful to show how it works, not an actual cause. The search for that continues, totally separately from research on transsexuality, which is very much the poor neighbour.

All the previous biological discoveries on M2F transsexuality have been those background facts too, not the cause of them. We have smaller BSTcs, our brains react in female manner to pheromones, our finger ratios are female, etc., but why are they like that? That is what "cause" means. There have not been numerous papers on biological cause, only crazy psychoanalytical and religious theories.

Two years ago a Swedish team with a small sample found a weak link to one variation on the Estrogen Receptor Beta gene. The Australians started by trying to replicate that, and failed. So that dropped to the same status as Dean Hamer's 1993 work in gay men. In July an Austrian team found a link to a genetic variation in F2Ms (strange how no one knocked that), but none in M2Fs. Now there is this link in M2Fs, in a large study, as transsexual studies go.

It doesn't claim to be the definitive answer - it is far from that - but it is a firm indication of genomic cause that remains to be detailed. That means inherited, or from a lifetime genetic change in one of the parent's gametes, or an error in the earliest stages of gestation.

As for this being about "validation", I suspect that if Donna had been a transsexual child, desperate for intervention to forestall the wrong puberty, faced by parents and experts telling her she was really only gay, that if only she would learn sports and only use "masculine" colors to draw and paint she would change her mind and grow to like being male, told that there was nothing for them to go by but her word, told that late transitioners all asserted that, since they didn't know at her age, she couldn't possibly either, she might be more in touch with the potential significance of this research.

Professor Bowers, the psychiatrist who interested the report's geneticist authors to investigate transsexuality, always knew there should be a physical test that would enable irreversible treatment much younger, when it would benefit patients far more, or without so many consultations and psychological tests.