Down a rapidly shelving beach…

Christopher Attard’s article entitled “Going off the Deep End” (TMIS, 20 August) was a valuable contribution to the “debate” raised by the so-called ‘Marriage Equality Bill’, particularly in the absence of any serious contribution from “academic circles”, as Attard himself points out.

The overall maladies of misuse and abuse of language, of “acts of faith” by proponents of political parties – not restricted to Attard’s bugbear, the “Left”, look you – and the media practically shouting down any sensible objections, are highlighted. His final point that “there is no argument to be made for omitting universal-male-female realities and replacing them with incorrect “neutral” babble” is clear and well-argued.

However there are problems with the intermediate part of the writing. The allegation that the gay lobby pushes the idea that men and women are “interchangeable” seems exaggerated and in any case self-destructive if one reads the gay lobby’s “small print” about future intentions. But the reliance on just Harvard psychiatrist Gordon Peterson’s explanation of “the technical claim at the bottom of these contradictory and convoluted legislations” is more serious. For a start Peterson lumps together a set of “terms” which are by no means identical: “sex”, the anatomical and physiological dichotomy between male and female; “gender”, reflecting the social and cultural roles played by the individual; “gender identity”, which is the individual’s sense of self which can be male, female, or in between. Moreover, there is no reference to results of genetic studies. For instance, the present state of these render the remark about the “naturenurture” debate and its alleged “most prominent, albeit temporary conclusion… that biological, cultural and social factors are at play when it comes to sexual differences” too diffuse to be of much value, as it gives no idea of the “power” of the “play” of these various factors.

The genetic picture starts off by being very clear. A gene called SRY on the Y (male) chromosome (males have XY and females XX chromosomes) provides an “infallible” male/female determinant: activated it leads to anatomical and physiological males; left dormant leads to anatomical and physiological females. But this “infallible” switch goes further, which is what led to its discovery in the first place. In a condition called Swyer Syndrome, the developed organism has male chromosomes in every cell but also has the SRY gene blocked by a mutation. The result is an anatomical and physiological female – not necessarily perfect in either aspect – but even more astonishing with female gender and gender identity. Yet these facts – showing the autonomous power of sex determination vested in the SRY gene – derived from a statistically rare situation cannot be automatically extrapolated to the rest of the human population. There, it is – and has been for centuries – evident that human gender identity covers a broad spectrum and does not come in two sharp spikes – male or female – with very narrow wings. That is not saying anything which “supports” those “contradictory and convoluted legislations”. It is first and foremost an observed fact. More than that, genetics is now providing an increasingly convincing explanation of this broad spectrum. The SRY gene sits at the apex of a cone the body of which is made up of genes which have a smaller but collectively important part to play in setting the final gender/gender identity states. And what is more, it is already clear that some of these genes – unlike SRY – are sensitive to outside influences: nature, environment or chance events. So, in the lower echelons below SRY, a nurture – nature play does exist even if present indications suggest that its statistical nature, arising from chance “events’ external to the organism, provides us with little predictive power.

Where does that leave us? Certainly still “off the deep end” but perhaps not quite Attard’s “deep end”. The instances of “further breakdown in our society and the way it operates” mentioned by Attard are rather trivial. His national anthem “problem” does not rate higher than the David Agius MP “Mother’s Day” objection, while Attard’s concern with our history and literature having to be re-written is overdone despite the current silence of our “literary” and “history” lambs. Concern with teaching in “the decaying remnants of our universities” – Attard’s “Hard Right” slip is showing here – may have more substance. The local expertise at “facta lex inventa fraus” (the law has become fraud) could conceivably come into play, in a good cause. And the gene picture, for those who want to see, shows up the “lex” as such a “fraud” that it may tie itself in knots.

Surely the looming “corollaries” to do with (human) reproduction are more deserving of comment than the above. And comment should come from individuals who are prepared to apply a decent level of argument. No one has any right to broadcast claptrap on the basis of a “mandate” from God, society, a political party, some “election programme” or an electoral victory of whatever magnitude.